Daniel, I am just having trouble connecting the dots, and think we are just going to have to accept that we are going to see things differently. I do agree that sometimes we tend to undervalue the ability of ancient people to understand, yet at the same time we also tend to project our modern conceptions onto their viewpoint, rather than trying to see things through their eyes. Have a good evening!
No Daniel, Iâm not assuming anything of the sort. I didnât say what I said about sloppy thinking to pass any kind of judgment on your own position, but to illustrate how we evaluate YEC claims round here. We donât just automatically dismiss them out of hand as you said, but we evaluate them to see which parts have merit, which parts do not, and which parts require clarification or correction on either your part or ours.
If you got the wrong impression from what I said, and I offended you in any way, I apologise.
Sloppy thinking isnât just a vague and woolly accusation for me (or anyone else) to just throw around at anyone whose position we disagree with. It means certain specific things such as, inter alia, arithmetic errors, inconsistent or unclear terminology, logical fallacies, an over-reliance on memory or hearsay, failing to cite your sources, or claiming that you have evidence to support you when you do not. As such, if you believe anyone is accusing you of sloppy thinking, the correct way to respond is to ask them what exactly is sloppy about it, and what they expect you to do to address the situation.
For what itâs worth I can see that you are attempting to do this. I think your big problem is that youâre trying to argue too much at once, and youâre over-complicating things somewhat, and as a result this thread has lost focus and got sidetracked onto weird arguments about whether or not the sky is blue (!).
You put the logical extreme twist on it. I did not. For a person to know, by direct perception, that the air does not extend to the luminaries, that person does not have to espouse YEC. Essentially, I meant little more than that. I did not mean anything so simple about what a positive claim of such a manner of knowledge has to do with the Bible.
Okay. Well letâs consider Faulknerâs assertion sufficiently challenged and mission accomplished.
At this point, it doesnât seem like anyone else is capable of functioning on your wavelength and we do not want to cause any more frustration for you or the people trying to follow your reasoning. I think this thread has run itâs course. Thanks to everyone for participating.
4 Likes