This is clever idiocy, not a reference to grammar correction by you.
"clever idiocy." i shall have to remember that one. no, i honestly cannot figure out what you are trying to say.
Lower your pupils to 6 0'clock and you may notice it is a response to someone else, which indicates what is being responded to.
negative.
quote:
That's where you get evidence of the 'seed', representing transmissions of life forms - ignored by atheists; that 'kind' represents an evidential proof what separates humans from all other life forms - ignored by atheists. I call it selective atheism, and slight of hand science. I'm not fooled.
This message is a reply to:
Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 12:46 AM
Replies to this message:
Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 01:28 AM
you replied to my message.
Correct me in grammer and logic and your own risk.
i wasn't trying to correct you, i was trying to
decipher you. your arguments are nonsensical.
Seed related to creation (whatever that is!) methodolgy.
how?
It is best defined by first acknowledging it and placing it in the preamble whenever you mention evolution.
aknowledgement is not a definition. and neither is your argument. and... what? what exactly should we be discussing before we discuss evolution? please explain what it is, and how it relates to evolution. pretend i'm a child; start from the beginning. i'm not saying this to be mocking -- i just want to know what the heck you're talking about. you seem to be going off on something assuming we know what you mean. we don't. well, i don't, at least. please explain.
Selective refers to omission of what you don't like, and inclusion of what you like.
please explain what this concept is, and how atheism (or evolution, or whatever you're arguing against) excludes it.
Yes, now I will wait for you to ask me to define 'seed'
if you expect it, why not include it in
your preamble? after all, one of the
scientific method's first steps is to
define the terms under discussion. this does not appear to suit creationism, which by your arguments seem to be more about red herrings and obfuscation than clarity.
because its listing in genesis cannot be understood by those prefessing science
you mean "professing?" and so far the only who has failed to demonstrate understanding of genesis is
you. rather consistently, as a matter of fact -- you seem to opt for reading it like some sort of bizarre code instead of what's actually on the page.
but hey, i think we have worked out step 1 in the creationist method.
"genesis."
seed is far more complicated than retroviruses!
please point me to the book, chapter, and verse where this concept is discussed in its full complexity? failing that, perhaps you can point me to a published creationist paper that discusses the topic? or failing that, perhaps a religious apologetic, or jewish midrash? or failing that, anything at all about the matter?
Anyways, to cut to the chase scene and escape the selective naivity display, a retraction is in order of those who cannot understand what a seed refers to (whatever that means!),
no, perhaps an explanation is in order. either make an argument, or don't. if you're not willing to explain your terms, you can't simply plant your flag and declare victory. you haven't won anything, or convinced anyone. you've just made yourself to be your own hero in your own mind. perhaps
this is the creationist method? confuse, distract, declare victory, and leave? hey, we've seen that a few times here, after all.
why genesis refers to 'kind' and gives humans a correct category,
please explain what you mean by "correct category" and how you feel the term "kind" is being used in the book of genesis.
those who decried about lobsters while ignoring where medicine comes from
medicine comes from science. perhaps this fact has been lost on you. it's a been a long time since "avoid eating lobsters" was considered medicine.
and not least, those who deem my responsa off topic
oh, you mean the
religious moderator who told you stay on topic. yeah, i'm sure anastasia is out to get you.
in a thread that wants to discuss methodology of creation!
no, the methodology of creation
ism. how the belief itself functions.
Don't be shy - unless you want to disgrace science.
actual, questioning is a rather basic scientific approach. the way i see it, my posts are a decent demonstration of a scientific methodology -- questioning, and not presuming to know facts from the outset. yours are a decent demonstration of the creationist methodology -- having the truth from the beginning, but it's a secret, and you can't tell anyone, so the goal is to distract and obfuscate.
actually, you're the one that shouldn't be shy. you seem to be quite secretive about what you actually mean. why not explain your terms, and justify your arguments?
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
™ Version 4.2
