nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 279:
Line 279: + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 02:10, October 10, 2008
, 02:10, October 10, 2008→Reactions to Criticism, Really?: How do I know what you intended?
Also in general where did all of this come from? Can anyone verify that these are the most widely used criticism and that those are their responses.
Also in general where did all of this come from? Can anyone verify that these are the most widely used criticism and that those are their responses.
[[User:KingAdrock|KingAdrock]] 19:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
[[User:KingAdrock|KingAdrock]] 19:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
: Are you simply trying to be difficult, or am I supposed to realise that your intention is to improve this article? If the latter, how am I to tell that if it's not possible for a reader to "know what the author (you in this case) intended"?
:Also, you obviously didn't read (or take in) the link to [[creation week]], in which the ''author's intentions'' are claimed to be knowable by "professor[s] of Hebrew or Old Testament at .. world-class universit[ies]". So if these experts believe that the intention is discernable (and ''clearly'' discernable, given their apparent unanimity), why should we take any notice of ''your'' opinion? Furthermore, Barr (like the other experts, for the most part) is not a YEC.
: What is wrong with "bogus"? What would you suggest instead?
: From decades of personal experience, I can say that these are common criticisms (it doesn't say that they are necessarily "the most widely use criticisms") and that the responses listed are, on the whole, the ones normally given by leading creationists.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)