quote:My claim is not that swarms means small only.
Oh really, let's review:
'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye.
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.
Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small]. There is no other way of describing nano life forms in an ancient text.
Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano
This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye.
So what part ios confusing?
quote: 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.
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?
Its 'swarm of swarms' - as in small of small.
'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".
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: Now, let's start taking a look at your changing opinion.
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".
Yes, its the only reading in this context. Here, it refers only to swarms of very small life forms. What else - rocket ships?
But let's move on.
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.
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: I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.
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: 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.
No. You are saying that.
quote: 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?
You are saying if swarms also applies to small that I am lying.
quote: 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?
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: 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?
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?
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".
Idiot! It does not mean ONLY SMALL; it means only small only in the context of the text. Know the diff? Ugh!
quote: Message 265
Swarms can refer to bacteria.
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.
Which part is jargon? Let a Monitor enlighten us because all others are silent of one poster's jargon and hijacking every post.
quote: Message 277
while swarms of swarms refer to very small things
Swarms are not defined by size at all.
Correct. Swarms can apply to anything, small or big, which moves in a concentrated volumous trajectory.
quote: Basically, you're full of it.
One can say your posts are becoming swarm like. Am I lying?
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?
quote:Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
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!
quote:My point was that the term vegetation was vague in that it doesn't separate the water borne flora, algae, from the land based flora shrubs, trees, grass etc.
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:11 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind;
Algae existed long before the land plants and all the animal phyla existed before the land plants. All the animal phyla started in the sea.
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:Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.
There is no alternative to the duality factor for all actions in the universe - including life and inanimated entities. Genesis wins.
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?
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.
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:1/14: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years
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!