Uncle Davey wrote:
> news:1123466715.172507.48520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> >
> > Snip
> >
> > > Some aspects of YEC are true and some parts of Gosse are
> > > true, in my view.
> >
> > Which "aspects" are objectively, scientifically, or empirically
> > true? Be ready to cite evidence.
>
> I said they were true in my view.
So why are they "true" in your view?
> In my view, things don't need to be empirically proven to be true...
Or even empirically supported?
> ...in fact the opposite is sometimes the case - things which appear
> to be empirically proven are only so in the context of the giant
> circular argument that is secular and evolutionary thinking.
Give a specific example.
> > Snip
> >
> > > I have not however seen a convincing disproving of either
> > > the Gosseist or the modern YEC position.
> >
> > What hasn't been effectively, scientifically, objectively, or
> > scientifically disproven as much as science can do that?
>
> We're having a separate discussion about that, and I'm still waiting
> for your first response.
Actually, you're not. You've seen the summary, first-impression list
of responses. It's not a separate discussion--it's very much a part of
this discussion, and this discussion is very much a part of it.
> Take your time, we've got all the time it takes.
You might use the intevening time to explain just why each of those
items, or any of them, are "holes" for "evolutionary theory."
Explanation some of your assumptions that you state as facts might also
be useful.
And I see you're back to adding groups.
|
|