10 Feb '10 09:20>
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems you can't answer Bbarr's question. You have avoided it twice now. I'm not convinced that you didn't understand it, since rather than revelling in verbosity, Bbarr's posts were clear and concise.
Its not so much the language i was just never one for revelling in verbosity.
what is it about the context defining the interpretation of scripture that yet evades you? you are drawing broad generalisations and attributing values where none exist.
If you want to show that created does not actually mean created in the literal sense then be my ...[text shortened]... scripture, hopefully this is now clear, God knows i provided references illustrating the point.
I'll have a go at asking the same question. Just to watch you duck it again.
Case A) Clouds and Rain
Biblical account: goddunnit
Scientific account: meteorology
Robbie's verdict: accepts goddunnit via meteorology
Case B) Life on Earth
Biblical account: goddunnit
Scientific account: abiogenesis and evolution
Robbie's verdict: rejects the idea that goddunnit via abiogenesis and evolution
Question: why accept in A and reject in B?
Robbie's answer so far as I can tell is: waterfalls are pretty.