My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

It is you not me repeating the same jorgon and hyping up some self imposed negation here. I already responded with an example from a major dictionary. Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms moving around in a relatively high density - or in one tragectory. This is very apt with throngs of small life of all kinds leaving the oceans, excluding winged life forms at this time.Aside from this, I also posted the verse which applies to all life, as well as shown how these are listed in the text as transit life forms. You should have retracted or dropped your obsessive rejections long ago.

Take a look:

quote:

---

The First Temple was totally destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE when they sacked the city.[4] According to the Book of Ezra, construction of the Second Temple was authorized by Cyrus the Great and began in 538 BCE, after the fall of the Babylonian Empire the year before.
Temple in Jerusalem - Wikipedia

---

Message #262 Message #265 How exactly is that not "repeating the same jargon? Can there be swarms of locust?
Are locust the size as bacteria?
Can locust be seen by the human eye?Does "swarm" mean "life forms which can not be seen by the human eye" or does "swarm" mean "something moving around in relatively high density"?This thread is about why YOU (Creationists) can't be taken seriously as a result of the "HUGE problems" with your thinking.Trying to redefine a word to make a fairy tale say something other than what it says is at the very least dishonest.Until you can admit you were wrong, this tread will continue to be about the fact that you are lying.

Does anyone have a clue of what the core theme is?Did it ever even have a core theme?How about some closing remarks?Going to close this one down in about 24 hours.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Well, no, they're not, but that's beside the point (and if they are, there goes the global flood...there's no flood damage to the pyramids.) Hebrew is alphabetic.

---

Get yourself some books which are independent of European descriptions of history pre-2000! You have listed another reason which proves my assertion the flood was a regional one, the animals were domestic and limited to Noah's possessions [the texts!]

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is mentioned in a relic 100 years after his death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, he's not.

​

Hint: This is where you mention the item you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know which one you mean, but you have to go first. You're the one making the claim.

---

"HOUSE OF DAVID" is in the text of the Tel Dan relic and not open to any other reading.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying David is a myth?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I'm saying we have no real evidence for his existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but he certainly didn't the way you think he did.

---

That is dishonest if not cowardly. Your answer in backing away when you should not do so is not credible here.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life started in water; next up is air borne life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

But the Bible has it the other way around: Airborne life is described as coming first when it was the other way around. It also describes terrestrial plants coming first and that's even more ass backwards.

---

No sir! Check:

quote:

---

'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open

---

In fact, the order of life is listed with greater credibility than any other scientific treatise today, and goes like this:1. Light [universael action]
2. Seperation of light and darkness [universal action]
Next we zoom into life-anticipatory actions for the earth:
3. Critical Seperation of day and night by the action of focusing light and darkness on earth to suit numerous life forms which would come forth. [solar action]
Critical Earth actions:
4. Seperation of water from land.
5. vegetation.
6. Water life.
7. Airborne life
8. Land based life.
9. Speech endowed humans.
10. All creation ceased and completed; it was not extended and no creation of new stuff occured since then;this includes a song someone composes - its not new. ['There is nothing new'].Remove anything from that list and life would not occur. Hello Darwin!

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no proof of your claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Nice try, but you're the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they don't equal 5. It would certainly be nice, but it isn't a requirement.

---

That is another way of saying you have no proof - of a statement you made here. There is a host of evidences which affirm the writings of the Hebrew bible - these are always avoided by anti-creationists. The Hebrew writings is in fact the most believable and vindicated humanity possesses - no other writings have been as much proven by archeology, to the extent it is varied from the much later Gospels in kind than degree. Yet it is questioned the most!

quote:

---

Since the Bible's description of the order of creation is not in agreement with the way life actually progressed, it is your burden to describe how they can be reconciled since you are the one claiming they can.

---

There is in fact no alternatives to how it is listed in Genesis. You have not given one.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this apply also to a temple which was destroyed, listed in numerous books made before this date!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Except there aren't any such references. This would be where you lay your cards on the table. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who needs to prove it.

---

One would think a debate would not refute what religionists do with each other - but we find that anti-religionists have become just another fundy Talibanic styled religion! The first temple needs no proof - I mentioned it to point out the five Hebrew books had to predate the temple, which is a result of those books' advocations, making all arguements about claims about datings as bogus.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do need to learn it - it is indispensible: a host of primodial factors depend on it, and these are not found anywhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The identical case exists for the Iliad and the Odyssey. Why do you accept the divine claims of one set of books and not another?

---

Because one marks the antithesis of the other;the Hebrew writings stands alone in changing the ancient world; it KO'd the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans. The Illiad is 100% mythical stuff of head butting deities, is post-Mosaic, and even its later dating is disputed and claimed as bits added to by a host of writers. It exposes the utter dishonesty and guile of anti-creationists

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origins of three religions depend on Abraham and Moses being credible entities else they fall in a heap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Why does that matter? Are you saying that if a lot of people believe in a dumb thing, that makes it not a dumb thing?

---

Monotheism and Creation are not dumb things - there are no alternatives to it today, even when it is one of only two possibilities how the universe emerged. The point remains these are the most impacting factors of humanity today - by period of time, impact and cencus. Just about every law in every institution in the west is based on the 613 laws of the Hebrew bible. None come from another source.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
significantly, we have no 'name' older than Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The Hindu would have something to say about that, seeing as how it's older than Judaism and its writings predate the Bible.

---

Yes, its older and also very great. But not older than the retrospective datings of Genesis. We still have no Hindu name older than Adam.

quote:

---

And by the way: "Adam" isn't a name.

---

Yes and no. In chapter one, it refers to the head of a specie, namely a human. There was no requirement of a name when only one human existed. But it becomes a name in chapter two, even mentioning the word 'NAME' for the first tme and aligned with Adam - when Eve appeared.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the first 'king' is listed here as well as the first human cencus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Except they're not.

---

Nimrod. And the first scientific cencus refers to the Israelites in the desert, listed with sub-totals, gender and ages, in the millions. This is important for evaluating human populations in ancient times.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancient names listed in the geneologies in Genesis are today used by archeology to verifiy dates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No, not really. A couple, but only because we were able to validate their existence outside of the Bible]

---

Its the other way around. The name Adam [of the earth] does not appear elsewhere, nor a host of names in the geneology of Adam's tree, like Cain, Able, Noah, Shem, Ham, etc. All the names are authentic of its period - which is a mark of its accuracy.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other writings more important or offers more to learn from: name one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I've named two and hinted at a third source. Have you read them?

---

Please repeat them.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

How about this as a close off to "Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) "There is no problem, never mind 'huge', and these have been well squashed. There is no alternative to Creationism from a scientific POV; none came forth to name one - which is incumbent to do so.

Your list ignores the responses I gave, with links. Swarms can aso be applied to small things, while swarms of swarms refer to very small things. Here's another:

quote:

---

A gnat ( /ˈnt/) is any of many species of tiny flying insects in the Dipterid suborder Nematocera, especially those in the families Mycetophilidae, Anisopodidae and Sciaridae.

​

In British English the term applies particularly to Nematocerans of the family Culicidae. The common gnat is the species Culex pipiens.[1]

​

Male gnats often assemble in large mating swarms or ghosts, particularly at dusk.[citation needed]

​

Gnat - Wikipedia

---

I also responded such obsessive posts from you have nothing to do with the fact water borne life came before air borne life, and that is introduced in Genesis. You are a time waster.

Read the link to Chaldean at the site you listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonians
Section 2.2

One problem is that the term vegetation is vague. Water borne vegetation yes, then sea animals, then land vegetation, then land life, then airborne insects, then reptiles, land mammals, birds, sea mammals. The problem is the storytellers didn't know the relationships of the various types of life, thus their order is wrong.

For the 5th time.Yes, "swarm" which means "many things moving around together in close proximity" can be used to describe ANYTHING from something very small to something very big.Your claim is that "swarm" means "small" not "a group of many thingsEvery example you have given is swarm being used to mean "a group of many things".THIS example is "swarm" being used to mean "a group of many things".The sentence reads: "Male gnats often assemble in a large mating _group of many things_ or ghost, particularly at dusk."The sentence does not read: "Male gnats often assemble in a large mating _microscopic things_ or ghost, particularly at dusk."All you've done is prove yourself wrong. AGAIN.Do you see that?This whole idea that "swarm of swarms" refers to "Very small things" is bullshit.It means "a group of many groups of many things".In other words, if you were at the Barrier Reef in the ocean, there would be a swarm of surgeon fish, a swarm of parrot fish, a swarm of mackrel, a swarm of sardines. There would be swarms of swarms of fish. Many groups of many.Since swarm has NEVER meant "something small", then swarm of swarm has NEVER meant something very very small.Continuing to repost examples of you being wrong make me serious wonder if you aren't suffering from some sort of pervasive brain damage.You posts are a PERFECT example of the "huge problem with creationist thinking" in that you prefer to be dishonest rather than admit you are wrong.

You use all terms loosely, and you make up word definitions. This style of creationist thinking tends to divert threads from their original topic. You're using up the small amount of remaining bandwidth in this thread with disputes over simple word definitions, with the inevitable result that the topic itself is being ignored.--Percy

My claim is not that swarms means small only. I explianed this numerously. It can rfer to any size of a multitude of items hurling in one trajectory. Swairm of swarms defines the size in this instant, as well as the cntext.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Yes, the topic is ignored, as always with some posters who avoid numerous factors and focus on hyping up miniscule items as great errors. No retractions come from these posters when all their deflections are rebuffed.

No, the topic isn't being ignored.The topic is "Huge problems with Creationist thinking".A terrific example of a "Huge problem with Creationist thinking" is the trend toward making up new definitions of words in order to pretend that the Bible says something that it clearly doesn't say.An example of that is your claim that "swarm" means "nano life" instead of "many things in close proximity".This is my 6th or 7th time confronting you on it.You have, over the course of many posts, caved to the point where you are now admitting that swarm does mean "many things in close proximity" however you are STILL insisting that it also means "something very small".I've asked you for evidence 5-6 times. You've failed MISERABLY every time you try and present something.In fact, every single example you've given has been "swarm" used in the context of "many things".So, where are YOUR retractions?There are none. Because you can't admit when you are wrong.You've been caught in a lie and I sure as shit am not going to let you try and grease your way out of it by playing the "poor Christian card".You LIED about what the word means and you've been caught. Admit it.Continuing to LIE about it is just going to make me this go one infinitely.

quote:

---

One problem is that the term vegetation is vague.

---

Here we go again! Read the text, There is no confusion a host of vegetation, shurbs and sprouting kinds, are mentioned first.Unlike Darwin, Genesis does cater to the sustainance of life forms with anticipatory pre-actions: the veg get the sun and water; the animated life forms get their sustainance from meat also. The premise is:THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS.ToE allocated the greatest wisdom behind complex life and their emergence to a mindless, fictional old man with a white beard called nature. None have seen this deity.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.