Peez

Sorry, I don't understand.






Peez

Dlx2

Do not presume to know how my mind works.

Evolution is not responsible for the origin of life. Evolution is, however, unambiguously responsible for all diversity of life, and that includes the origin of species.

No, you're saying that because you want desperately to believe in a poor translation of the first few verses (which are highly metaphorical and overwhelmingly steeped in literary device) of a 3500 year old national epic.

Scientists, including biologists, know that science is interested in intrinsic processes, and that these instrinsic processes are natural and not theistic (unless you're a pantheist, in which case those intrinsic processes define God, but that's not your perspective). So when we don't say that explicitly, that's because it's understood.

Dlx2

Maybe you're completely ignorant?

Dlx2

Fable does not indicate origin. Fable indicates a highly allegorical story meant to teach a very specific moral lesson.

You really need to learn what the words you're using actually mean.

RAFH

Please note, I did not indicate there is a singular point at which one understands English, indeed, understanding is misused here. As used in the OP it is a matter of not understanding a field of knowledge, in this case, it is a matter of being unable to communicate effectively. In any case, the issue I raised was singular, the understanding, comprehension if you wish, of the terms "evolution" and "interrelation". These terms have definitions, definitions accorded consensus, which in language is what provides authority, definitions which is it clear either the OP does not understand/comprehend or the OP is willfully ignoring and applying the OP's own definitions. In either case, the intent of the effort, to communicate effectively, is not realized, indeed, the OP appears to have damaged any credibility the OP might have had.

As noted, the OP seems to have a strong antipathy for the term "evolution". Perhaps this is a result of his education or other cultural influences, whatever the case, it is immaterial. The OP appears to understand the process the rest of us refer to as evolution and even accept it as a valid theory, is but continues to object to the term "evolution", but remains adamantly opposed to the use of term which the rest of the world uses for such. It is quite bizarre. The only explanation I can offer is ignorance, either naive or willful.

RAFH

Perhaps when they are able to effectively communicate with other users of the language. That would include accepting and using consensus definitions.

BWE

This might help clear up what I mean.

Dlx2

No, it's pretty clear that the OP's problem is with the fact that evolutionary biologists don't feel the need to state explicitly that evolutionary theory excludes God from our understanding of origins, and as such, evolutionary biologists are somehow dishonestly hiding the fact that our science is completely Godless.

This is, of course, a rather irrelevant objection, as all science is, by its very nature, godless. Scientists may believe in god, but science necessarily can't infer the existence of God unless said God can be observed or directly inferred, categorized, and tested in controlled experiments.

Additionally, the OP has no understanding of the genres of folk mythology and their functions.

Steviepinhead

Well, BWE's link definitely nailed down the interrelationship between acrylic and linguistics in my mind.

I loved it when the woman "accidentally" took her pump off and began beating another woman over the head with it.

"Oh, um, this little thing? It just poofed straight from my foot to my hand! I did my best to keep it from jumping up and down on that lady's head, but it was just too strong for me...!"

Or maybe, "My shoe wasn't hitting the lady's head, officer. Her head and my shoe were just having an interrelationship."

GilgameshEnkidu

Isn't there already a topic on this in ~E~?