Thread:SouthWriter/@comment-5018798-20130812104509/@comment-5018798-20130827155004

Good interpretations can differ vastly. I can look at the fall of Rome and attribute it to xyz and someone else look at it and attribute it to abc. Who is right? I don't know. Of course I believe my position is correct, but that is an article of faith on my part in myself and my cognative caperbilities. If I am confronted by evidence that provides sufficient proof of the abc hypothesis over my xyz theory I will naturally discard my weaker reasoning in favour of the abc. Prehaps not even that is right and it is indeed a combination or even nsw. But until I come across evidence to the contrary I will follow my interpretation, and naturally assume others will follow theirs, which i recognise may be different.

I dislike this format too. Talk pages like Alternate History are more understandable, I think.

The water thing was not a jab. I would never intentionaly jab out at anyone, I was just trying to find a demonstratable fact and that's what came to mind. In fact I found it harder than I would expect. Apologies for not putting in the air pressure and other things, I normally try to be more precise.

Not quite sure I understand your first point but I think I get the general idea. I know that God is not limited by science (I'm glad of that, else I would not be alive right now.) I think however God created all the natural forces (self obvious - He created everything). Now given that He has these forces would He not use them? I mean why would He not? The actual creation moment, how God brought everything into existence cannot be defined or understood by any human means. I get that, it would be like trying to open the proverbial box with the crowbar inside it. There is more I would say but trying to put it into words... God's ways are higher than ours. Yes. But what possible line of reasoning could there be that would end up with God putting in a load of information that can be taken to mean other than what actually happened? Why would light seemingly originate from 17.5 billion years away unless it did? Why create a dating method for rocks that would give answers that are millions of years old? Or are we in fact looking at a picture of two faces when we should be seeing a vase?

Yeah to 3. I'm a teenager, still in schooling (though I do my own digging too - nerd) so if my science is slightly off feel free to point it out. I also spend a lot of time writing my response and thak you for doing so. This is the most enjoyable debate I've had in over a week.

God bless you.