(May 8, 2022 at 7:15 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think...ultimately, that the OP believes they had some valuable gift to offer us, some sort of argument against YEC's and strict literalists.
Well..thanks, but no need? I already have an airtight demonstration of the vacuous nature of creationism in any form. Biology. There's no utility in resorting to any set of claims that are false and absurd prima facia..and it's unclear how any such set of claims would be useful or valid in that effort, if I weren't already well supplied.
If I wanted, for example..to explain how completely ridiculous the idea of a woman being turned into a pillar of salt were? I would not argue or suggest that this bit of narrative detail were an impossible account of a nonexistent survivor to a non event in the forgotten past. Mostly, I wouldn't take that route, because it's no more or less silly than literalism was.... in the first place.
His argument, "I am a theist, but I am not like the others".
An apology is an apology and a presupposition is a presupposition regardless. It its like arguing the difference between Superman and Batman. Batman being a mere mortal doesn't make the character anymore real.
