[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Doulos Iesou]

In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.

What do you mean unexamined feather? The feathers have been examined by many Paleontologists, and these are distinctly similar to non-avian feathers as found on Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous Period. The similarities lie in the filaments, that these are thread-like structures that have a down sort of quality and more suited to insulation rather than flight.

 

[th1b.taylor]

What do you mean unexamined feather? The feathers have been examined by many Paleontologists, and these are distinctly similar to non-avian feathers as found on Dinosaurs of the Cretaceous Period. The similarities lie in the filaments, that these are thread-like structures that have a down sort of quality and more suited to insulation rather than flight.

The example in your photo has been extracted then? Where is it now?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The example in your photo has been extracted then? Where is it now?

The feather has been extracted? It has been studied under microscopes and Paleontologists, who are experts on the matter have come to this conclusion. Which from direct observation as you can see in the Amber certainly seems to be the case. Similar to modern feathers, and yet different, more basic in structure.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am not a Paleontologist, but from what I have learned about this particular study and why they consider it to be belonging to a Dinosaur is for the following reasons.

1. Many of the protofeathers are not found on any known bird fossils, and even in some cases resemble a kind of "fuzz."
2. The filament structures observed on the fossilized protofeathers are very distinct and resemble those of non-avian Dinosaur fossils.
3. This sample is dated to be around 80 million years ago around the late Cretaceous Period, which fits in that Feathered Dinosaurs were plentiful at the time.

You have to remember that these aren't the first Dinosaur feathers we have found, and others have been found buried with the Dinosaurs when discovered. This particular case we can't analyze the DNA, nor can we find anything else in the amber besides the protofeathers.

From Paleontologist's understanding of the differences in structures between avian and non-avian animals, these particular protofeathers are agreed upon to have come from Dinosaurs.

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The feather has been extracted? It has been studied under microscopes and Paleontologists, who are experts on the matter have come to this conclusion. Which from direct observation as you can see in the Amber certainly seems to be the case. Similar to modern feathers, and yet different, more basic in structure.

And therein lies trash science, it is called science but has nothing but assumption to stand on. If it is observed through the Amber there are no provable conclusions to be drawn from empirical science for none of the rules thereof are followed. This process is a lot like astronomy which is replete with unprovable unprovable conclusion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
In your presentation, from the structuring and the dialog I understood you to indicate that there is no proven connection between the unexamined feather in the Amber and proto feathers other that assumed connection and still you drive the conversation to something the scientist believes (assumes) to be connected to the dinos. I wish to know the connection of this feather.

I've told you the connection several times. Is there something in my explanation that you would like to clarify?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And therein lies trash science, it is called science but has nothing but assumption to stand on.

Trash science? These feathers have distinct similarities in structure that is found on no bird, hence non-avian feathers found only on Dinosaur fossils.

The thing is, even without the Amber sample, we have proof that proto-feathers developed with Dinosaurs as the fossil discovered in 1996 demonstrated.

If it is observed through the Amber there are no provable conclusions to be drawn from empirical science for none of the rules thereof are followed. This process is a lot like astronomy which is replete with unprovable unprovable conclusion.

What are you talking about? I'm sorry, but nothing you are saying makes any sense. Are you a Paleontologist who is an expert on the evolution of feathers?

I didn't think so.

 

[Edward]

What are you talking about? I'm sorry, but nothing you are saying makes any sense. Are you a Paleontologist who is an expert on the evolution of feathers?

Neither are you brother. You speak as if you're putting out facts, when in reality you are merely trusting the scientists, and repeating what you have heard and read.

Not a lot different than those of us who put our trust in God and repeating what He has said in His Word.

:wink

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Neither are you brother.

You are right, which is why I cite my sources from the discoveries made by Paleontologists.

You speak as if you're putting out facts, when in reality you are merely trusting the scientists, and repeating what you have heard and read.

I'm not just trusting them, I am literally showing you the exact fossils by which we obtain these observations. It's not like I am taking the idea that Dinosaurs had protofeathers.. I literally have seen it with my own eyes.

I'm not really even sure what you guys are disputing anymore. I showed you the evidence of Dinosaur having protofeathers, which contained actual images of the Dinosaurs and protofeathers themselves. Are you disputing that the fossils were fabricated? Or are you disputing that the feathers are actually ancient protofeathers? If so, on what basis are you substantiating this critique.

You guys ask me questions about these things, and I literally show you the sources of my information, and then you say that I am not putting out facts but merely trusting some scientists. I'm baffled really.

Not a lot different than those of us who put our trust in God and repeating what He has said in His Word.

I actually think knowledge from a scientific perspective is different than faith. That's a different perspective, but nothing you have said is accurate about my posts, nor does it resemble "faith." It is knowledge based on the best evidence I have been presented, and isn't just based off of an opinion, but since I have witnessed the evidence and heard the analysis from experts I am convinced.

 

[Edward]

That's a pretty good response. Let's see here, I'll answer you in bold in your quote.

You are right, which is why I cite my sources from the discoveries made by Paleontologists. Fair enough. But you're still trusting that they are right, and did their job correctly, unbiased, and with no mistakes.


I'm not just trusting them, I am literally showing you the exact fossils by which we obtain these observations. It's not like I am taking the idea that Dinosaurs had protofeathers.. I literally have seen it with my own eyes. You've seen what you believe to be what they say it is.

I'm not really even sure what you guys are disputing anymore. I showed you the evidence of Dinosaur having protofeathers, which contained actual images of the Dinosaurs and protofeathers themselves. Are you disputing that the fossils were fabricated? Or are you disputing that the feathers are actually ancient protofeathers? If so, on what basis are you substantiating this critique. I'm not disputing that the fossils were fabricated. Maybe they was? Maybe they wasn't and they just didn't realize what it is that they were looking at, so created a plausible sounding theory to couch their idea in? Neither am I disputing that the feathers are actually ancient feathers. Protofeathers? Ehh...They can't know that. The best they could do is to theorize that.

You guys ask me questions about these things, and I literally show you the sources of my information, and then you say that I am not putting out facts but merely trusting some scientists. I'm baffled really. That's because you want to believe it and have yourself convinced, so you easily take that wee step from plausible theory into must be a fact and grant them your trust. Then it would baffle you to see where the same theories are not easily accepted by others, because afterall, it convinced you so why can't we get it?
Maybe, just maybe...you're smarter than we are? Or...maybe, you're leaning upon your own understanding a wee bit too much...against scripture.

I actually think knowledge from a scientific perspective is different than faith. That's a different perspective, but nothing you have said is accurate about my posts, nor does it resemble "faith." It is knowledge based on the best evidence I have been presented, and isn't just based off of an opinion, but since I have witnessed the evidence and heard the analysis from experts I am convinced. It's a lot different than faith brother. A different perspective for sure, so no wonder you don't understand my faith, or probably don't even believe it...because you can't understand it. Because you have yourself convinced that you must be able to understand it with your brain. We're told over and over in scripture to lean not upon our own understanding, just have faith as a little child...and then the Lord will reveal truths to you and grant you understanding. You've got it backwards how you're doing it.

Judging from the tone of your posts, why do you even believe in God? You have seen no evidence of God, so how can you be convinced that He is even real?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Fair enough. But you're still trusting that they are right, and did their job correctly, unbiased, and with no mistakes.

Given all the information I have, I have no reason to doubt their analysis as those fossils seem pretty conclusive. Feather-like structures on a Dinosaur that aren't for flight.

Do you have a reason for saying they might be wrong? The beauty of science is that there is no infallible scientist and anyone can come out and attempt to refute their claims. Simply become a Paleontologist and post your refutation in a peer reviewed journal as they did.

You've seen what you believe to be what they say it is.

I have been convinced by the evidence to see it the same way. This is what you keep leaving out of your critique. You charge that I am simply taking their statements on faith, but ignoring the fact that I too have access to the evidence.

I'm not disputing that the fossils were fabricated. Maybe they was? Maybe they wasn't and they just didn't realize what it is that they were looking at, so created a plausible sounding theory to couch their idea in? Neither am I disputing that the feathers are actually ancient feathers. Protofeathers? Ehh...They can't know that. The best they could do is to theorize that.

On what basis do you say they can't know that? This is only your opinion on a matter you are not specialized in. These are feather-like structures dated to the Cretaceous Period which belong to Dinosaurs and while of the same structure of feathers, are more thread-like and thus Paleontologists have concluded that these are Protofeathers, a transitionary stage of Feather evolution.

That's because you want to believe it and have yourself convinced, so you easily take that wee step from plausible theory into must be a fact and grant them your trust. Then it would baffle you to see where the same theories are not easily accepted by others, because afterall, it convinced you so why can't we get it?

Why would I have some kind of emotional proclivity to believe a certain thing about Proto-feathers. Do you realize how inconsequential this point is to my day to day life?

I believe it, because it is what best fits the available evidence on the matter and I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. I have seen no plausible alternative that fits the evidence, but musings on how they "could be wrong."

For you to accept this evidence would mean that you accept a piece of evidence of common descent and speciation. That Dinosaurs and birds are related, which cannot be the case from a Creationist perspective. That's my opinion on why someone wouldn't want to accept this, they are theological inclined, in fact, devoted to disregarding Modern Science out of what they believe is commitment to God's Word.

[Maybe, just maybe...you're smarter than we are? Or...maybe, you're leaning upon your own understanding a wee bit too much...against scripture./QUOTE]
Scripture isn't a scientific textbook, and God has clearly made this universe intelligible for us to make discoveries about the Natural Universe. It's responses like this which cause one to avoid difficult questions and evidence rather than face the facts.

It's a lot different than faith brother. A different perspective for sure, so no wonder you don't understand my faith, or probably don't even believe it...because you can't understand it. Because you have yourself convinced that you must be able to understand it with your brain. We're told over and over in scripture to lean not upon our own understanding, just have faith as a little child...and then the Lord will reveal truths to you and grant you understanding. You've got it backwards how you're doing it.

You're taking those passages out of context and applying them to how we understand science. With this perspective science is literally impossible. When we dig up a fossil with Proto-feathers on it, what do you expect to do, pray about it? Where is the text about Dinosaurs with feathers?

This is a nonsensical approach to uncovering the natural world. Since the Bible is an ancient book which is about the nature of God and his relationship to mankind, not meant to describe every facet of the universe and how it operates. Theologians make a distinction between Natural Revelation and Special Revelation. You seem to only regard Special Revelation.

Judging from the tone of your posts, why do you even believe in God? You have seen no evidence of God, so how can you be convinced that He is even real?

Science is about knowledge pertaining to the Natural Universe, as God is outside of this material universe, he is not subject to the same kind of empirical analysis. That is where philosophy and reason come into play.

We are different people and probably believe different things about God, and our reasons for believing in God are different. Which is totally fine with me, we all have our journey.

 

[lordkalvan]

And therein lies trash science, it is called science but has nothing but assumption to stand on. If it is observed through the Amber there are no provable conclusions to be drawn from empirical science for none of the rules thereof are followed. This process is a lot like astronomy which is replete with unprovable unprovable conclusion.

It appears to be your stance that any evidence you are presented with that shows that dinosaurs developed feathers before birds you will either ignore or simply dismiss as 'trash science'. This rather suggests you have no substantive rebuttal of this evidence to put forward.

 

[twinc]

It appears to be your stance that any evidence you are presented with that shows that dinosaurs developed feathers before birds you will either ignore or simply dismiss as 'trash science'. This rather suggests you have no substantive rebuttal of this evidence to put forward.

imho it seems the reverse or vice versa is often the case with real birds that do not and cannot fly being regarded as Dinosaurs but in imagination could well be which creationists seem to lack but some evolutionists and some others abound in - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

imho it seems the reverse or vice versa is often the case with real birds that do not and cannot fly being regarded as Dinosaurs but in imagination could well be which creationists seem to lack but some evolutionists and some others abound in - twinc

It's not non-flight that classifies it as a Dinosaur, an Ostrich is a flightless bird but is certainly not a Dinosaur, although Dinosaurs and birds share common ancestry.

The fossil I presented was clearly classified as a Dinosaur, and yet it had feathers, but these were not the same as modern feathers but were more thread-like in structure thus representing a transitional phase of the Proto-feather. I didn't just imagine these fossils either, I posted detailed pictures of the fossils which support my conclusions.

 

[lordkalvan]

imho it seems the reverse or vice versa is often the case with real birds that do not and cannot fly being regarded as Dinosaurs but in imagination could well be which creationists seem to lack but some evolutionists and some others abound in - twinc

Well, any time you can provide a reasoned argument showing this to be the case, please do so.

 

[Edward]

Given all the information I have, I have no reason to doubt their analysis as those fossils seem pretty conclusive. Feather-like structures on a Dinosaur that aren't for flight.

Do you have a reason for saying they might be wrong? The beauty of science is that there is no infallible scientist and anyone can come out and attempt to refute their claims. Simply become a Paleontologist and post your refutation in a peer reviewed journal as they did.


I have been convinced by the evidence to see it the same way. This is what you keep leaving out of your critique. You charge that I am simply taking their statements on faith, but ignoring the fact that I too have access to the evidence.


On what basis do you say they can't know that? This is only your opinion on a matter you are not specialized in. These are feather-like structures dated to the Cretaceous Period which belong to Dinosaurs and while of the same structure of feathers, are more thread-like and thus Paleontologists have concluded that these are Protofeathers, a transitionary stage of Feather evolution.


Why would I have some kind of emotional proclivity to believe a certain thing about Proto-feathers. Do you realize how inconsequential this point is to my day to day life?

I believe it, because it is what best fits the available evidence on the matter and I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. I have seen no plausible alternative that fits the evidence, but musings on how they "could be wrong."

For you to accept this evidence would mean that you accept a piece of evidence of common descent and speciation. That Dinosaurs and birds are related, which cannot be the case from a Creationist perspective. That's my opinion on why someone wouldn't want to accept this, they are theological inclined, in fact, devoted to disregarding Modern Science out of what they believe is commitment to God's Word.

I know they have a good theory going, one that I've heard since way before this thread. It may even be right too, man isn't totally stupid we know some things. But even if dino's did have feathers, it still doesn't prove evolution or that I came from a chimp, lol. Their evidence for all of evolution is circumstantial, they wasn't there and they can't observe it. Impressions on a rock may suggest things but it doesn't prove anything. That you accept that it does is just how you think. I'm not saying that's bad, i'm just saying that's you. My reason for saying that they may be or probably are wrong are numerous. They're wrong about a lot of stuff. For a long time, then even thought that we lived in an infinite universe which had "constants" that could not change. Now we know that's wrong.

That's not the beauty of science, that's why we should be suspicious and critical of them. What our scientists discover is largely controlled as to how much of it is released to the public. They like to sit on the info and see if they take advantage of it somehow. That how the gubmint is. We can't forget that we we born into a spiritual war behind enemy lines and this is the real deal here. It's probably not even men running the gubmint, they're just mindless puppets.

The real enemy here is not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, evil spirits and such. They're prolly a little bit smarter than we are and that should be respected, ya' know? They're pulling the strings behind the scenes to get people believing the wrong things so that they wont be redeemed. The thing is, that God will only let them go so far so in their situation, deception is their greatest tool.

So we as Christians, should be critical of science. When someone lays down a new scientific "fact" to you, you have but one question to ask. Does it point to God or away from God? More often than not, it points away from God, so in all probability it's a lie. They don't want to let anything out which may make some people believe in God. If it would give validity to any portion of the bible, they suppress it and concoct stories and theories which lead away from that conclusion. That's why they hide all the giants bones. It would give validity to Genesis 6. So one really doesn't have to be a paleontologist to effectively refute their facts. They're good at it too. They even have Christians believing them.

If it doesn't agree with scripture, it's bunk, that's all there is to it. That's our guideline. It's never wrong. So instead of putting trust into fallible wicked man, you should go to a source that has never been wrong and will never be wrong. You know they've lied to you your whole life, yet you continue to trust them? Whoa. I don't get that. Wait, yes I do. Why would you have some kind of emotional proclivity to believe a certain thing about Proto-feathers? Pride. People like to be right and sometimes it's hard to admit that one was wrong.

If you think that all this has no bearing on the topic, then you would be sorely wrong brother. You've been warned in scripture to not try to figure this stuff out on your own. Lean not upon your own understanding. There is a way which seems right unto man, but in the end, leads to death...That wasn't put in scripture because God was bored.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I know they have a good theory going, one that I've heard since way before this thread. It may even be right too, man isn't totally stupid we know some things.

Indeed it could be true, and the evidence seems to indicate that. So until there arises evidence to contradict these discoveries, I will continue to accept this.

But even if dino's did have feathers, it still doesn't prove evolution or that I came from a chimp, lol.

Certainly not that piece of evidence alone, but the whole of the evidence makes the Theory of Evolution our best explanation for the diversity of life.

Their evidence for all of evolution is circumstantial, they wasn't there and they can't observe it.

This is a very narrow view of science, and really of knowledge in general. Why do you believe George Washington existed? You never observed him cross the Delaware, or saw him inaugurated as President, and yet you believe in his existence? Are you taking his existence on Faith? Or does the evidence of these events occurring in the past compelling enough to convince of such?

The same is true for evolution, but instead of analyzing historical documents, we analyze fossils, DNA and many other factors which all culminate to be understood by the explanation that the Theory of Evolution offers.

Impressions on a rock may suggest things but it doesn't prove anything.

How do you know, are you a geologist? Or Paleontologist?

That you accept that it does is just how you think.

Yes, it shows that I am convinced by the compelling evidence.

I'm not saying that's bad, i'm just saying that's you. My reason for saying that they may be or probably are wrong are numerous. They're wrong about a lot of stuff. For a long time, then even thought that we lived in an infinite universe which had "constants" that could not change. Now we know that's wrong.

This is a fallacious argument. Just because scientists are wrong about one thing, does not mean that they are wrong about another. They aren't infallible, but each scientific should be regarded by the strength of the evidence supporting it, and should be refuted by contrary observations and experiments.

Theories can also be clarified and improved, as Darwinian Evolution is pretty different than when Darwin first presented it.

That's not the beauty of science, that's why we should be suspicious and critical of them. What our scientists discover is largely controlled as to how much of it is released to the public. They like to sit on the info and see if they take advantage of it somehow.

Scientists compete with each other to make discoveries, so why would they sit on information? This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me that is founded on no verifiable or credible evidence, and simply just reflects your opinion.

That how the gubmint is. We can't forget that we we born into a spiritual war behind enemy lines and this is the real deal here. It's probably not even men running the gubmint, they're just mindless puppets.

I do recall in Romans 13 that Paul said that the government are his ministers and he said this in reference to the Roman Empire. It seems that God is ultimately the one behind governments, and he gives men power. I have no reason to think that scientists are in some global conspiracy to deceive people.

The real enemy here is not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, evil spirits and such. They're prolly a little bit smarter than we are and that should be respected, ya' know? They're pulling the strings behind the scenes to get people believing the wrong things so that they wont be redeemed. The thing is, that God will only let them go so far so in their situation, deception is their greatest tool.

Are you claiming that people who believe evolution can't be saved? On what basis do you make this claim.

So we as Christians, should be critical of science. When someone lays down a new scientific "fact" to you, you have but one question to ask. Does it point to God or away from God? More often than not, it points away from God, so in all probability it's a lie.

This is a strange measure of something's truthfulness. Is Calvin Johnson or Demayrius Thomas a better Wide Receiver? Neither answer really points to God, so according to your analysis it would be a lie whatever the answer was.

Science is simply about knowledge of the natural world, and is gained through empirical methods without previous bias. Hence all scientists practice methodological naturalism, even if they believe in God.

Is this certain rock granite or graphite? Does the answer really relate to God? Not really.

Science is simply possible because God has setup laws for how natural processes work, so we are discovering his orderly universe.

They don't want to let anything out which may make some people believe in God. If it would give validity to any portion of the bible, they suppress it and concoct stories and theories which lead away from that conclusion. That's why they hide all the giants bones. It would give validity to Genesis 6. So one really doesn't have to be a paleontologist to effectively refute their facts. They're good at it too. They even have Christians believing them.

This is a conspiracy theory, which is against the Terms of Service to present. We'll move on from here.

If it doesn't agree with scripture, it's bunk, that's all there is to it. That's our guideline. It's never wrong. So instead of putting trust into fallible wicked man, you should go to a source that has never been wrong and will never be wrong. You know they've lied to you your whole life, yet you continue to trust them? Whoa. I don't get that. Wait, yes I do. Why would you have some kind of emotional proclivity to believe a certain thing about Proto-feathers? Pride. People like to be right and sometimes it's hard to admit that one was wrong.

If you think that all this has no bearing on the topic, then you would be sorely wrong brother. You've been warned in scripture to not try to figure this stuff out on your own. Lean not upon your own understanding. There is a way which seems right unto man, but in the end, leads to death...That wasn't put in scripture because God was bored.

We've gone over this and we are kind of going in circles.

1. Our understanding of Scripture is different.
2. I disagree with your opinion about scientists.
3. I have no emotional proclivity to believe in proto-feathers, I don't think you have a better perspective as regards my feelings than myself.

 

[Drew]

Not a lot different than those of us who put our trust in God and repeating what He has said in His Word.:wink

But there is a hidden assumption here. Yes, we should trust what God has said. But for the creation account, a very legitimate question arises: Is God's word to be taken literally, or is it instead an allegory that teaches us important truths but is not to be understood as literal history?

 

[Gary]

I know they have a good theory going, one that I've heard since way before this thread. It may even be right too, man isn't totally stupid we know some things. But even if dino's did have feathers, it still doesn't prove evolution or that I came from a chimp, lol. Their evidence for all of evolution is circumstantial, they wasn't there and they can't observe it. Impressions on a rock may suggest things but it doesn't prove anything. That you accept that it does is just how you think. I'm not saying that's bad, i'm just saying that's you. My reason for saying that they may be or probably are wrong are numerous. They're wrong about a lot of stuff. For a long time, then even thought that we lived in an infinite universe which had "constants" that could not change. Now we know that's wrong.

That's not the beauty of science, that's why we should be suspicious and critical of them. What our scientists discover is largely controlled as to how much of it is released to the public. They like to sit on the info and see if they take advantage of it somehow. That how the gubmint is. We can't forget that we we born into a spiritual war behind enemy lines and this is the real deal here. It's probably not even men running the gubmint, they're just mindless puppets.

The real enemy here is not flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, evil spirits and such. They're prolly a little bit smarter than we are and that should be respected, ya' know? They're pulling the strings behind the scenes to get people believing the wrong things so that they wont be redeemed. The thing is, that God will only let them go so far so in their situation, deception is their greatest tool.

So we as Christians, should be critical of science. When someone lays down a new scientific "fact" to you, you have but one question to ask. Does it point to God or away from God? More often than not, it points away from God, so in all probability it's a lie. They don't want to let anything out which may make some people believe in God. If it would give validity to any portion of the bible, they suppress it and concoct stories and theories which lead away from that conclusion. That's why they hide all the giants bones. It would give validity to Genesis 6. So one really doesn't have to be a paleontologist to effectively refute their facts. They're good at it too. They even have Christians believing them.

If it doesn't agree with scripture, it's bunk, that's all there is to it. That's our guideline. It's never wrong. So instead of putting trust into fallible wicked man, you should go to a source that has never been wrong and will never be wrong. You know they've lied to you your whole life, yet you continue to trust them? Whoa. I don't get that. Wait, yes I do. Why would you have some kind of emotional proclivity to believe a certain thing about Proto-feathers? Pride. People like to be right and sometimes it's hard to admit that one was wrong.

If you think that all this has no bearing on the topic, then you would be sorely wrong brother. You've been warned in scripture to not try to figure this stuff out on your own. Lean not upon your own understanding. There is a way which seems right unto man, but in the end, leads to death...That wasn't put in scripture because God was bored.

If it doesn't agree with scripture, it's bunk, that's all there is to it.

Absolutely.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Absolutely.

When there is a difference between individuals on how to interpret certain passages then it makes this a much more complicated issue.