[/lurk mode]
You are serious about these conditions? Do you really expect YEC to be taken seriously by science if you want to throw out scientific convention? If IR wants to take this on, fine, but it all seems kind of unrealistic to me. This will be my last post on this thread unless asked for an opinion. But I do have a question or two regarding the some of the statements you make:
I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.
I've been here long enough to understand how these things play out and I'm at a point where I'm going to absolutely refuse to go along with this, which is just a variation on the usual #1 problem for YECs at this site. If you can't see things from my point of view on this, then this thread is not going to happen.
Some things are simply non-negotiable and nondebatable from my side of this. God's word says there WAS a worldwide Flood, it is not a hypothesis.
I take back anything I ever said along those lines. It is not a hypothesis, it is a given, a presupposition, an assumption. It is non-negotiable. While any number of ideas about how it might have happened are in principle falsifiable, the fact itself of a worldwide Flood is not falsifiable. It cannot fail, and it is not even potentially "unworkable."
... A straight reading of Genesis, which is clearly not allegorical, is not negotiable.
I was just wondering if the next time a YEC complains about evolutionists being dogmatic, I can quote you for them. Would this be okay with you?
And, is this what YECs call 'good science'? Is this how science would be taught if YECs were in charge?
My apologies if this is too far off topic, but the opportunity to ask might slip away.
[lurk mode]
™ Version 4.2
