[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 13:03, ScottW wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:59*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW wrote:

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

*You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

*Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
of man be sufficient to provide explanation?

apply that to the rest of your life-

More demands.
Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
appropriate and as I choose.
It's called freedom.

freedom to be a hypocrite

Freedom from the limits of those
with a limited perspective.

science one minute, floobydust the next
its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others

Some things are known. Some things are not known.
The trick is to know the difference.
Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
claims. *How do we know they are false?
They are about things that are known.

ScottW-

There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know

*Does this imply that nothing is known? *I hope not.


History has shown man as" knowing" lots of things
that were later shown to be misunderstood