Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
175 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 174 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,676 Year: 7,424/23,288 Month: 1,330/1,214 Week: 0/342 Day: 0/71 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 287 of 336 (637849)
10-18-2011 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:15 AM


Re: Swarms
My claim is not that swarms means small only.

Oh really, let's review:

Message 216

'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

Message 226

Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small]. There is no other way of describing nano life forms in an ancient text.

Message 232

Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano

Message 244

This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye.

Message 246

There is only one reading of it possible. Else the text becomes incoherent with superfluous words. The Hebrew grammar is the epitome of writing, transcending Shakespeare and Isaiah. The term nano was my 'legitimate' input.

I particularly like that one because you are quite clearly stating that it has one reading, something you are contradicting later.

Its 'swarm of swarms' - as in small of small.

Message 247

'swarm of swarm' - it is indiisputably referring to small of small - small as can be - extremely small, which is the only reading and in its correct context here.

Again, "only reading".

Now, let's start taking a look at your changing opinion.

Message 250

Swarming is also used to describe groupings of some kinds of bacteria

Clearly that's "swarm" meaning "grouping" as is seen in your use of the sentence "swarming is also used to describe groupings".

I refer you back to Message 247 where you point out it is the "ONLY READING".

But let's move on.

Message 253

Swarms can of course relate to small

"can"? Before you were saying that there was only one definition and that you had given it. That no other definition was acceptable.

I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.

IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.

So, now you are giving two different definitions of "swarm" after stating that there can only be one definition.

I particularly like how you insist that you aren't being "dishonest" while directly contradicting yourself.

So, were you lying before? Are you lying now? Were they both lies?

Message 261

I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this.

Wait, before you were saying that the text was perfect and could only be read one way. Now, you are telling us that you are using terms incorrectly on purpose but that we should ignore your errors?

If the Bible is perfect but you are full of crap, how can you claim that the anything in the Bible is accurate without lying to us?

Message 262

Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.

And now you've flipped back again. Before you admitted that it was groups, now you are going back to "it can only mean small".

Message 265

Swarms can refer to bacteria.

Message 271

Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms

It is you not me repeating the same jorgon

REALLY seems like the last three messages have been exactly you repeating the same jargon.

Message 277

while swarms of swarms refer to very small things

And finally.

Message 286

Swarms are not defined by size at all.

Basically, you're full of it.

Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:15 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:48 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 288 of 336 (637850)
10-18-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:34 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
At least admit you error that the first listing of species is in Genesis

There is no listing of species in Genesis at all.

You keep saying that "there is life in the water" is a listing of species. It's not.
Nor is "things which creepth upon the earth".

You need to learn what the word "species" means and how to use it correctly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:34 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:13 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 305 of 336 (637943)
10-18-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
This was never the issue

Actually, the issue is Creationists redefining words to mean something they don't in a half assed attempt to lend credence to their claims.

As such, we are still right on target.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:08 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:45 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 307 of 336 (637946)
10-18-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:48 PM


Re: Swarms
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

Hey dipshit, you are replying to a quote of YOU saying that my arguments are "thrash".

Now you are arguing with yourself over that subject.

I've never said that anyone's arguments are "thrash", chiefly because "thrash" is not a word.

And, THAT fits very nicely into out topic - words creationists make up or redefine to suit their purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:48 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 309 of 336 (637948)
10-18-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:51 PM


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.

Let's be clear.

Are you saying that the Bible states that vegetation predates other water borne life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:51 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 313 of 336 (637954)
10-18-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:47 PM


'Nuggin' writes:

Let's be clear.

Are you saying that the Bible states that vegetation predates other water borne life?

'IamJoseph' writes:

Yes. By millions of years. And this is first recorded in Genesis - which is the earliest known scientific statement in all recorded history.

Well, that's factually incorrect.

There was waterborne life prior to that life developing the ability to photosynthesize.

Vegetation does not predate other water borne life. It can't. It's an impossibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:07 PM Nuggin has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 317 of 336 (637961)
10-18-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 10:07 PM


The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living.

Does this sentence make sense to you?

Give us a break. Even you can't believe this bullshit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:07 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:37 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(4)
Message 323 of 336 (637972)
10-18-2011 11:21 PM


Creationist thinking or lack there of
In summary, anyone looking through IamJoseph's posts will see exactly what we are talking about.

Creationists are incapable of honest discussion. They have to bend over backwards to try and force their fantasy view of the world into the reality around them that they end up making up words and definitions to do so.

Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.

Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.

They should simply be laughed at and denied access to public education.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020