When you include a long line of asterisks in a message (or any large number of consecutive characters with no spaces) then it prevents the browser from displaying the page any narrower than the width of that line, causing the need for horizontal scrolling. Instead of a line of asterisks could I suggest that you instead use the HTML horizontal rule:
Jet writes: "I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case. As a youth, one of the many principles greatly impressed upon me was the necessity of developing a great power of reason. I can thank my father, and my grandfather, for that. Perhaps, at times, I require and expect too much from some individuals. The power of reason is not an automatic consequence of physical maturity. Some, like myself, have worked at truly developing the power of reason, and others have not. Mores the pity!"
So your answer to Peter's point that the dictionary definitions you supplied don't fit the context is that you have greater reasoning powers?
Jet writes: You seem to have a fondness for putting words into peoples' mouths.
Really? You responded to Peter with, "I admit to the expectation of reason and understanding within those to whom I may choose to reply. This, unfortunately, is not always the case." And so forth. Pretty clear writing. Very unambiguous.
Why don't you just answer Peter's rebuttal? Or anyone's rebuttal? This is supposed to be discussion and debate about evolution and creation, something you seem to have forgotten.
Jet writes: It seems some have not yet learned how to "agree to disagree".
You made one post of substance to this thread in Message 30 making the point that the differences between YEC and OEC viewpoints is one of opinion and not interpretation. Peter asked for clarification, given the similar meanings of opinion and interpretation in this context, and you provided a definition of interpretation that included translation, and that's simply confused everyone.
So we don't know whether we disagree or not because we're still trying to figure out what you meant. You're the only one who knows, and apparently you're not telling.
w_fortenberry writes: To claim that the meaning of any passage of the Bible is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact is to claim that the meaning of any grouping of words is open to interpretation and so cannot be used as fact. To follow this line of reasoning is to depend solely on first hand observation. In which case, nothing anyone says on this site can be used as fact, nor can any thing ever written or stated be used as fact.
Yes, that is correct. The trust one might place in any given authority, be it a written source like the Bible or a textbook, or a living source like a scientist or minister, will in some cases be quite high, but you can never treat it like a fact.
In the final analysis, even facts cannot be considered eternal truths, because the facts we gather of reality are filtered by our fallible human senses and interpretive frameworks.