Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

Has anyone had a sensible conversation at all with Tal, if so, I'd like to see it! Tal is as ignorant of science as he is of every other subject he attempts to 'discuss', I say 'discuss' with a very loose meaning as he invariably ignores any post that proves he is wrong about something.The guy is a troll, we should stop feeding it.Brian.

Is this Isaac Asimov the science fiction writer?Brian.

HoaryHeed = People cannot be this ignorant.

You do know that you havent supported a single comment in this entire message?Take this for example: You certainly haven't read every new book that is published, so how can you justify saying this?When you start supporting your comments maybe you will be taken seriously.Brian.

Hi, I think you must have mixed me up with someone else.I have never said anything remotely like "evolution has been constantly changing."You still havent supported a single thing you have said.Referencing a page in a book isnt really supporting an argument, you should at least give some indication of how the author reached their opinion.Brian.

Their is used to keep the language inclusive. I used their instead of his/her.I always thought that their was an adjective, that can also be used as a third person singular antecedent.What if I said, I saw a person entering what I thought was their car.Is there a problem with that sentence?You do know you spelled opinion incorrectly? I seriously doubt if anything you have posted is obvious to anyone, you do appear to have very poor communication skills, but perhaps this will improve before you graduate from high school. I only asked you a simple question, which was: Is this Isaac Asimov the science fiction writer?That is all I asked you, you then appear to have confused me with someone else who has said something about evolution changing, or something similar.I haven’t mentioned evolution to you at all, it is not a subject that interests me that much. My own opinion of the topic is from an historical perspective and that it is clear that the young earth idea came long before the inerrant scripture. None of the church fathers (that I know of) took the Bible literally, but many of them, and many non Christians, believed that the earth was young.The idea of a perfect, inerrant bible that is to be taken 100% literally is a relatively new phenomenon, arising (I believe) about 1500 years after the birth of Jesus.In the context of the OP, I believe that being suffocated with the inerrancy approach to the Bible has to come before a believing in a young earth as nothing outside the Bible suggests this. I am not even convinced that the Bible suggests a young earth. I am a very happy camper.Brian.edited to include a missing sentence.This message has been edited by Brian, 08-28-2005 05:29 PM

To Brian - #123 So, what is wrong with the sentence I gave as an example?If you are an accomplished grammarian, then I take it that you have a degree of some description.Let me ask you, if you were to assess a university essay and the following sentence was in that essay, what would your comment be on it (if any)? A theologian should always double check his sources.If this sentence was included in a formal piece of writing, would you make any comment about it?However, once again you have made an empty statement by claiming that I am incorrect and not informing me why. I suggest then that everyone reading this thread has that same inability. I didnt ask again! I pointed out that this was the only question that I asked and that you then went on to confuse me with someone else, which I think you are still doing. I know it had been answered, I wasnt asking the question again, I was showing you what the only question was that I asked you, I didn't ask you anything about evolution! Read the posts again, and then try and discover who it was that asked you the question about evolution, it certainly wasn't me. My mother died when I was 14, so I would have difficulty asking her anything. As I said, none of the church fathers took the Bible 100% literally.Brian.

In this context the word 'their' can be used as a singular, as my example about the person getting into their car demonstrated. No argument here This just proves that you are no grammarian.What if the theologian was a woman?In today's academic world the use of exclusive language is frowned upon, this is a good example of why the word 'their' can be used in a singular context.Now, my previous example (author and their) does not make any reference to the gender of the author, and wouldn't do unless the author was named.An author could be a man or a woman, thus, using the word 'their' is perfectly acceptable.Think of the word 'their' as being possessive and not referring to more than one person.Perhaps you may wish to correct the many on-line dictionaries that support my usage?Try the Cambridge 2 used to refer to one person in order to avoid saying 'his or her': One of the students has left their book behind. (emphasis mine)Or this 2. (used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine form his or the definite feminine form her): Someone left their book on the table. Did everyone bring their lunch? Cf. theirs. My usage is perfectly correct and supported by any dictionary you wish to use. No it is not a mistake at all, the gender of the author is not stated therefore it is acceptable to use "their".What is a terrible mistake though, is you claiming that you are an accomplished grammarian of the English language.So, remember that when the sex of a person is not referred to, the use of the word "their" in a singular context is perfectly acceptable.Come on Hoary, this is primary school stuff.Now, a short apology from you to me, and we can move on.Brian.edited out a half sentenceThis message has been edited by Brian, 08-29-2005 01:50 PM

There are other things wrong with the site.There are too many people who appear to have enough time to post personal remarks but no time to acknowledge their mistakes.We also have people here who think they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't.Brian.

Hardly flooding Hoary, I have only mentioned inclusive language in one post!Anyway, it is really nothing to do with ‘unisex language’, it has everything to do with proper English, a subject that you have particular difficulty with.Now, whether you like it or not, the word ‘author’ is not gender specific. In case you do not know what this means, it means that men and women can be authors, thus, since you do not know if the author is a he or a she, then the use of the word ‘their’ is perfectly legitimate. You still haven’t explained why it isn’t. You are dreaming again, I have never mentioned translating the Bible.This seems to be a common trait of yours, inventing arguments that simply didn’t happen is a regular feature of your posts. Maybe you have some difficulty with comprehension, or maybe English is not your first language, but you need to read a bit more carefully. I wish I could claim the credit for this, but it is common practice in the academic world. Well, since I am in Scotland, I use English as well. Also, if English is the ‘legal’ language of the U.S. then you guys make some very basic spelling errors! You do not seem to realise that ‘their’ is not always a plural, invest in a dictionary, or ask one of your teachers to explain it to you. I only ‘insist’ in this because it is proper grammar, and it isn’t my unisex language, it is basic language skills. You still haven’t said why ‘their’ cannot be used in a singular context.You also appear to be ignoring the Cambridge dictionary that I quoted, or are they rabid atheists with some ulterior motive as well? Wrong again. I know you aren’t going to like this, but the use of inclusive language is to acknowledge the equality of mankind. It is only fair to acknowledge that an author, historian, scholar, theologian, or anyone else for that matter, can be of either sex. As my example demonstrated, to use the word he with the word theologian is prejudice, you are assuming that all authors are male. This can also be turned around the other way if I were to say, the nurse was late for her appointment. This is also a prejudiced statement because not all nurses are female. These are situations where we have to use the word their as it is always used when you do not know the sex of the person being discussed. As the Cambridge informed us used to refer to one person in order to avoid saying 'his or her': One of the students has left their book behind.Now, be a man and admit you made a mistake, you would gain a bit of respect instead of just making a fool of yourself. Yes, sexual equality and fairness is a sign of the times. Society has evolved, people are entitled to be treated equally whether you like it or not. Oh we are able to communicate, but the problem is, as I said earlier, your communications skills need some work. This constant invention of claims that you say other people have made is quite alarming. On Pluto maybe!Brian.