Re: Snoke's response

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 19:41:56 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> At 03:25 PM 8/13/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> janice matchett wrote:
>>
>>> At 12:18 PM 8/13/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:
>>>
>>>> "..... neither am I am trained in theology ....."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #1# You, and how many others? :) Yet many of the *untrained*
>>> nevertheless *voice opinions on the subject* which they inexplicably
>>> expect to be embraced as carrying equal weight with the opinions of
>>> (small "o" ) orthodox biblical scholars. That is a major point that
>>> many seem to overlook. These presumptuous *biblical illiterates
>>> *"...Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt "*
>>> http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>> Does this mean that those untrained in science who nevertheless voice
>> opinions on the subject do not deserve the benefit of the doubt either?
>
>
> *#2# Yes. YEC's are a good example.
> *

Indeed and so are lawyers who argue science (see Lamoureux v Johnson for
instance in Darwinism Defeated?) Or ID proponents. See for instance the
work by Meyer on the Cambrian.

> *
> *
>
>> The article by Holding seems to reject opinions of others if they
>> disagree with dogmatic interpretations. And yet we know that there
>> are countless varying interpretations of God's Word. I find the
>> article represents a very anti-Christian position imho of course.
>
>
> #2# One man saw another sitting at the table with a Bible, pen in
> hand. He was using the pen to make a series of horizontal lines in the
> Bible's text.
>
> "Underlining your favorite verses?" the first man asked cheerfully.
> *"Nope," the man with the pen replied. "I'm crossing out the parts
> that don't apply to me!"
> *

Interesting anecdote, but is this not what ironically applies to many
views? After all, the bible is interpreted by fallible beings.

>> But I did find the following commentary *ironically interesting*
>>
>> [quote] We may have more to add to this at a later date, but it's
>> enough for now to settle with this conclusion: Don't take any
>> critic's word in an age when any person with typing skills can post a
>> website claiming just about anything. Chances are they haven't done a
>> fraction of the homework they need to do to be a reputable
>> commentator.[/quote]
>
>
> #2# If you choose to take the statement out of the context of the
> rest of the commentary (which backs it up), along with the liinks,
> etc., I can see why some might erroneously conclude it is an "ironic"
> conclusion.

The irony is that this seems so often to apply to 'scientific'
objections to the theory of evolution. I gues we may as well reject such
opinions without addressing why?...

Don't take the word of anyone for granted, do the necessary research,
find the original sources. That's a good lessson to be learned here.
Will it be equally succesfully be applied?
Received on Sat Aug 13 19:42:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 19:42:15 EDT