Summations Only

I am not aggravated by your point of view.I think you are wrong about some scientific things, and I'll say so. But I've enjoyed your participation here.Some of your posts have generated some really excellent discussion about science. For example, your questions about radioactive decay rates led to one of the more enjoyable physics discussions here. Very few posters defending young earth creationism ever accomplish something like that.I hope you'll change your mind and stay.Besides all that, wasn't Forest Gump actually very smart?

Generally speaking, you've asked questions about science with a theme; the theme being that the questions are related to your YEC view of the universe. In all cases that I can recall your questions have gotten a pretty thorough scientific look, with the result being not supportive of your world view.Which of your questions haven't received a complete, science based answer? Are you sure that some of the problem isn't that the discussion goes over your head before your question gets answered?You have claimed that you've never seen any information that contradicts a YEC world view. I find that claim extraordinary.

What do you hope to accomplish or learn in such a discussion? Even when we delve into the science, you don't seem to participate for long. Your question about decay rates ended up spinning off into a couple of threads, in none of which did you participate in any significant way. I don't recall the discussion being laden with insults.

If I had a penny for every time you posted just to say that you were not going to post, I'd have 5.63. Why not just post when you are ready to post?That way, you would not leave behind a string of promises/threats to post later that you never actually manage to execute.

No, that's not what foreveryoung and Tangle have argued. You've likely cited your own impression. Your impression is far more reasonable, and I won't chase down my disagreement with it.Foreveryoung says that if any portion of the Bible is not free from error when literally read, then the whole text is worthless. And that's notwithstanding the fact that the Bible is not a monolithic work. I don't believe foreveryoung's conclusion is justifiable.Tangle on the other hand has only commented on the possiblity of the Bible containing merely convention wisdom, I don't think he's actually commented on the issue you discuss here, and I don't think I really disagree with his point. I just don't find Tangle's point very relevant.If the back in 1960 or so, an author of a high school chemistry textbooks writes that it is impossible to make compounds from the noble gasses, as was believed in the early 1960's, does that falsehood mean that none of the rest of the book is worth reading, or does it simply warn us to look for more errors? Would you begin to doubt that the author was right about the formula for water?I would expect that large portions of a 1960 vintage high school chemistry textbook would hold up pretty well today.Edited by NoNukes, : Modify to include Tangle

I think even this goes too far.In the case of compounds of the noble gases, we are in a position to understand the reasons why the older view was wrong. That knowledge allows us to make some attempts to partition off things in that older text book that may be unreliable.One might have a similar impression about Genesis. If God had dictated the truth about how the universe came to be to an unscientifically minded man of the bronze, Genesis might well be that person's best attempt to make heads or tails out of what he was told. Or one might note that whoever wrote Genesis, the person who wrote Matthew isn't the responsible for any errors in the Torah.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If this is indeed Foreveryoung's strategy, I find his execution of said strategy difficult to fathom. Rather than electing to live in his own private Idaho, Foreveryoung has gone out of his way to ask questions in a debate forum, where the rather predictable result is that some, if not all of the answers he gets will require stuffing more sand about the eyes and ears.Exactly what types of answers did fy expect here? What does he mean when he says he wants to discuss science? I disagree. Neither one of the two creation accounts is the least bit plausible as a literal description of the origin of life on this planet. Pointing out that the accounts disagree is merely a convenient way to argue against a literalist on his home court.By comparison, the different versions of the death of Judas, with each version coming from authors who were not eye witnesses isn't nearly as big a deal. You cannot get two eyewitnesses to describe a car accident consistently. The essentials are that the man betrayed Jesus and then killed himself. Some silly myths were then written about the name of the field, and the myths don't seem to agree in the details. So what?