That is not the case. You brought up a list all on your own. The post to which you replied with your tale of finding a list was this:
You:
" and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?"
Speedwell:
""Lots of?" There are many Christian and other theist scientists in all areas of science. But creation scientists? Not so many. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that most of them are working for the creation science "ministries" like ICR, AiG, CMI, etc."
No mention of a list until YOU mentioned it.
oh man you are funny. Above you have the above quotes in a different order which shows context...now, you flip flop them to try to make a new argument...to make matters worse, I stated very clearly in that post that I was not posting the list here that it was posted in another site another thread and was dismissed without reason given. So, just because you don't know how to read for comprehension you think it is okay to twist what was said and manipulate into an new argument then demand I defend the new argument? Ha ha ha, no thank you that is rude, disrespectful and otherwise against forum rules to do and thus I would be in violation of forum rules to try to discuss it with you.
Right, sorry - I forgot that you are great communicator.
still waiting for you to show be a clearer way to make my original claim....lol I have a feeling I will be waiting forever.
Don't know, you are the first one to mention a list.
no I wasn't.
Claim? No, imply?
"Don't forget about those that understand it reasonably but because they don't believe in it, their objections are twisted and otherwise perverted till it appears that they don't understand because no one is listening to them only the reinvented version that can be argued against. "
For a great communicator, you sure seem to have issues with comprehension.
lol it is clearly stated...I have had an editor, and two different english teachers tell me that I am gifted at written communication, you have been invited to show how to rewrite it clearer and you have refused to do so.
You wrote:
"MY point however was that you all don't listen long enough or hard enough to know if someone knows the theory of evolution well enough to judge for themselves or not...." (ellipses in original)
I replied:
"One usually does not have to listen very long to draw conclusions. For example, when I see someone write something like "How can random chance create an eye", I know the person does not understand much about evolution. There are "tells".
You then wrote:
" but then again, according to you all the only thing someone could conclude upon understanding is that the TOE is truth even though it is full of holes and questions yet unanswered...."
whoooooooooo....whaaaaaaat..are you going on about, those are two different discussions you are mixing together there...wow, no wonder you have a problem with reading for comprehension. My answer to your "tell" was that of a list of different words that all can mean the same thing and you picked one from the long list to try to make into a tell even though the rest of the words were relating the same meaning...wow, just wow I even gave an illustration.
I replied:
"And there is another "tell"...
What "holes", exactly?"
Now, you are trying to claim that I ignored what you wrote and picked out one word (holes), because it was a long list of words that could all be used to mean the same thing?
that is the only part of the discussion I said anything about...it really seems like you are confusing me with another poster and trying to argue with me about something someone else says or believes...wow, please stop confusing me with other posters it is very difficult to keep up with what you want to say when you do so.
What list of words? You call your own sentences "long lists of words"?
My "listening" to your written words included me "hearing" the following from you:
" according to you all the only thing someone could conclude upon understanding is that the TOE is truth even though it is full of holes and questions yet unanswered...."
What, exactly, should I have "heard" when "listening" to that sentence other than YOU think that the ToE is full of holes?
As others have pointed out repeatedly, when pretty much every person in this thread has - according to you, anyway - problems "hearing" you, maybe it is YOU that are having a hard time communicating?
in context, I said, holes, problems, things not evidenced, inconsistencies, things not known (I really don't remember all the words I used, that is the thing about written lang. you can use any number of words to convey the same idea) etc.
Now, the mods just warned the posters here to stop goading others, please comply with their request before I am forced to report you. I really don't want to report you but your being inflammatory is an understatement at this point since you are not reflecting anything I said in context of the discussion it was stated in.
