Catty really means-any of the various units of weight of China and Southeast Asia varying around 600 grams. As most intellectual people do not use slang terms, I never considered what context you were invoking with the use of the term "catty". Although any response subsequent to this post will definately fall under your slang definition of catty because you shall be arguing with yourself.

NO I admitted only that I do not use slang terms.

I knew your catty context of catty

and painted you into a corner with it by using it to prove that it is you that is being catty, not I.

you have not contributed even one statement on topic this evening and you know it.

partial quotes, edited posts, picking apart words and twisting meanings even when you are on topic and the people who have been on this forum for awhile already know this for sure if I have figured it out in 3 days.

Man I don't like what that says about me.

Cher 'Eljay',

So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between
... YOUR personnal opinion,
... or anyone else's for that matter,
... including creationists who might happen to be scientists,

AND,

... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate.

That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether.

Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether.

You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway).

Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp.

They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not.

And you see 'Eljay',
... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism,
... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view',
... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims:
'... that evolution is false!!! ...'

Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!)

So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality,

FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES :

... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT,

OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE

... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution.

The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit.

That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege.

But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena.

Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality.

The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective.

Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards.

So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools).

Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'?

I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner:

'... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof,
... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality,
... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.'

0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could,
... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!!

I apologize. I cant even remember who brought up this contradiction but they did and then feral and Eljay jumped in. Someone needs to just start a separate biblical contradiction thread. I agree it has no place and this one in particular is stupid. All that happened was either whoever wrote this was drunk at the wheel or someone inserted a contradictory verse later because they didnt read John 3.