On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[Mikeenders]

Emphasis mine:What robrecht actually said:"if they want to prove" actually sets up a condition of what they could do, not necessarily what they should do.

nope.....ye of little sense......lets see how this works for you. If you want to refute that YEC is real science read these two creationist books (and I name two of my choosing ) and refute them.

What are you going to tell me oh nit? What in fact have you said in such scenarios? I'm pretty sure you would tell me that you don't have to read my two choices and refute them to prove it is wrong. You would reject my attempt to set up my condition that if you wanted to prove it you should read those books

Now lets see if you can muster an ounce of intellectually honesty and say you see my point (i'm betting since its you that you can't).

its this kind of obvious intellectual dishonesty why Robby is beneath continuing on with. Obviously attempting to set conditions in a discussion he claims he was out of hours and hours before and even commenting on the subject through the articles on the texts but then claiming in dishonesty that he's still out of the discussion.

Its like you people on this forum have no morality - Christians or Atheists. Maybe thats why your numbers are small and you all have the same lack of character in a discussion/debate. even low in number birds of a feather find a way to flock together. The lack of an honesty compass acts like a magnet to pull you into small places.

[Mikeenders]

So why don't you and Jor and your ilk ponder what "literal" means and why, e.g., the Stink 'n Jor team has an internal conflict about the "literal" extent of Ye Greate Fludde?

Oh little Von Nit. Perhaps one of these days you will grow a brain. Alas today it is still in peanut form. Is science literal enough for you? Then name me a science where everyone agrees on everything within that science oh purveyor of vast stupidity??

[Roy]

nope.....ye of little sense......lets see how this works for you. If you want to refute that YEC is real science read these two creationist books (and I name two of my choosing ) and refute them.

What are you going to tell me oh nit?

I'm going to tell you that what you just said differs sufficiently from what robrecht said that if anyone else had tried the switch you just tried I suspect you'd have called them a liar.

[Mikeenders]

I'm going to tell you that what you just said differs sufficiently from what robrecht said that if anyone else had tried the switch you just tried I suspect you'd have called them a liar.

nope...no switch. Thats what he said. Sorry truth hurts

[Roy]

nope...no switch. Thats what he said. Sorry truth hurts

You switched from "can" (i.e. could) to "should" again.

[Mikeenders]

You switched from "can" (i.e. could) to "should" again.

No functional difference. want to try again?

nope.....ye of little sense......lets see how this works for you. If you want to refute that YEC is real science then you can read these two creationist books (and I name two of my choosing ) and refute them.

What are you going to tell me oh nit? What in fact have you said in such scenarios? I'm pretty sure you would tell me that you don't have to read my two choices and refute them to prove it is wrong. You would reject my attempt to set up my condition that if you wanted to prove it you can read those books.

if you want to prove sets up a conditional no matter how you fudge it

Now lets see if you can muster an ounce of intellectually honesty and say you see my point (i'm betting since its you that you can't).

[Mikeenders]

and with the obvious truth stated...I bid you adieu

[Roy]

No functional difference. want to try again?

No. If you didn't understand the first seven or eight times, one more isn't going to make a difference.

[klaus54]

nope.....ye of little sense......lets see how this works for you. If you want to refute that YEC is real science read these two creationist books (and I name two of my choosing ) and refute them.
m)
...

So if you think YEC is Real Science (tm), why aren't you YEC?

Your boyfriend Jor is an inerrantist and Bible-believin' Fundy-Wundy Xtian, and he sez it's YEC or the highway.

What gives?

[klaus54]

Oh little Von Nit. Perhaps one of these days you will grow a brain. Alas today it is still in peanut form. Is science literal enough for you? Then name me a science where everyone agrees on everything within that science oh purveyor of vast stupidity??

Hmmm...

I didn't see an answer there.

I wonder why?

You are either 1) too ignorant, 2) too cowardly, 3) too arrogant, or 4) you don't HAVE an answer.

And these are all inclusive ORs.

[klaus54]

No functional difference. want to try again?

Hahahahaha...

Stinky Enders doesn't know the difference between "can" and "should"!

[Mikeenders]

Hahahahaha...

Stinky Enders doesn't know the difference between "can" and "should"!

Von nit doesn't know what the phrase functional difference means

wait a minute - thats not so funny.....its kind of par for the course with Van Nitt

[klaus54]

Von nit doesn't know what the word functional difference means

wait a minute - thats not so funny.....its kind of par for the course with Van Nitt

Apparently you don't.

"Can" and "should" are functionally equivalent!!!

That means they function the same way.

New flash: They DON'T.

D'uh...

Risible.

Hahahahaha...

[Mikeenders]

Apparently you don't.

"Can" and "should" are functionally equivalent!!!

That means they function the same way.

ROFL......What a nit who said anything about equivalent. Let me see if I can break it down in smaller chunks for you to comprehend (yeah I know hopeless).Try this nit

"If a man cares about truth he can refute this"

whats the implication Von Nitt?? How does that make it magically not trying to set up a condition?

pure twittery

So no can and should makes no FUNCTIONAL difference to the condition being set up. Its STILL a condition

what
a
collection
of
Nitwits

[Mikeenders]

Hmmm...

I didn't see an answer there.

I wonder why?

because you have no sense? DING DING DING....we have a winning answer. at any rate - the end. Get the thread back on topic.