Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[GenemZ]

Since you can't converse civilly, we are done.

Children tend to be very transparent ...... It sometimes helps to break the wall down.

 

[GenemZ]

Good move

(translation?) You could not handle my questions either.

 

[Ophiolite]

I beg to differ. Young Earth creationists do not represent will the ancient manuscripts. Manuscripts that spoke of prehistoric worlds long before science finally arrived on the scene.

I should like to understand what you intended to say. Perhaps you could revisit the grammar and the vocabulary, then rewrite the post in intelligible English.

 

[GenemZ]

I should like to understand what you intended to say. Perhaps you could revisit the grammar and the vocabulary, then rewrite the post in intelligible English.

I had a typo. Look again at what I said.

 

[Kylie]

What kind of evidence is it you think you would need?

If you think Jesus never existed? I would wonder why.

........

Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something testable. If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it.

That's what Frances Kelsey said, while she was being ridiculed by her cohorts.

 

[GenemZ]

Three works of the Creation account that cover the reality that the Bible spoke of a prehistoric creation long before science discovered that reality to be true.

The Invisible War - by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse -
The Invisible War: Barnhouse, Donald Grey: 9780310204817: Amazon.com: Books


r.b. thieme Jr - Creation Chaos And Restoration-
R. B. Thieme, Jr., Bible Ministries — Creation, Chaos, and Restoration

Jack W Langford - the GAP is not a Theory -
THE GAP IS NOT A THEORY!: Langford, Jack W.: 9781465399489: Amazon.com: Books

Note the reviews for the Amazon pages.

There are more works also available on the subject.


.........

 

[Ophiolite]

I had a typo. Look again at what I said.

I have.

I beg to differ.

Fine.

Young Earth creationists do not represent the ancient manuscripts. Manuscripts that spoke of prehistoric worlds long before science finally arrived on the scene.

You need a comma, not a period, after the first "manuscripts". Without that comma the following words are a group of clauses, not a sentence.

I takes knowing the Hebrew text to verify what I say.

There seem to be more typos in your added sentence. I suspect you meant "It takes knowing the Hebrew text to verify what I say."

I am not being a grammar nazi, or seeking to put you down for fun. I presume you wish your words to be understood by members. I'm just letting you know when that isn't working. I welcome corrections of my own text. If you feel different I'll remain silent in future.

 

[GenemZ]

There seem to be more typos in your added sentence. I suspect you meant "It takes knowing the Hebrew text to verify what I say."

I am not being a grammar nazi, or seeking to put you down for fun.

When making your alleged correction? You simply repeated what I said verbatim.

I do not think you do it for fun.
I think you do it to get a psychological upper hand.

Wasting time while there is eternal truth to be found?
Over nit picking? Will be judged.



...................

 

[Ophiolite]

When making your alleged correction? You simply repeated what I said verbatim.

No, I didn't. Please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. Your original post had a typo and a grammatical error (the faulty period).

I do not think you do it for fun.
I think you do it to get a psychological upper hand.

No, I do it because I've spent decades wherein proof reading constituted a significant part of my work. If you are happy to leave your errors uncorrected and thus have your posts misunderstood, go to it. I'll avoid any further attempts to help you.

Wasting time while there is eternal truth to be found?
Over nit picking? Will be judged.

As above, if you think correcting errors that impact on reader comprehension is a waste of time, what can I say? I guess, "Wow!" would fit the bill.
Matthew 7:1

 

[Astrid]

No, I didn't. Please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. Your original post had a typo and a grammatical error (the faulty period).


No, I do it because I've spent decades wherein proof reading constituted a significant part of my work. If you are happy to leave your errors uncorrected and thus have your posts misunderstood, go to it. I'll avoid any further attempts to help you.

As above, if you think correcting errors that impact on reader comprehension is a waste of time, what can I say? I guess, "Wow!" would fit the bill.
Matthew 7:1

People who do not attempt to communicate
clearly are showing disrespect for the language
and for their audience.

They cannot well expect others to show
respect they do not even have for themselves.

It's like going around with messy hair and
mismatched socks.

 

[Kylie]

That's what Frances Kelsey said, while she was being ridiculed by her cohorts.

You just keep running back to the same tired old tricks, don't you?

 

[GenemZ]

No, I didn't. Please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. Your original post had a typo and a grammatical error (the faulty period).

You are arguing over nothing worth while.

 

[GenemZ]

People who do not attempt to communicate
clearly are showing disrespect for the language
and for their audience.

Does this communicate clearly?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, ​

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.​

​

Jn 3:16​

Good! Its clear. No typos there!

 

[Kylie]

Does this communicate clearly?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, ​

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.​

​

Jn 3:16​

Good! Its clear. No typos there!

Unsupported claim and off topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

You just keep running back to the same tired old tricks, don't you?

If I read your Post 425 correctly, you would have sanctioned Thalidomide as a prenatal wonder drug.

Am I right?

If I'm wrong, then maybe you need to explain more what you meant.

Until then ...

 

[Kylie]

If I read your Post 425 correctly, you would have sanctioned Thalidomide as a prenatal wonder drug.

Am I right?

If I'm wrong, then maybe you need to explain more what you meant.

Until then ...

I said, "If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it."

Tell me, AV, how did they determine thalidomide was dangerous? Could it be through <<GASP!>> scientific testing?????

So come on, AV. What point do you think you are making here?

 

[Ophiolite]

You are arguing over nothing worth while.

I am not arguing. I was simply seeking to help you correct your post.

I welcome corrections of my errors. It appears you prefer to double down, by first denying you have made any, then dismissing them as unimportant. It is really disappointing to see such a lack of confidence on your part. It is unnecessary and misguided, I apologise for causing you pain by drawing attention to what you apparently see as a personal weakness. It isn't it's just a couple of writing errors. No big deal until you went the route of denial.
I'll leave the last word to you.

 

[GenemZ]

Unsupported claim and off topic.

Just trying to redeem the time......

 

[AV1611VET]

I said, "If it is testable and it can face the testing and pass, then I will accept it."

I know what you said.

I take it then that you believe Thalidomide didn't pass all its tests?

Tell me, AV, how did they determine thalidomide was dangerous?

When the children showed up?

Could it be through <<GASP!>> scientific testing?????

They were a day late and a dollar short with that, weren't they?

But I take it it passed enough tests that it was given the green light?

Are you telling me you would have been on Frances Kelsey's side and called for even more testing?

So come on, AV. What point do you think you are making here?

That Post 425 can take a hike.