Ooops everything. Another one of your theories is toast. Its already been established you won't admit you were wrong without condition when you are actually are wrong.
That's certainly not the case, and it's another example where you simply refuse to *accept* my admission, even when I made it. You however haven't admitted any of your numerous strawmen, with or without conditions.
So your admission is neither needed not expected.
Its been given, just not accepted apparently. Not surprising actually.
According to you a cue that a passage is not to be taken literal is that the writer could not have witnessed the event he is talking about.
Certainly that is my position as it relates to Genesis and the origins of Earth, particularly when no date is actually printed anywhere in Genesis to begin with. It therefore doesn't even begin to support YEC. If you had an actual date to work with, you'd at least have something. Since you don't, you've got nothing.
none of the prophets could be present in the future therefore according to your theory they should all be metaphorical only in many cases the are clearly not having literally come to pass - your theory as toasted as a piece of bread in a turned on toaster set on high in the down position for an hour.
Talk about moving the goal posts. First you tried and failed to use the 'heaven' analogy and that blew up in your face. Now you're moving the goal posts again complaining about prophesy when that particular issue is easily resolved by a simple study of history so it doesn't fly either. Care to try again?
The rest is just more nonsense. The NT teaches us that the first century believers had expected a messiah so they knew it was literal without reference to lookin at "history" to see which one comes through. Double toast
Never once did I suggest my point about Genesis applies to the NT, or to the topic of Christ or to prophesies of any sort. You're just moving the goal posts because you shot yourself in the foot over the heaven analogy.
I thought we established w ehave different opinions so why in the world do I care about your vantage point?
If you don't care, why are you have a discussion with me in this thread at all?
The fact that practically every science was established by people who held creationist views rebuts your nonsense claim.
Ok, who started the study of QM or MHD theory and how do you know they were a "creationist" again? Hint: Alfven definitely wasn't one. So what's your beef with EV theory again if Darwin was supposedly a "creationist"?
They almost all entered and established their scientific disciplines with the prediction and expectation that logical order would be found in the universe because of an intelligent God creating it.
I expect that too, but what's your point? I was railing against YEC specifically and defending EV theory specifically.
the claim therefore that Creationism has made no predictions that came true is just babbling dogma recited and regurgitated by the faithful Darwinian masses that ignore or try to rewrite the history of science
What *young earth* prediction enjoys anything like a successful prediction? You're just making this up as you go at this point. Again, I don't have any issue with a "creationist" viewpoint, just the *young earth* variety.
P.S. I'd be careful relating this the way you did to your children. When they see Daddy saying that a literal interpretation doesn't bode well based on physics they just might get the (right) idea that the only reason Daddy is begging for a metaphorically meaning to Genesis is because Genesis was wrong and Daddy is trying to cover it up.
Nope. Daddy's been quite clear that the Bible is intended to introduce them to Christ, it not a scientific textbook.
Even Christ said render unto Caesar.....