Science, Creation & EvolutionNEW THEORY!ah, so even YOU admit mrs setterfield is off color in her tone...and you attribute it to a "tit for tat"....funny, the only remotely "attitudinal" post was the one I apologized for, and the resentment since then has been more than evident in her replies. I have read Ross's detractors..and Mrs. Setterfield has posted quite a few....I don't find anything credible in them to this point... You have purely secularists who dismiss his conclusions as religiously biased, and YEC who are avidly against anything that could be construed to be "conforming" to naturalism. I have found no real substance to the critisism.....here is an example. One comment by one of Mrs S's critics claims Ross misuses lexicons and the like. He quotes Strongs definitinon as limited to a 12 or 24 hr day....here is the actual Strongs definition. yôm yome From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger. This critic of Ross claims Ross is "dishonest" and "sloppy", yet his own critique is rediculous. Once a man has written something so blatantly wrong about another man, I must doubt his motives, and his conclusions |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame