Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 232 (841923)
10-23-2018 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
10-23-2018 3:53 PM


Re: I don’t always agree with James McGrath
No idea who James McGrath is and your quote is sheer gobbledygook.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 10-23-2018 3:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2018 12:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 232 (841924)
10-23-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
10-23-2018 1:38 PM


Re: to GDR: Word of God is both Christ and Scripture
You are blathering on about stuff you don't bother to demonstrate so I have no reason to take any of it seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 10-23-2018 1:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2018 12:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 33 of 232 (841925)
10-23-2018 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
10-23-2018 6:39 PM


Re: to GDR: Word of God is both Christ and Scripture
Faith writes:
I've learned from the best over the years. don't think I'll even answer such a perverse statement. I think I'll leave it to the LORD to straighten you out eventually.
I have no doubt that I need a lot of straightening out but frankly Faith if I had to believe as you do to be a Christian I would reject Christianity in the same way that I reject Islam as modeled by fundamentalist Muslims.
Your beliefs turn God into an unholy despot of situational ethics to suit His purposes. It turns Christianity from one of service and trust in God's goodness into a religion like so many others where the primary goal is to get God on to your side for one's own benefit, whether it be in this world or the next. It also becomes a religion that is something of an unholy mixture that involves religion, politics and nationalism. It is a religion that completely rejects the God given gift of intelligence. It is a religion that can ultimately be used to justify a great deal of violence.
I'm sorry Faith but my Christianity is central to my life and I find it very upsetting to see it portrayed in the manner that you portray it. I give thanks that in this world you represent a small minority of Christians.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 6:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 8:38 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 232 (841926)
10-23-2018 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by GDR
10-23-2018 8:18 PM


Re: to GDR: Word of God is both Christ and Scripture
... frankly Faith if I had to believe as you do to be a Christian I would reject Christianity in the same way that I reject Islam as modeled by fundamentalist Muslims.
Well, you DO reject Christianity because what you believe is not Christianity. Neither is your weird straw man version of my beliefs but characterizing them as you do makes you an enemy of truth in more ways than one.
Anyway this thread was supposed to be about inerrancy, not all your twisted complaints about your weird ideas about my beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 10-23-2018 8:18 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 232 (841927)
10-23-2018 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-22-2018 5:28 PM


Replying to several of your messages...
Message 1:
Faith in Message 1 writes:
Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think.
On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on Christian fundamentalism says it can trace its roots back to 19th century evangelical differences between north and south concerning Darwinism and higher criticism, finally resulting in a split in the 1920's from which fundamentalism sprung and whose foundation was a series of essays published a decade earlier called The Fundamentals.
Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition:
They affirm and deny a lot of things but provide scant support for their affirmations and denials. The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author. When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote:
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago. It later says that "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture," and acknowledges "that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free." It also says that "no translation is or can be perfect," before declaring without evidence how excellent are the English translations.
After this enumeration of sources of error it then refers to "our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth." Contradictory much?
This is our foundation.
No, this is your declaration. Your foundation is the excuses you make for the errors.
Message 2:
Science is wonderful and does not contradict the Bible. Evolution is false science.
The Bible can't even avoid contradicting itself, let alone science. It would be more accurate to say that any resemblance between religion and science is purely coincidental.
God created creatures to "evolve" -- vary in wonderful ways -- only within their Kind, but not from one Kind or Species to another. This is very clear from the Bible for those who know the Bible is God's inerrant word.
Reading the Bible does make some things about it very clear, but inerrant isn't one of them.
I haven't read all of creation's posts but I doubt he is saying anything at all against science as such since Christians strongly affirm true science,...
That would be "true science" as in they pick and choose which science they accept based on their religious beliefs.
True science is a gift from God...
Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada.
Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity.
Message 8:
Augustine was all over the place on some subjects. He's great on salvation by faith...
One can find whatever one likes in the Bible, and Augustine did, arguing both ways in Chapter 20 of On Grace and Free Will, first quoting Ephesians 2:8 that "By grace are you saved through faith", then concluding with Matthew 16:27 that God "shall reward every man according to his works."
...but not so great on science.
One should probably demonstrate at least a modicum of competence on a subject, especially one so vast, before venturing an opinion. St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations, while your own plaudits have come exclusively from yourself.
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,...
Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves.
You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture.
That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten).
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.
Not according to my theology.
But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I.
So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good?
Message 14:
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all.
That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote:
Here's the actual condemnation of Galileo.
Note how it says "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture", and "the said opinion [...] can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture" and "it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held" and so on.
Moving on:
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information.
That is readily apparent.
Message 15:
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning.
Sure, the beginning of the 20th century.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-22-2018 5:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 8:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 4:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 12:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 232 (841928)
10-23-2018 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
10-23-2018 8:44 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times, it isn't a recent idea concocted in response to evolutionary theory as some seem to think.
On the contrary, the Wikipedia article on Christian fundamentalism says it can trace its roots back to 19th century evangelical differences between north and south concerning Darwinism and higher criticism, finally resulting in a split in the 1920's from which fundamentalism sprung and whose foundation was a series of essays published a decade earlier called The Fundamentals.
That article is about a historical event that split the Church over modernist and liberal influences in some denominations. J. Gresham Machen is the name associated in my mind with that event as he wrote some very inspiring arguments against modernism, I think the most famous being "Christianity and Liberalism" "The Fundamentals" was a gigantic undertaking that had the same basic objective as Machen's but I never read it and I think it is controversial in some parts, even rejected by Machen himself. At least I believe that he distanced himself from the term "fundamentalist" because of some directions the argument took under that title.
All that really doesn't have much to do with the topic of this thread though. Bible inerrancy would have been embraced by those on the anti-liberal side but along with all the principles and topics considered to be of the "fundamentals" it would have been treated as one of many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that went back centuries. Bible inerrancy is not synonymous with Fundamentalism, which is what you seem to be claiming. The "fundamentalist" side of the schism was an attempt to enshrine the basic principles of the faith as understood from the beginning, in opposition to the new liberal/modernist revisionism. It was a "new" movement only in the sense that modernism had provoked a restatement of the fundamentals in that new context, but the fundamentals themselves were, well, fundamentals, foundational principles of the Christian faith, not new in any sense at all. What was new was modernism and liberalism.
Strictly speaking I am not a Fundamentalist in the sense of that major schism. Nor are the signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. The term "evangelical" was eventually adopted in reaction AGAINST a lot of what came out of the Fundamentalist reaction to modernism.
Have to stop here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-23-2018 8:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 11-01-2018 12:56 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 232 (841933)
10-24-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
10-23-2018 6:56 PM


Re: I don’t always agree with James McGrath
quote:
No idea who James McGrath is and your quote is sheer gobbledygook.
He’s a quite well-known Christian writer. Probably why you haven’t heard of him. And the quote is fine. If you can’t understand it - despite having the intelligence - it’s probably just your prejudice kicking in again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 6:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 232 (841934)
10-24-2018 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
10-23-2018 6:57 PM


Re: to GDR: Word of God is both Christ and Scripture
quote:
You are blathering on about stuff you don't bother to demonstrate so I have no reason to take any of it seriously
And yet you have not demonstrated anything. You certainly have not demonstrated that Biblical Inerrancy goes back to the beginning - obviously a document a mere forty years old can’t do that. You haven’t demonstrated that Biblical contradictions are easily dealt with or trivial either.
I, on the other hand have made points supporting my claim even if I have not cited the relevant verses yet. And yet somehow my posts should be dismissed while yours should not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 6:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 232 (841939)
10-24-2018 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
10-23-2018 8:44 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Just as you get confused about what fundamentalism is in relation to biblical inerrancy you go on with even more confusions that I guess I have the job of sorting out.
Here is a pretty thorough declaration of Bible inerrancy:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition:
They affirm and deny a lot of things but provide scant support for their affirmations and denials.
Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire, they want to make a declaration based on believers' recognition that the Bible is God's inspired word, and expecting that Christians will recognize the statements they are making. There are many similar documents in the history of Christianity, Confessions of Faith such as the Westminster and many others, Councils, Catechisms, Creeds and so on. They don't aim to make a case, they aim to codify and condense scriptural revelation as recognized already by Christian believers.
The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author.
But inspired by God. They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc.
When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:
quote:
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago.
No, it's not about what they "want to claim." They recognize that the Bible determines its own standards, they are not imposing standards on it, But today's critics do impose modern standards on it.
It later says that "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture," and acknowledges "that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free."
You are misreading this. They clearly affirm that the original autographs ARE inerrant, but that "transmission" which means copies and translations down the centuries, are not error-free and God did not promise that they would be. They do go on, however, to point out that the transmitted copies are in fact extremely reliable. Did you read any of that?
It also says that "no translation is or can be perfect," before declaring without evidence how excellent are the English translations.
After this enumeration of sources of error it then refers to "our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth." Contradictory much?
Not at all. You are simply misreading it. Note the word "translation" in "no translation is or can be perfect." Same thing I say above: the original autographs are perfect, while the translations and transmissions are not promised to be perfect and many small errors are found in the thousands of copies and fragments we have of all the different translations. The last sentence you quote is either referring to the autographs or to the remarkable reliability of the translations we have in spite of the errors found in different copies down the centuries.
This is our foundation.
No, this is your declaration. Your foundation is the excuses you make for the errors.
Whatever. It does get frustrating having to deal with someone who knows absolutely nothing and thinks his misreadings are the standard even though it is clear from the context that he must be contradicting the men who wrote the document who really ought to be credited with knowing what they are saying. Naa, Percy knows better. On one reading he knows better than all of them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-23-2018 8:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 40 of 232 (841944)
10-24-2018 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
10-23-2018 6:53 PM


No doubt, but it's different information.
Nope, the cross sections are presentations of some of the information, far from all, that is obtained through field work.
Do you think your favorite Grand Canyon cross section is not based on field work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-23-2018 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 11:32 AM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 232 (841949)
10-24-2018 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by JonF
10-24-2018 9:39 AM


Nope, the cross sections are presentations of some of the information, far from all, that is obtained through field work.
Do you think your favorite Grand Canyon cross section is not based on field work?
Oh don't be silly. The point was only that it would take a lot of exploration beneath the surface to get cross sections, and if I went out exploring I wouldn't get to do any of that. Even if I were forty years younger and able to walk around rocky places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 10-24-2018 9:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 10-24-2018 12:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 232 (841951)
10-24-2018 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
10-23-2018 8:44 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
In answering the rest of your post I want to begin by responding to your last statement since it repeats your original error:
The Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is aimed at capturing the biblical understanding of believers back to the beginning.
Sure, the beginning of the 20th century.
Which is a restatement of your mistaken equation of Bible inerrancy with a particular theological movement called Fundamentalism, which I hope I cleared up in my first answer to you. Biblical inerrancy is standard doctrine that goes back to the beginning according to the Chicago Statement. It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism. You could say that it of course belongs to "fundamentalist" or traditional Bible-believing Christianity which is what that movement aimed to spell out in opposition to modernism and liberalism in the 19th century, but that too goes back to the beginning. I do hope this is now clear to you.
True science is a gift from God.
Then glory to God, who seems disproportionately generous in blessing atheistic scientists with the greatest insights.
He gives it for the sake of the whole nation and He gives it because of our former Christian identity, and the first western scientists were serious Christians.
...and it HAS given us longer and healthier lives, but evolutionary theory has given us absolutely nothing of use. Zip, nada.
Independent of your silly assertion, you do realize, I hope, that practical utility isn't required for validity.
Uh huh, well I was answering GDR's statement that we should appreciate science for what it has given us to improve our lives, and of course objecting that only the true sciences have given us anything to improve our lives, that the ToE and OE give us zip in that department. And of course I am happy to go on and affirm that they haven't even given us true knowledge of any sort, it's all a big shuck.
As for your comments on Augustine as usual you are tiresome in your amazing ability to get everything wrong. Of course we are "rewarded according to our works." Scripture says that. It does not say we are SAVED by our works, but over and over exactly the opposite and Augustine affirms that too, which became important in Luther's theology of salvation by grace.
St. Augustine has been judged insightful by countless generations....
Indeed he has. He contributed some extremely important stuff to our current theology. BUT he also WAS all over the place on some subjects, ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point.
I'm going with the statement on inerrancy which declares that the Bible is true on every subject it addresses,...
Yes, of course you are.
These are the historical sciences that can't be proved as the hard sciences can be, because they reach back to events that can't be verified in themselves.
You mean like the events recounted in the Bible, which you hold true on the flimsy grounds that you've declared them true, unlike real science that relies upon evidence, not declarations.
God's inspired revelation is not subject to scientific method.
Wherever there are some claims that do appear to contradict the Bible, such as the tree rings, as the Statement on Inerrancy says, we trust that they will eventually be explained in accordance with the scripture.
That's just something you believe without evidence will happen one day, not something that "stands against all objections" (that's from your thread title, in case you've forgotten).
The statement on Biblical Inerrancy DECLARES it against all objections. We are not subjecting it to scientific proof, we declare it based on its internal witness to being the Word of God, and all the statements in that document follow this pattern of validation. Nobody expects YOU to accept that, but that is what it is saying to us believers. You really might try a little harder to understand what people you disagree with are actually arguing instead of imposing your own opinions on it.
Percy writes:
GDR writes:
Just a couple of thoughts. When you read the Sermon on the Mount it is clear that Jesus corrects as erroneous parts of the OT.
Faith writes:
Not according to my theology.
But your theology has only stood against all objections in your own mind.
It wouldn't be in my mind unless I knew it was shared with evangelicals in general.
Stoning to death was the way the death penalty was executed in those days. So what is heretical is your insistence that the Scripture is wrong and that those acts are evil. You are the one calling good evil and evil good, not I.
So the death penalty is good? And stoning to death as a means of carrying out the death penalty is good?
The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly. Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges. They didn't have guns so they couldn't do an execution by firing squad. They didn't have our modern means of putting people to death in an electric chair or by other supposedly painless means. I doubt they could have constructed an effective guillotine in those days. What would you have had them do?
And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it.
Scripture isn't geocentric. It doesn't say anything clear about such things at all.
That's your uninformed opinion. To quote Dr Adequate quoting the court, which you seem so quickly to have forgotten:
quote:
Here's the actual condemnation of Galileo.
Note how it says "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture", and "the said opinion [...] can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture" and "it is declared that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held" and so on.
Golly gosh, you think I'm overlooking that? No I am disagreeing with it. I don't know if they were imposing their love of Aristotle and Ptolemy on the scriptures or just misreading them, but there is nothing in the actual scripture itself that supports geocentrism. I did check out the verses referred to that supposedly support that idea and they don't.
Most of my arguments are based on my own completely original observations of geological information, in most cases without referring at all to the Bible or Morris or anything except the physical information.
That is readily apparent.
Not to Dr. A who accused me of thinking I was defending the Bible when I was really defending Morris. It really would help if you'd consider the context before you answer. If it's so apparent to you funny it isn't to Dr. A. Anyway, my observations ARE original and the way you've dealt with them in past discussions shows an amazing inability to follow the argument on that subject as well as everything else.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 10-23-2018 8:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 43 of 232 (841953)
10-24-2018 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
10-24-2018 11:32 AM


The exploring has been done.
A lot of it is available to you.
But you don't want to learn anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 12:44 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 232 (841954)
10-24-2018 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
10-24-2018 12:36 PM


The exploring has been done.
A lot of it is available to you.
But you don't want to learn anything.
And here we go on another change of subject. First I'm blasted for doing geology from my armchair, now I'm blasted for not doing it from my armchair to your satisfaction. And as usual I'm now being blasted for "not wanting to learn anything" when all that means is that I don't agree with the prevailing opinion. I've learned a LOT from my armchair and made use of it in my original thoughts about such things. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 10-24-2018 12:36 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 10-24-2018 12:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 10-24-2018 1:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 45 of 232 (841955)
10-24-2018 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
10-24-2018 12:44 PM


Faith writes:
I don't agree with the prevailing opinion
It's not opinion, it's fact.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 10-24-2018 12:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024