Why Six Days? (Six Days of Creation, Literal Days or Era's.

I have documented my claims repeatedly in answer to your assertion.

Stating your opinion is not documenting your claim. The best you have done is present a quote that does not exist in the article.

You have repeatedly declined my request to provide any alternate explanation that the author will admit to in this article, which is hardly surprising, as there is none.

Of course I did, it is faulty logic to ask me to read the mind of the author. There is no requirement for me to provide an alternate explanation when I question your explanation.

Pointing out that you're hardly as open-minded as you let on is merely a sidelight, a fringe benefit of this little exercise in continually failing to penetrate the brick wall of willful blindness arrayed against me.

Nice tap-dancing but it still remains an ad hominem attack. You are trying to discredit my questioning of your position – a text book ad homenim fallacy.

Documentation, please. You have not supported your claim.

Documentation, you just made the claim – scroll up.

You claim it's not documented.

I never claimed it’s not documented.

I document and explain.

Presenting your opinion is not documenting. You presented a quote you made up and then built faulty logic on this foundation and then you attacked my open-mindedness when I called you on it. The best argument you came up with you something to the effect “if you can’t come up with an alternate explanation then my explanation must be correct”

You repeat your initial assertion that it's not documented.

I have little patients with liars. I have never once said “it’s not documented”

I generously assume that you simply don't understand the nature of what I'm saying, but I can think of other explanations, if you like.

So now your story is you “assume” I don’t understand – why did you make this claim earlier “which is pretty much impossible insofar as your "argument" here consists of "I don't understand what you're saying" Do you always put quotes around you assumptions or did you just make crap up again?

The best you have done is present a quote that does not exist in the article.

Excuse me?

Of course I did, it is faulty logic to ask me to read the mind of the author.

You don't have to "read the mind of the author" - you just have to read the article, wherein he dismisses all possible "design" explanations and presents you with either literal Genesis or random accident. If you're not going to bother reading, there's very little point in continuing this.

You are trying to discredit my questioning of your position – a text book ad homenim fallacy.

Oh, so you'll bitch endlessly if you even suspect that anyone's trying to judge your motives, but you have no problem whatsoever with trying to judge mine, eh? Despite the fact that I categorically denied any such thing, you know better than I do what I'm doing, don't you?

Nice work, but it's still rank hypocrisy. Typical. This is about the quality of thought I've come to expect, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

I never claimed it’s not documented.

"Not supported". Hiding behind your literal words and claiming that mine mean something else, when they do not, is the mark of a dilettante engaged in semantic arguments. Come back and see me when you can muster something substantive, but you'll forgive me if I don't wait by the keyboard for that to happen.

The best argument you came up with you something to the effect “if you can’t come up with an alternate explanation then my explanation must be correct”

Whoa, there. I "never said" that. Or are your ridiculous literalisms only available to you, and not me?

I don’t understand – why did you make this claim earlier “which is pretty much impossible insofar as your "argument" here consists of "I don't understand what you're saying"

It's a summary of the possibility I see. The other option is that you're not a fool, that you're willfully playing dumb. In which case, I have no time for those who pretend to be idiots, particularly when they are indistinguishable from actual idiots. CYA.

Data is not knowledge (maybe you should look up the work "knowledge" while you are at it)

From a late-19th century Oxford yearbook, the entry for Balliol College Dean Benjamin Jowett:

First come I: my name is Jowett.
There's no knowledge but I know it.
I am Master of this college,
What I don't know isn't knowledge.

BTW: the number 2 meaning: "The faculty of thought and reason". I understand why you are not familiar with this part of the definition.

A faculty, to be observed, must be demonstrated. A presumed faculty which has lain fallow for decades may be described in such terms as "putative," "hypothetical," or "apocryphal."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.