|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correct. That does not mean 'ONLY' - I gave numerous examples backed by links, yet to keep with your bsession as if I said something ridiculous. I also stated the term NANO was made loosely, but it need not be; swarms can refer to any bulk of entities, whether spaceships or unseen virus, bacteria or lavae.
quote: So what part ios confusing?
quote: Yes, there is only one reading of the texts. The context is that swarms migrated from the oceans. Its correct, with no other reading possible. What did you think it means?
quote: Yes, it the context it describes. You are inferring swarms cannot apply to small things - that is stupid. You are also using this stupidity to ignore the fundamental basis of the text - which I won't alllow you to get away with no matter how many posts you waste on it.
quote: Yes, its the only reading in this context. Here, it refers only to swarms of very small life forms. What else - rocket ships?
quote: You also have deficiency in comprehension. The swarms referred to do not refer to rocket ships in this instance; they refer to swarms of small life forms. "ONLY'. Hello!?
quote: If creationism is thrash, even as one of only two possibilities, why is this forum inviting a discussion of it? Which post of yours or anyone else here has shown it to be thrash - is it your response to the term swarms - or that Genesis is incorrect that life emerged in the waters you run away so far from?
quote: No. You are saying that.
quote: You are saying if swarms also applies to small that I am lying.
quote: Its not an incorrect use - one can express small as nano. One cannot express the planet Jupiter as nano. I am not lying - not even in a nano sense.
quote: First recordings:Mount Ararat; Genesis. Life emerged in the waters; Genesis. Its a 3-day journey from Goshen to Median; Genesis. The Nile never runs dry; Genesis. Mount Nebo; Genesis. Genesis is the first aphabetical book - and the most discussed thread in forums today. Which part is lying?
quote: Idiot! It does not mean ONLY SMALL; it means only small only in the context of the text. Know the diff? Ugh!
quote: Which part is jargon? Let a Monitor enlighten us because all others are silent of one poster's jargon and hijacking every post.
quote: Correct. Swarms can apply to anything, small or big, which moves in a concentrated volumous trajectory.
quote: One can say your posts are becoming swarm like. Am I lying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Knock-knock! First you stated Genesis does NOT say that vegetation emerged before water borne life. Now, after showing your error, you say it did, but that its wrong. That's a nice way of debating. No need for retraction - just frog leap from one debacle to another. Is that a new scientific mode of debating?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What did they do for food?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Evolution, at best [or worse] is a process at work - nothing else. It renders zero about origins, by its own premise. The term "Creation VS Evolution" is a senseless premise; it should be corrected as: "CREATION [or something else]; Evolution". The ";" is incumbent here, and we have no alternative to Creation: name one!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
LOL!
Algae is a swarm of one group of vegetation. Do you still have a: "HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Shall we say, a swarm of hypothesis as Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: But it does seperate the main groups of vegetation - many groups of vegetation are listed. The waters did have those vegetation groups prior to the emergence of animated life forms in the waters, and the premise of some newly term groups of vegetation does not pose the problem you have invented as vague:
quote: quote: Algae is a plant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There were yet no animated [self propelled moving] life forms before vegetation. [Genesis]
None of the life forms were animated or living entities when they became initiated; this includes the first human. They did not move even when they were completed constructs. Does anyone agree with this premise of Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
All life forms, on their initiation, were dual-gendered. Namely, the first human was a dual-gendered male/female construct ['Male and female did He make them'].
Does anyone agree with this Genesis premise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You have to give an alternate reading of a statement before shouting eureka! You have not done so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Yes. By millions of years. And this is first recorded in Genesis - which is the earliest known scientific statement in all recorded history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Read your own link fully and understand what you are reading. Meiosis is a form of cloning - which forms the duality in the egg, emulating normal repro; this form of emulation can be done in a lab as well. Otherwise [without this duality semblance ability] - no reproduction can occur.
quote: There is no alternative to the duality factor for all actions in the universe - including life and inanimated entities. Genesis wins.
[/quote]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living. The photsythesis occured when light and darkness were adjusted t the correct ratio for this planet, differing it from other planets [Genesis v14] and the rain cycle was triggered.
This premise may well be above this thread's posters' thinking. It begs the question: which came first - the mother's breast milk - or the offspring? Which came first - the car - or the blueprints of a car? Which came first - the life form - or all the trillions of aligning factors necessary for that life form?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Time forms cannot apply because they vary, thus of no impact; the duality emulating asexual can be repeated in a lab in an instant. Rather, the fact there can be no action without an interaction [affirming the duality premise] is the fulcrum impacting factor here. The asexual premise contradicts this duality factor, which is seen throughout the universe and in all science viewed workings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
If one reads V14 in Genesis, it does not refer to the sun; only the sun's luminosity is referred to here, which many have eronously read as the sun appearing after the vegetation:
quote: This says the luminosity was critically focused to cater to the sustainence of the life already made [vegetation] and those that were to follow. Now, when read carefully, it becomes a most intelligent premise, in fact one which cannot be otherwise. This says the reason our planet has life is because the light and darkness were made to support life, while this was not the case with other planets. Everything found on earth can be seen elsewhere, which contradicts the absense of life elsewhere. H20 [water] is abundantly available on other planets; the critical fcusing of light and other elements however did not occur elsewhere as it did on earth; obviosly! Thus vegetation preceded photosynthesis. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024