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

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

An example of that is your claim that "swarm" means "nano life" instead of "many things in close proximity".

---

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.

quote:

---

There is no listing of species in Genesis at all.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

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".

---

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.

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".

---

Yes, its the only reading in this context. Here, it refers only to swarms of very small life forms. What else - rocket ships?

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

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".

---

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.

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.

---

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

And finally.

Message 286

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?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

by that time Agnathan & Placoderm fish existed as did a host of invertebrates.

---

What did they do for food?

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!

What did they do for food?

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.

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

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)"?

quote:

---

Only a hypothesis but has as much evidence as creation.

---

Shall we say, a swarm of hypothesis as Genesis?