Creation Muesum

[Huggy Bear]

There were more things in the point you were responding to than just "talking animals," and contextually it was clear that the example of talking animals under consideration was the magically enabled, truly communicative kind and not literal parroted speech. Instead of addressing the actual point being made though, you honed in on the one point you thought you could win on, redefined it in a way that was clearly not intended when one takes the post in its entirety, and then pretended that you'd responded to the whole of the thing in a way that was both cogent and actually addressed what was being said.

You do this all the time. You don't respond to what people actually mean, you respond to a self servingly literal facsimile. It's like you've mistaken "technically correct," with "actually correct." You're like a teacher being asked "can I go to the bathroom?" responding with "I don't know, can you?" but instead of just correcting the grammar you're seriously acting as though you were being asked if they were physically capable of urinating. Whenever it suits you, you just suddenly lose the ability to apprehend what people actually mean and just go with what their grammar strictly states, no matter the context.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Quit acting like there's only the former.

Starvald Demelain stated that these three things did not, and have never existed.

1. ethereal wizards
2. talking animals
3. pure magic

I'm assuming he referring to God in number one, Show me where God has been proven to be non existent.

Number two I already addressed.

As for number three, just because YOU don't understand something, doesn't make it "magic".

It would seem that you're the spokesman for Starvald Demelain and know exactly what he was thinking and in what context when he typed his post.

I'm sorry, can you offer any other conclusion I could have come to when you attempt to just throw bible verses at me as though it were an actual argument?

Not that a tu coque fallacy is an actual response anyway, but I seriously find it hard to believe that an intelligent, reasonable person would think that what you posted there had any convincing qualities to it. So you're either capable of a reasonable argument but just didn't produce one, or you're incapable of a reasonable argument. Since you apparently don't want to address what I wrote back then- not that you did in your first attempt- then the question still stands: are you aware that your argument only partially succeeds even if we ignore the problems with it? Or are you unaware, and hence, an idiot?

The point in referencing the bible verses was to show you concepts that existed in the Bible long before science gave them a definition.

It's like Columbus getting credit for discovering America even though people were already living here.

For example Einstein is credited for developing the theory of relativity, yet when the Bible states that a Day to God is like a thousand years to man, that is clearly acknowledging that time is relative, long before science "discovered" it.