Where is your plain, clear statement of scripture? Just saying there is one doesn't make it so.
Scientists are supposed to be objective. That kind of denial of the plain and obvious truth is not. Anyone so biased that they let it interfere with their interpretation of plain and clearly stated material, has demonstrated a lack of objectivity that would call into question his judgment on any other matter, science included.
You are repeating yourself, so I will repeat myself. Where is your plain and obvious prophecy?
I find it amusing that some of the evos here are DEMANDING an absolutely literal reading of all Scripture and then when it’s given, as in fulfilled prophecy, they deny that it says what it says or that it’s even there.
Do you believe the Bible to be the literal word of God?
Equating reading of Scripture to sending someone to the Galapagos Islands is absurd. Perhaps you could compare it to having some one read Darwin’s works, instead. That would be a better analogy. Again, it’s an indication of lack of coherent, rational thought.
I think that you purposely misunderstood the analogy : ) Science doesn't rely on appeals to authority, if you disagree with science all you have to do is falsify the results or observations. If you disagree with Darwins observations go to the Galapagos Islands and prove him wrong. It would be easy, just take DNA samples and if the finches aren't related, Darwin is wrong. Easy : )
It’s along the lines of someone who claims to be a libertarian and yet thinks that what is needed is more accountability.
So you don't think that being accountable for your actions is the basis of a free society? A free society can only exist with honorable people. How about a quote from Reagan, ""We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literal%5B1%5D
Main Entry: lit·er·al (adjective)
1 a: according with the letter of the scriptures
b: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual {liberty in the literal sense is impossible — B. N. Cardozo}
c: free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}
d: characterized by a concern mainly with facts {a very literal man} 2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters 3: reproduced word for word : exact , verbatim {a literal translation}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true
Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
2 a (1): being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
Main Entry: 2true Function:adverb
1: in accordance with fact or reality
Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. It is free from exaggeration or embellishment {the literal truth}; it is reproduced word for word as God gave it.
I believe that the Word of God is true as well.
Accepting that the Bible is the “literal Truth” is not the same as interpreting everything in it literally and demanding that it be followed as such.
Only someone not interested in honest debate would demand that people violate common sense rules of literary reading. Poetry is poetry, song is song, allegory, metaphor, analogy, are all literary devices that are legitimately used in Scripture.
Anyone who is incapable of recognizing those differences shows an appalling lack of understanding of English. Anyone unwilling to recognize those differences is not debating honestly.
It’s alarming that science is in the hands of people so uneducated that they are unable to recognize the distinct differences in literary forms; or so biased that they are unwilling to recognize those differences. I certainly would not trust someone with that much of a lack of basic education to write any kind of reliable paper.
For someone who prides themselves on objectivity, for those who call themselves scientists who stoop to such unethical tactics, calls into question their judgment on virtually any other matter. They have clearly shown that they are not able to keep their personal biases out of any reasoning process. If they can’t do that in one area, then I see no reason to expect them to do it in others and it makes everything they say suspect.
So, since evos demand that Scripture be taken “literally” and interpreted as such, what do they have to say about the latest scientific pronouncements? Are we to take them literally?
So is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?
Are origins part of evolution or not?
Is it the pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Did life arise from non-living matter or is spontaneous generation is impossible?
So, are you a scientist, LeGrande? What field is your degree in? What scientific endeavors have you participated in?