[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > > > > > that.   
   >> > > > > > > > Compassion, Men have that, it is integrated into the hearts   
   of men.   
   >> > > > > > > > Ever   
   >> > > > > > > > see   
   >> > > > > > > > firemen and or policeman cry? See the horror on their faces   
   as they   
   >> > > > > > > > hold a   
   >> > > > > > > > dying child or greatly injured child? Ever see or hear of a   
   cop   
   >> > > > > > > > showing   
   >> > > > > > > > empathy towards adults who were at the end of their rope? I   
   have.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Maybe you should tell Gabe that, given that he seems to think   
   that   
   >> > > > > > > someone who meant what they say or avoid playing games could   
   not be a   
   >> > > > > > > woman. I don't know how he would react to crying cops, but   
   remember   
   >> > > > > > > that he says Jesus is not feminine.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > It is a destructive sin for a man to be effeminate, why is that?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > We're talking about being feminine, (like a crying police man), not   
   >> > > > > effeminate like a transvestite.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > No, you are talking about something you know little of.   
   >> > > > You know as much about being a woman as the last democratic VP wannabe   
   >> > > > knows   
   >> > > > about being a man.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What are we supposedly missing?   
   >> >   
   >> > If you are speaking of yourself? Understanding.   
   >>   
   >> Understanding of what? That's kind of a vague accusation -- maybe   
   >> it's you that's lacking in understanding here.   
   >>   
   >> > > > > > Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,   
   and he   
   >> > > > > > slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh   
   instead   
   >> > > > > > thereof;   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made   
   he a   
   >> > > > > > woman,   
   >> > > > > > and brought her unto the man.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh   
   of my   
   >> > > > > > flesh:   
   >> > > > > > she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > The Bible never says she was a clone, anymore than saying men are   
   made   
   >> > > > > of mud; that was you that claimed that, and that's what I was   
   >> > > > > debunking.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > She was rebuilt into a woman, from a bone, the process is the same as   
   >> > > > cloning.verb, not noun.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > If you insist that the Bible says Eve was a clone of Adam, you'll just   
   >> > > have to face the fact that the Bible is wrong on this.   
   >> >   
   >> > Adam had X and Y in him. Eve had XX Men carry both genes that is why their   
   >> > babies can be either male of female.   
   >> >   
   >> > In regards to cloning as done by man here are the various forms of it.   
   >> > https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_Gen   
   ral_Biology/Gene   
   >> > r   
   >> > al_Biology_(Boundless)/17%3A_Biotechnology_and_Genomics/17.   
   1%3A_Biotechnolo   
   >> > g   
   >> > y/17.1D%3A_Reproductive_Cloning   
   >> >   
   >> > While it is not the last word or even complete word on cloning, it should   
   >> > open up you mind to help you be more aware of what cloning is and does, as   
   >> > well as why.   
   >>   
   >> I know cloning exists. I'm just saying a genetically a identical   
   >> clone can't be a different sex than what's cloned from. The   
   >> Y-chromosome in a female clone of a male would be missing, which would   
   >> make the female "clone" genetically different from the male, i.e., not   
   >> strictly speaking a *genetically identical* clone.   
   >   
   >Yet what I posted, which has nothing to do with the bible says it is a form   
   >of or a full part of cloning.   
      
   Part cloning is like being partly pregnant.  You either are or you're   
   not, with no "partly" in between.   
      
   >> > Again reading comprehension requires contextual understandings and not bit   
   >> > parsing to fit ones agenda.   
   >>   
   >> You keep going back to this "agenda" thing. I don't have any more of   
   >> an agenda as an atheist, than you do as a Christian in this   
   >> discussion.   
   >   
   >Yet I am open to listening, and discussing differences, you are not when it   
   >comes to God and Godly things.   
      
   How am I not listening and discussing differences?   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > Do you think women are wimps?   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Some are, but what is your point?   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > I'm trying to determine whether you share Gabe's evident belief   
   that   
   >> > > > > > > women are somehow less than men. Some women are wimps, but as a   
   rule   
   >> > > > > > > do they tend to be wimps, in your view?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Why do you always operate in the accusative. There is no reason   
   for you   
   >> > > > > > to   
   >> > > > > > think that of Gabe or myself.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > I wasn't "thinking that", I was questioning you if you had that   
   >> > > > > opinion of women. I take it from your reply on this that the answer   
   is   
   >> > > > > no, you don't think women are wimpy in general. Gabe Poirot may   
   >> > > > > disagree with you, though.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > You question via insinuation and presumptive thinking/statements.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > And that somehow prevents you from answering the question?   
   >> >   
   >> > Your attempt to shape the narration to favor your point, as if it were the   
   >> > fact of the matter, is a total distortion of freedom of expression and   
   >> > understandings.   
   >>   
   >> No, I don't have a problem with freedom of expression. After all, I'm   
   >> not forcing you to accept my narrative of the discussion, and you're   
   >> free to shape the narration as much as I try to.   
   >   
   >Actually, you do have a problem, and it is obvious in this thread. Among   
   >other things you try to rephrase what is said, and tell me what I am thinking   
   >and why I do things, that I know to be true via living experiences. Amongst   
   >other things.   
      
   None of those things, even to the extent that they're true, stops you   
   from using your freedom expression.   
      
   >> > > > > LOL! Did you really believe your YEC beliefs are a part of   
   mainstream   
   >> > > > > science?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Whatever YEC means. It has nothing to do with beliefs. It is a   
   statement   
   >> > > > of fact.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > YEC means Young Earth Creationist. If you didn't know that, you're   
   >> > > really ignorant about the subject. And your beliefs about young earth   
   >> > > creationism are not facts.   
   >> >   
   >> > It is not a biblical acronym. Nor is it a commonly known acronym outside   
   of   
   >> > certain circles.   
   >> > FYI   
   >> > It stands for York Electric Cooperative   
   >> > Youth Employment Certificate   
   >> > Youth Evangelism Celebration   
   >> > Young Entrepreneur Council   
   >>   
   >> The point was, those "certain circles" are what you should be a part   
   >> of. Googling those other kinds of YECs is just a sad commentary on   
   >> what you should know, going into this discussion.   
   >   
   >Having been unaware of what you are speaking of and the acronym used, simply   
   >means I do not dwell in that circle. I do not use Google and avoid it at all   
   >costs as much as possible. Yes, I know You tube is part of it, and I am   
   >looking for other places that are established that Google has not bought out,   
   >and messed it up.   
      
   So you don't use Google. Where did you get those other meanings of   
   YEC, then? Bing?   
      
   >> > And had you truly been an astute person You would have been aware of these   
   >> > things and differentiated what you meant right up front. ;)   
   >>   
   >> No, I expect a certain level of knowledge and familiarity with the   
   >> terminology used in the conversation, a prerequisite which you   
   >> unfortunately failed to match up to.   
   >   
   >ROTFL, It isn’t a prerequisite in the Bible. ;)   
   >Guess I don’t meet up to your standards of an average christian.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)