Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
implement: 1. A tool or instrument used in doing work; 3. A means of achieving an end.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
manual: 1. (a) Of or relating to the hands; (b) Done by, used by, or operated with the hands.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
What could possibly have made you think that your hands weren't included?
Wow.
I can't blame the Meeropols. If I were accused of treason, I'd hope my kids would spend their lives protesting my innocence. The ACLU is different. They're now trying to bring up the Rosenbergs w.r.t. Zacharias Moussaoi. Which, i suppose is appropriate; he's also guilty.
Actually the Meeropols were still in the closet while in college. I didn't know anything about Robert until years later when I saw their book advertised.
Well then check out the ancient babylonian myths.... :^)
BTW lots of creation myths from many cultures and eras have distinct parallels with Genesis.
1. As I said, it was not a "test case" it was an exploration of the boundaries of your definiton.
2. If you re-read the definitions you quoted you will see that the phrase "manual implement" appears redundant if, in your usage, a manual implement can include just hands.
Redundant how? An implement can be nonmanual - e.g., divine. Therefore, the adjective is obviously required, therefore it is not even remotely redundant.
Try again.
Babylonian creation myth:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/Ane/enumaA.html
Which is the same myth copied by much later by the Hebrews. No turtles at all.
Let us recap:
your post 1931:
"PS. If you can find me a manmade object that cannot be identified as such via evidence of the application of manual implements, or alternatively of a non-manmade object that evidences the application of manual implements, then I'll reconsider."
I suggested a clay figurine which would be manmade but without implements.
You then equated hands with "manual implements" and then suggested that an implement could be divine, requiring the use of "manual" to modify "implement".
My suggestion is that the terminology, as you are using it, could be confusing.
And my next boundaries question is how you would deal with a hand twined piece of fiber, say from a rotted piece of a a nettle or flax.
Making steel guitars and pipe organs "pedal instruments"?
If I have it right AntiGuv would consider feet themselves as pedal instruments.
instruments should have been implements. Caffeine time.
I didn't equate hands with "manual implements" - only an illiterate would do so, or think that I had done so. I said that hands are one of a number of "manual implements"..
When in doubt, look up the words, because I use words as they are properly defined unless I quite clearly state otherwise.
Anything that a hand has touched will have evidence of being touched by hand, unless it has been further modified, in which case it will evidence the further modification. If in doubt, go look up the word "forensics" and "DNA"..
I reject this inane, contrived notion that objects must be identified at a glance. If you're confused, pick it up and study it.
But really, the point of my reply was not to discuss ancient mythology. If you read it again, you might see that the point I raised could be just as easily satisfied by the iceberg example. Are you trying to change the subject?
Thanks for writing!
Try Iriquois and Papuan.
There is also a turtle involved in a Hind "churning of the sea" myth and soome other turtles in various meso-American tales.
I do not respond to the content of posts that use ad hominem arguments.
Should you wish to re-phrase you post I will reply.
I didn't use an ad hominem. <<<< That should be taken as a hint that the way many people use the term "ad hominem" to signify just any ole insult is a misuse of the phrase.
But if you don't take the time to check your references, people may assume that you didn't take the time to check the validity of the rest of your posts. Others may think that you are trying to pull a fast one (like tricking people into guessing whether Moses took two or seven animals of each kind on the Ark) by slipping an incorrect comment into an otherwise well thought out article.
You do have a bunch of self-appointed referees on FR though.
ad hominem: Richard Dawkins is a Marxist, therefore his views on evolution have no credibility.
not ad hominem: Richard Dawkins is a Marxist, therefore he's worthy of contempt.
from your post:
"I didn't equate hands with "manual implements" - only an illiterate would do so, or think that I had done so. I said that hands are one of a number of "manual implements".. "
That's ad hominem. You were trying to attack me, rather than my post.
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.