ID question for creationists

Oh, come on. "It wasn't me" (the song) is obviously designed to be a parody of men who try and get out of things with that line. Have you listened to the song? The woman has pictures of him, heard him, watched him the whole time, etc.And I'm surprised that you, of all people, would try and use a talk show as evidence. Last, to toss a twist in: In your argument, Rrhain, you argue that perhaps it's easier to trick one sex in one way, and the other sex in another way. What do you think is it that could cause such an effect?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

A story needs to maintain internal consistency or it becomes rambling

---

Oh, not necessarily. It could be a postmodern genesis account. God could have been impersonating the style of Barth's "Lost in the Funhouse". ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Not necessarily. I love postmodern literature, although Barth gives me a headache. One thing that really gives a headache is to read Barth, and then read the last book in "The Girl With Curious Hair", which puts a couple more layers on top of "Lost In The Funhouse". Some postmodern literature is quite readable though, and really plays with your mind ("City Of Glass") and/or your emotions ("The Names"). There's all sorts of things I could get into... I took a course on it once... but it's the general idea. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Holmes:Both of you are getting a bit worked up about this - I suggest that you take a look at your posts, and take a breather. My only problem with your line of argument is that if you can interpret the word "die" to be symbolic, you can pretty much interpret any of the bible however you choose to.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

A nice, civil, well argued response. I hope Rrhain will respond in kind. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."