|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your quite crazy. Swarms are not defined by size at all. Anything can be swarms, bees and spaceships. The mode of movement and multitudes [bulk movements] better describe swarms. I gave you two links showing that.
At least admit you error that the first listing of species is in Genesis, before obsessing what swarms of swarms emerging from the oceans mean, specially when the context is of life form origins and how they graduate to the next specie threshold. There is no other reading of this - name one? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined:
|
Oh really, let's review: Message 216
Message 226
Message 232
Message 244
Message 246
I particularly like that one because you are quite clearly stating that it has one reading, something you are contradicting later.
Message 247
Again, "only reading". Now, let's start taking a look at your changing opinion. Message 250
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
"can"? Before you were saying that there was only one definition and that you had given it. That no other definition was acceptable.
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
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
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
Message 271
REALLY seems like the last three messages have been exactly you repeating the same jargon. Message 277
And finally. Message 286
Basically, you're full of it. Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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. You need to learn what the word "species" means and how to use it correctly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 448 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
My HUGE problem with creationist thinking:
Creationists don't think per se, they believe! Everything else is apologetics in defense of that belief. This is why words need to be twisted, facts ignored or misrepresented, and why evidence makes no difference to them. And this is why debating them is so frustrating. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This was never the issue, you made it your flagship, ignoring everything else the debate was about: this seems your agenda throughout all your postings in this thread. Swarms of life forms swarming in the waters is of course not the issue; swarms of life forms, small or very small or very large, is a factual item, as is the case with water life appeared before air borne life. Just because this is first listed in Genesis which you run away from, does not mean you are countering it. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Correct. That's why it is an authentic text affirming its period of listing. The term specie is of recent vintage [Hello!?]; but the listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat is not recent. That life emerged in water is also not of recent vintage but introduced in a text which does not mention specie! If you look carefully, the word SCUD MISSILES also do not appear in Genesis. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 2532 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Land vegetation didn't appear until the Devonian or the end of the Silurian, by that time Agnathan & Placoderm fish existed as did a host of invertebrates.Check out a geological time scale. The area where fossils are found agree with it not with Genesis.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 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: 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 2011 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 2011 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What did they do for food?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 2532 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Algae, and cyanobacteria, at the bottom of the food chain, higher up the larger species, Fish, Arthropods & mollusks ate smaller creatures or algae. What would they need land vegetation for? None of these creatures were on land. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 2532 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Natural abiogenesis as opposed to creation(supernatural abiogenesis.) Only a hypothesis but has as much evidence as creation.
And by the way why are you comenting on one of my signature quotes in this topic? Edited by bluescat48, : added line There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 2011 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 2011 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Shall we say, a swarm of hypothesis as Genesis?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019