But none of the details actually illuminate what the phrase (either phrase) is supposed to mean. It’s apparent you don’t know; I can’t be entirely sure that Haarsma doesn’t know.
Another flounce. Apparently you at least enjoy that. Also, accusing me of lying is against the house rules.
I am sure you aren’t lying… you just THINK you don’t know. But there is nothing I could possibly tell you that Dr. Haarsma hasn’t said, on point.
The fact I cannot convince you that you do, indeed, know - - doesn’t make me an accuser. Your accusation just fleshes out the whole problem that you and I have whenever we attempt to cross the void between your mind and my mind.
Apparently, then, you don’t know what “disingenuous” means. Now, this might be the most arrogant and condescending thing you have ever said, and I do consider it insulting.
How exhausting all of this is… I must amuse you to no end … because we never seem to get to the end of your complaint.
As soon as you suggested I thought you were lying, I knew that wouldn’t be right.
So I documented my edit to a more gracious term.
I will accept that you are not in control of your expression and didn’t really mean “disingenuous”. I will in future assume that you mean something different from what you say at least some of the time. But you must realize it’s hard to tell when those times have arrived.
No, you don’t amuse me. The proper word is “frustrate”. You have spent most of your time refusing to address the point.Can you see how someone might find that frustrating?
So… no change from the status quo for you.
And I see you still ignore almost all questions. Are you doing that on purpose? Is it your intent to annoy and frustrate communication?
It is my intention to keep you from ruining my day with your constant and unfair complaints against me. And the less abuse I allow you to heap on me, the happier I generally feel. But in a moment of generous cooperation I can provide you a new addition, posted by Dr. Haarsma, further explaining his thoughts!
John, you might consider asking HIM your questions… instead of me… because I am certainly not someone for whom you have much confidence, nor do I seek that status:
The reason I have little confidence in you is that you don’t answer questions. If you don’t care, that would explain it. But why bother responding at all in that case? I presume you’re also unwilling to discuss the quotes from Haarsma, so I won’t try. I don’t see that anything I’ve said about you is unfair; then again, if you don’t care, why bother even saying so?
Judging by the quotes, Haarsma can’t explain himself either. But of course you don’t care, right?
And the reason I have little confidence in you is that you ask questions that can’t be answered in any greater detail than in the many many many ways I have answered them to the best of my observational ability:
WHY does God do that?
HOW does God do that?
Please… give me a break.
Ah, I see. You have misunderstood the question. I haven’t asked why or how, not even in all caps. I asked what. What does “God-governed evolution” mean? What does God do to make God-governed evolution happen?
Quibble Quibble … BOIL and QUIBBLE…
You have the best thinking of two professors … and STILL you are not satisfied?
How can anyone take you seriously?
If it’s the best, why have you been unable even to quote an answer to my question? Also, I don’t consider the difference between my question and an unrelated question to be quibbling.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard yet. You want me to remove CONTEXT CLUES from Prof H’s answers FOR YOU? I think you are perfectly capable of reading the words of another professor… in fact, you no doubt excel in this.
I’m putting you back on mute and ignore for six (6) months.
I find your incessant quibbles are affecting my ability to pleasantly enjoy my quarantine!
No. How could you possibly interpret what I said that way?
Yes, and I have excellently found those words not to contain an answer.
Ah, another flounce, at which you excel. Just as well, as I don’t find your posts illuminating.