From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 18:24:19 EDT
allenroy wrote:
> Walter Hicks wrote:
>
>> > Glenn's assessment is probably correct in that no fact or data could ever change your view. If I am wrong,
>> > could you tell me what data might? If I am not wrong, then what is the purpose behind any discussion?
>> >
>> You have ignored it twice.
>
And you do so again below. You changed the subject
to imterpretation rather than data.
>>
>
> I have said many times here that there is a BIG
> difference between raw data and data that has
> been interpreted within a paradigm. Nearly all
> of the data Morton uses is interpretation within
> Naturalism. Do I ever, ever, ever take such
> interpreted data at face value? Never. The
> raw data that is beneath the interpreted data
> must be found and then interpreted within a
> Creationary Cataclysmic paradigm. I do not
> reinterpret the Bible to fit data interpreted
> within naturalism. I start with the Bible and
> then look at raw data and interpret it within
> the Biblical paradigm. The Bible ALWAYS comes
> first. The data must be interpreted within it.
That then is your answer. There is absolutely no
possible data that could change your mind.
So be it.
Then why should anyone ever want to communicate
with a person with such a closed mind -- pray
tell.
I guess that I mad a mistake in so doing. I guess
the rest of the list does also.
Good bye, allen. I'm on that horse again.
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 18:27:07 EDT