Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stuu's continuance in his irrationality concerning synonyms and synonymousness

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Yes.
    Oh, OK. In other words, when you say that two words have been "equated" one with the other, you simply mean that those two words have been contrasted, one against the other.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    You repeated a phrase with can't, but with a substitution of unable for can't.
    Yeah. So what? It was for the purpose of displaying that the one word worked grammatically with the rest of the phrase, resulting in a sentence, while the other word failed grammatically in the same context, thus failing to result in a sentence.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Mathematically you would call that equating them.
    In the first place, I wouldn't call contrasting a verb against an adjective mathematics, as you've just done. So of course I wouldn't call the contrasting of a verb against an adjective, "equating them".

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Line them up, cancel out all the words the two phrases have in common, what you are left with is 'can't' directly equated to 'unable'.
    Before, you said I did, already, "equate" the verb, 'can't', with the adjective, 'unable', whereas now, you are saying I would have needed to "line them up" (whatever that's supposed to mean!), and to "cancel out all the words the two phrases have in common" (whatever that's supposed to mean!) in order to have "directly equated" the verb, 'can't' to the adjective 'unable'. Why can't you get your story straight?

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    It does not prohibit them from being synonymous.
    False. You're wrong, yet again. Every word/phrase that is synonymous with another word/phrase is, ipso facto, a synonym of that other word/phrase. Every word/phrase that is a synonym of another phrase is, ipso facto, synonymous with that other word/phrase.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    I've blanked everything out, the only response I could defend ethically.
    At least you admit that you have to stonewall against the question I asked you, by your refusal to fill in the blank I provided. Wise choice, for you to stonewall--so long as you're trying to save face against your ignorance by trying to not reveal any more of it than you already have.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    I have to disagree there.
    I wouldn't say that you have to, because, by saying so, I'd be saying that you have to continue in your commitment to your irrationality.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    For example, compare these threephrases:
    - John the christian was swallowed by the lion
    -John the christian was eaten by the lion
    -John the christian was consumed by the lion
    OK. Also, you've just revealed that your irrationality even extends to your bloodlust for Christians.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    In this case, swallowed is synonymous with both eaten and consumed, but swallowed is too precise an action to be a synonym of the more general terms eaten and consumed.
    Wait, why did you say you were going to "compare these three phrases", yet, then, instead of comparing the three phrases you had said you were going to compare, you immediately started comparing three, past-tense verbs: 'swallowed', 'eaten', and 'consumed'?

    So, go for it: compare the three phrases you said you were going to compare, yet have not, so far, compared.
    • Are the three phrases you said you were going to compare all mutually synonymous? Yes or No?
    • Are the three phrases you said you were going to compare all synonyms of one another? Yes or No?


    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    swallowed is too precise an action to be a synonym of...
    This is more nonsense from you. Are you referring to your past-tense verb, "swallowed", here? Your past-tense verb, "swallowed", is not an action; rather, it's a verb--a word used to signify action. Are you really unable to distinguish between an action, on the one hand, and a word used to signify it, on the other hand?

    So, did you actually mean to say that "the verb, "swallowed", is too precise a verb to be a synonym of..."?

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.
    What, that you've a poor attention span? That you are intensely averse to trying to think analytically about the things you say, and about the things others say? You've already cleared up those questions for me, oh so many posts ago.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    ...not all things that eat grass are cows.
    How does talking about cows, and about other things that eat grass, have anything to do with talking about the nature of synonyms and of synonymousness? That's right: the former has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the latter. If you feel like you need to talk about the word--the noun--'cows', and about the phrase, 'all things that eat grass', or the phrase, 'things that eat grass', or any other word or phrase, in order to try to deal with the topic at hand, be my guest. But talking about cows and any other things that eat grass is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    I've just noticed those four question marks, and am quite concerned thatyou are prepared to forgo the conventions of punctuation as an expression of exasperation.
    Whose conventions of punctuation? You're a hypocrite who refuses to put quotation marks ("" or '') around words/phrases in order to signify that you're trying to refer to words/phrases, and not to things for which your words/phrases are meant to denote, as you do, here, for example:

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    I think the adjective sticky is more synonymous with the verb stick than with the noun stick.
    Your phrase, here, is not even meaningful; it's not even a sentence. What is an "adjective sticky"? I've heard of pogo sticks and walking sticks, but what is a "verb stick", and what is a "noun stick"?

    Why do you not agree that the following is correct, and that what you wrote is incorrect?

    I think the adjective, "sticky", is more synonymous with the verb, "stick", than with the noun, "stick".
    Your failure in this not-always-trivial area of punctuation is why I, earlier, had made this request to you--
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    Fill in the blank to indicate to what word or phrase you were referring by your pronoun, "which":

    The word/phrase, "____________________", is synonymous with the phrase, "comparing them as synonyms".
    --in response to your having written:
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    which is synonymous with comparing them as synonyms.
    I assumed that your phrase, "comparing them as synonyms", was that to which you were referring when you said, "comparing them as synonyms"--realizing (from my observation of your posts) that you're such a crappy writer that you're in the habit of refusing to use quotation marks where they are needed for disambiguation. I assumed that, perhaps, you meant

    which is synonymous with [the phrase], "comparing them as synonyms".
    And, I was wondering exactly to what word or phrase you were referring by your pronoun, "which", when you said that it (?) "is synonymous with comparing them as synonyms". That's why I asked the question, asking you to fill in the blank--against which fill-in-the-blank question you have demonstrated pride in your being forced to stonewall.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    More synonymous still are 'sticky' and 'likely to stick'
    Ha! Here, you actually, for a nice change, used quotation marks where failure to use them would have been a grammatical error. Way to go!

    Either two words are synonymous, one with the other, or they are not. But, since you are addicted to your irrationality and your nonsense, I suppose you're perfectly satisfied with saying things like, "some words are synonymous, but some words are more synonymous than others", and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Alarmingly, Google's dictionary gives this as an example of a synonym:
    "the Victorian age is a synonym for sexual puritanism"
    Is Google saying that the Victorian age is a synonym for sexual puritanism, or is Google saying that the phrase, "the Victorian age", is a synonym for the phrase, "sexual puritanism"? If the former, then only a fool, bereft of the ability to think analytically about what Google has said, could agree with Google. If the latter, then what's your problem with what Google said?

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    In which case, unable is definitely a synonym for can't.
    In no case, whatsoever, is the adjective, 'unable', a synonym for the verb, 'can't', just as in no case, whatsoever, is the adjective, 'unable', synonymous with the verb, 'can't.
    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by chair View Post
      We can discuss that, bearing in mind that it is a consequence of the theory of evolution, and not the theory itself.
      Aren't the consequences of a theory the only thing that matters to a theory? And when you say "consequences" you mean the logical conclusion of the claims of a theory, right?
      Good things come to those who shoot straight.

      Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        How about anything at all that puts a squeeze on the timeline of evolution?

        https://kgov.com/squeeze
        No doubt you will have heard of the phenomenon known as the Gish Gallop, in which creationists list a torrent of claims but leave no room for considering any one properly, with the aim of leaving the impression that there is no good response to any. I'm sorry to say that the page to which you link is a spectacular example of the Gish Gallop. But at least you have the decency to write 'anything at all', which is to negate the dishonesty somewhat. So, fair enough then, which ONE claim from that page would you choose first?


        'the river carved the canyon',
        14c everywhere it shouldn't be,
        dinosaur soft tissue,
        solar system formation problems,
        evidence against the big bang,
        evidence for the global flood,
        genomes that just don't fit.
        insects adapted to eat from flowers before flowers evolved
        birds appeared before birds evolved
        Butterflies existed 10 million years before they were thought to have evolved.
        - Cephalopod fossils (squids, cuttlefish, etc.) appear 35 million years before they were able to propagate.
        - Turtle shells 40 million years before turtle shells began evolving
        - Dinosaurs ate rice before it evolved.
        - Insect proboscis (tongue) in moths and butterflies 70 million years before previously believed
        - Mammalian hair allegedly 100-million-years-old show that, "the morphology of hair cuticula may have remained unchanged throughout most of mammalian evolution"
        - Shocking organic molecules in "200 million-years-old leaves" from ginkgoes and conifers
        - Jellyfish fossils (Medusoid Problematica 200 million years earlier than expected;
        - The acanthodii fish had color vision 300 million years ago, but then, and wait, Cheiracanthus fish allegedly 388 million years ago already had color vision.
        - 400-million-year-old Murrindalaspis placoderm fish "eye muscle attachment
        - Lower-Middle Cambrian... primitive fish displays unambiguous vertebrate features:
        - Fast-growing juvenile bone tissue
        - Trilobites "advanced" (not the predicted primitive) digestion
        - a "530 million year old" fish, "50 million years before the current estimate of when fish evolved"
        - Mycobacterium tuberculosis 100,000 yr-old MRCA (most recent common ancestor) \
        - Fungus long claimed to originate 500M years ago, now found at allegedly 950 Mya \
        - A rock contained pollen a billion years before plants evolved\
        - 2.5 billion year old cyanobacteria fossils (made of organic material found in a stromatolite) appear about "200 million years before the [supposed] Great Oxidation Event".
        - 2.7 billion year old eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) existed (allegedly) 1 billion years before expected
        - And even older cyanobacteria!
        - The universe and life itself (in 2019 with the universe dated a billion, now, no, wait, two billion!, years younger
        - Mantis shrimp, with its rudimentary color but advanced UV vision, is allegedly ancient.
        - Hadrosaur teeth, all 1400 of them,
        - Trace fossils "exquisitely preserved" of mobile organisms (motility) dated at 2.1 billion years ago
        - Various multicellular organisms allegedly 2.1 billion years old, show multicellularity 1.5 billion years sooner
        - Pre-sauropod 26,000-pound dinosaur "shows us that even as far back as 200 million years ago,
        - Extinct Siberian one-horned rhinos coexisted with mankind.
        - Whale "evolution" from hippos
        * arthropod social structures have been around longer than anyone ever imagined.
        Traces of very similar bacteria (to bubonic plague) were found on [an allegedly] 20-million-year-old flea trapped in amber
        - find two teeth and rewrite human history with allegedly 9.7 million-year-old teeth found in northern Europe
        - date blue eyes, when humans first sported them, to as recently as 6,000 years ago
        - get mummy DNA and rewrite human history with a thousand years of ancient Egyptian mummy DNA contradicting Out-of-Africa
        - find a few footprints and rewrite human history with allegedly 5.7 million-year-old human footprints in Crete
        - re-date an old skull and rewrite human history with a very human skull dated at 325,000 years old
        - date the oldest language in India, Dravidian, with 80 derivatives spoken by 214 million people, which appeared on the subcontinent only about 4,500 years ago,
        - sequence a baby's genome and rewrite human history with a 6-week old girl buried in Alaska allegedly 11,500 years ago
        - 180,000-year-old jawbone from Israel which "may rewrite the early migration story of our species" by about 100,000 years
        - re-date a primate and lose yet another "missing link" between "Lucy" and humans, as Homo naledi sheds a couple million years off its age
        - re-analysis of the "best candidate" for the most recent ancestor to human beings, Australopithecus sediba, turns out to be a juvenile Lucy-like ape
        - find skulls in Morocco and "rewrite human history
        humans mastered the art of training and controlling dogs thousands of years earlier than previously thought."
        - Evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it, yet
        - Evolution happens so fast that millions of mutations get fixed in a blink of geologic time
        - Observing a million species annually should show us a million years of evolution, but it doesn't, yet
        - Evolution happens so fast that the billions of "intermediary" fossils are missing
        - Waiting for helpful random mutations to show up explains the slowness of evolution, yet
        - Adaption to changing environments is often immediate, as with Darwin's finches
        - Fossils of modern organisms are found "earlier" and "earlier" in the geologic column
        - The "oldest" organisms are increasingly found to have anatomical, cellular, and genetic sophistication and similarity to "modern" organisms
        - Small populations are in danger of extinction (yet they're needed to fix mutations)
        - Large populations make it impossible for a mutation to become standard
        - Mutations that express changes too late in an organism's development can't effect its fundamental body plan
        - Mutations expressed too early in an organism's development are fatal [hence among the Enyart Sayings, "Like evolving a vital organ, most major hurdles for evolutionary theory are extinction-level events."]
        - To evolve flight, you'd get bad legs
        - Long before you'd get good wings
        - Most major evolutionary hurdles appear to be extinction-level events
        - Yet somehow even *vital* organs evolve (for many species, that includes reproductive organs, skin, brain, heart, circulatory system, kidney, liver, pancreas, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, lungs -- which are only a part of the complex respiration system)
        - Frequent appeal to "convergent" evolution (repeatedly arising vision, echolocation, warm-bloodedness, etc.) undermines anatomical classification based on trivialities like odd or even-toed ungulates, etc.
        AND (as in the New Scientist cover story, "Darwin Was Wrong about the tree of life", etc.):
        - DNA sequences have contradicted anatomy-based ancestry claims
        - Fossil-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by RNA claims
        - DNA-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by anatomy claims
        - Protein-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by fossil claims.
        - The multiplied things that evolved multiple times
        - Etc.
        The methodology used to create the family tree edifice to show evolutionary relationships classifies the descent of organisms based on such attributes as odd-toed and even-toed ungulates.
        * Rampant Convergence: Ubiquitous appeals to "convergent" evolution
        * Astronomy's Big Evolution Squeeze:
        * a few billion years ago the Sun would have been far more unstable and cooler.
        * Zircons Freeze in Molten Eon Squeezing Earth's Evolution
        * Life to Evolve with Super Radioactivity
        * The impossibility of the "big bang" explanation of the uniformity of the uranium ratio
        * Remarkable Sponges? genes for an entire network of many specialized cells evolved and laid the basis for the core gene logic of organisms that no longer functioned as single cells
        There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome.
        scientists will discover a genetic pattern resulting from not three but four sons of Noah's wife.
        Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham … And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years.
        Y-chromosome haplotype differences confirm a distinct paternal genealogy for Jewish priests.
        Mitochondrial Eve a mere 6000 years old
        Y-Chromosomal Adam (Really, Noah): Further, scientists found the genetic evidence that the human race descended from a single man.
        - Stickleback fish rapidly adapted to survive in colder water but now they die more quickly, showing the survival "cost" of adaptation.
        - A Darwinist professor asks, if we can't get moas right, that is, if we so misunderstand these extinct bird species from only 650 years ago, how can we get hominids right?
        - Beetle larvae have eight regular eyes and four eyes with simultaneous bifocal vision to see close-up prey.
        - Infants can't digest 20% of mom's milk, which sugary portion was designed by God as bait for germs.
        * If Chimps are 95% Human, Sponges are 70%
        * 20,500 Human Genes; 18,000 Sponge Genes
        * Genes Evolved Hundreds of Millions of Years Before Explosion of Life

        [Apologies to all for the wear on your scroll wheels]
        By the way, you should tell 6days about this one:

        the astounding lack of genetic diversity in humans, plants, and animals, so much so that it could all be accounted for in just about 200 generations!

        Stuart

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          If you would stop looking at everything through your materialists glasses, you might be able to see.
          To see what? That it is possible for a man to have only one parent?

          Stuu: Given the amount of scholarship in this field, can I take it you agree there is value in studying the claims of scripture in their historical contexts?
          It's been done and confirms the Biblical accounts.
          Well, it depends which scholar you ask, doesn't it. The events of the Census of Quirinius and the slaughter of the innocents cannot align in the way described in the gospels. That is definitely not confirmed in history, but rather negated.
          Your extreme bias well never let you out of your box.
          I think it is extreme bias to just assert that 'John' (whomever he was) was an eyewitness.
          There are a million different ways to "compare the genomes". Genomes are not flat text files. And even then, similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a relationship via descent (i.e., ancestry). They are just as easily explained by a common designer.
          I don't think that is an answer to my point about there being three techniques that independently agree on the same tree of life. But since you mention a common designer, can I ask you this: because of common design, would you expect the same function to be performed in the same way in different species?

          Stuart

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            To see what? That it is possible for a man to have only one parent?
            Yes. Your world view does not allow it. That does not mean that it didn't happen.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Stuu: Given the amount of scholarship in this field, can I take it you agree there is value in studying the claims of scripture in their historical contexts?

            Well, it depends which scholar you ask, doesn't it. The events of the Census of Quirinius and the slaughter of the innocents cannot align in the way described in the gospels. That is definitely not confirmed in history, but rather negated.

            I think it is extreme bias to just assert that 'John' (whomever he was) was an eyewitness.
            Once again, you've decided that you won't believe it no matter what the evidence indicates.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            I don't think that is an answer to my point about there being three techniques that independently agree on the same tree of life. But since you mention a common designer, can I ask you this: because of common design, would you expect the same function to be performed in the same way in different species?

            Stuart
            No necessarily.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              You can't be in a rational discussion on science matters that bases what is to be accepted on what the consensus is.
              I'm not necessarily requiring you to accept the view of the consensus, but if we are going to use science as the tool, then the starting point really should be an established theory, if there is one. There is no falsifiable theory of creation, so that can't be the starting point in a scientific discussion about the origins of variety of species of life. This is a problem for creationists, I think, that they wish to claim they are doing science, for whatever reasons they have, but don't feel comfortable engaging with the conventions of science, which include the rudeness of put up or shut up. It's not a place for those of a nervous disposition.

              Stuu: The accurate situation is that science would call evolution by natural selection a fact by dint of it being the only explanation we have, with no other radically different rival in sight.
              Sounds like your mind is made up. There is no point for you to enter this discussion.
              Maybe it does sound like that. But it is true that there is no alternative explanation for the variety of life on Earth that reasonably accounts for all the evidence. You may consider a creationist view an account for the evidence, but it is not an explanation because it has no mechanisms in it.
              Or we could just ignore consensus and discuss the evidence.
              Of course, always discuss evidence. But there is no ultimate point in that if you don't try to model the evidence and use it to generate further testable hypotheses. Otherwise Rutherford really is right, the only real science is physics and all else is stamp collecting.
              OP says "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life." I agree.
              Yes, your customary insistence on the OP. Widely abused on TOL! Maybe the OP is the point where the idea of consensus is most important, because there is no consensus on how the first population of something living got started, whereas there is almost universal consensus on how that first population began to evolve and diversify. So at least we know what model exists that can be tested, and where there isn't yet a model fit for falsification.
              I am justified in what I hold to in science as long as it has not been shown impossible. There is no obligation upon me to overthrow other ideas to allow space for mine.
              Indeed there is no such obligation, but you may wish to consider the load of cognitive dissonance you place on yourself by that. Something being shown to be impossible is a very high standard to set, and lies dangerously close to the impossibility of proving that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist and isn't orbiting the sun somewhere out there. A more workable justification for most people I think is to reject beliefs that have a very low probability. It's not impossible that geology involves hydroplates, but hydroplates don't explain the appearance of the Himalayas, and so the probability of hydroplates being the best explanation is very low.

              Stuu: Bunny rabbit fossils in Cambrian rock.
              Sounds like that's the only thing that would ever convince you.
              Possibly! Or, even just one clear human ERV sequence that appeared in a fish but not in a gorilla.
              Nope. That's just the theory. It's open to improvement.
              Or, it's the theory, the best explanation we have, and is open to being disproved but hasn't been. People will keep trying to disprove it, but it until it is disproved, it has the full and proper status of a scientific theory.
              You just made that up.
              Well it's more a matter of worldview I think. I claimed earlier that Occam's Razor is a major reason for the respect in which science is held. If that's right, then I believe one can hold a more 'respectable' world view by eliminating untestable assumptions. Compared with a christian, I think I have quite a short list of untestable assumptions:

              Stuu's assumptions:
              1. Stuu exists (I have to assume that because I can't independently demonstrate it)
              2. The universe I observe is not an illusion

              A. Christian's assumptions:
              1. A. Christian exists
              2. The observed universe is not an illusion
              3. A creator with a will exists
              4. The creator actively carries out its will, including occasional suspension of 2.

              Feel free to criticise my list if you wish. I am sure it does not possess the robustness of the work of proper philosophers, who apparently are still confused about the sound of one hand clapping, or something.

              Stuart

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                I'm not necessarily requiring you to accept the view of the consensus, but if we are going to use science as the tool, then the starting point really should be an established theory, if there is one. There is no falsifiable theory of creation, so that can't be the starting point in a scientific discussion about the origins of variety of species of life. This is a problem for creationists, I think, that they wish to claim they are doing science, for whatever reasons they have, but don't feel comfortable engaging with the conventions of science, which include the rudeness of put up or shut up. It's not a place for those of a nervous disposition.
                Neither creation nor evolution are falsifiable scientific theories. Nor can they be. They are both philosophies about the origin of life.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                Stuu: The accurate situation is that science would call evolution by natural selection a fact by dint of it being the only explanation we have, with no other radically different rival in sight.

                Maybe it does sound like that. But it is true that there is no alternative explanation for the variety of life on Earth that reasonably accounts for all the evidence. You may consider a creationist view an account for the evidence, but it is not an explanation because it has no mechanisms in it.
                Baloney. Both creation and evolution have the same evidence to use to explain their understanding of that evidence.

                And, while creationists are willing to deal directly with the evidence, evolutionists tell fanciful stories that go WELL BEYOND what the evidence can actually say.

                That the originally created kinds have "changed" and diverged is NOT a problem for creationists. Though evolutionists will repeat, ad nauseam, that somehow it is.
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Oh, OK. In other words, when you say that two words have been "equated" one with the other, you simply mean that those two words have been contrasted, one against the other.
                  Well sure, but wouldn't you stop for a nice cup of tea at compared before storming off into the maddening rush hour of contrasted?
                  I would have needed to "line them up"
                  You did that not just figuratively, but indeed literally.
                  Why can't you get your story straight?
                  Sometimes straightening your story involves a robust discussion with the person who continues to bend it while you're not looking.
                  Every word/phrase that is synonymous with another word/phrase is, ipso facto, a synonym of that other word/phrase.
                  No. Sheep also eat grass.
                  Every word/phrase that is a synonym of another phrase is, ipso facto, synonymous with that other word/phrase.
                  Yes.
                  At least you admit that you have to stonewall against the question I asked you, by your refusal to fill in the blank I provided.
                  I think what you mean to write is: "your deleting of a section of my post indicates something, but I haven't got enough evidence to draw a valid cause-and-effect conclusion".
                  OK. Also, you've just revealed that your irrationality even extends to your bloodlust for Christians.
                  I don't think either is irrational. But I don't imagine the lions determined which humans they preferred on theological grounds, it was more the Romans doing the choosing for them, a matter of taste on which it would be irrational for me to pass commentary while expecting no retribution from a mod.
                  Wait, why did you say you were going to "compare these three phrases", yet, then, instead of comparing the three phrases you had said you were going to compare, you immediately started comparing three, past-tense verbs: 'swallowed', 'eaten', and 'consumed'?
                  I was just following your technique.
                  Are you referring to your past-tense verb, "swallowed", here? Your past-tense verb, "swallowed", is not an action; rather, it's a verb--a word used to signify action. Are you really unable to distinguish between an action, on the one hand, and a word used to signify it, on the other hand?
                  I see you are a fan of Magritte.
                  What, that you've a poor attention span?
                  Hey, I'm a cricket fan. I can do marathon attention.
                  How does talking about cows, and about other things that eat grass, have anything to do with talking about the nature of synonyms and of synonymousness? That's right: the former has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the latter. If you feel like you need to talk about the word--the noun--'cows', and about the phrase, 'all things that eat grass', or the phrase, 'things that eat grass', or any other word or phrase, in order to try to deal with the topic at hand, be my guest. But talking about cows and any other things that eat grass is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
                  They are synonym cows eating synonymous grass.
                  Whose conventions of punctuation?
                  Isn't that a contradiction in terms? You can't allow each person to have their own convention of punctuation, because then it's not really a convention.
                  You're a hypocrite who refuses to put quotation marks ("" or '') around words/phrases in order to signify that you're trying to refer to words/phrases, and not to things for which your words/phrases are meant to denote,
                  How do you conclude that I refuse thus? It might be done as a brilliant literary device.
                  Why do you not agree that the following is correct, and that what you wrote is incorrect?
                  I think the adjective, "sticky", is more synonymous with the verb, "stick", than with the noun, "stick".
                  As you will have appreciated from my claim regarding my attention span, I live in one of the colonies that did not foolishly give up cricket, and thus the British convention applies, which would be 'sticky' and not the North American "sticky".

                  If I have failed to use any such punctuation, it is either because I believe passionately that one should have one's own conventions of punctuation, or else it's apathy. I can't really be bothered to work out which one it was on this particular occasion.
                  I suppose you're perfectly satisfied with saying things like, "some words are synonymous, but some words are more synonymous than others", and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
                  I don't think those situations are analogous. I would replace it with ' (or not ', but certainly not ") some words are synonyms, and some synonymous terms are more synonymous than others'.
                  Is Google saying that the Victorian age is a synonym for sexual puritanism, or is Google saying that the phrase, "the Victorian age", is a synonym for the phrase, "sexual puritanism"? If the former, then only a fool, bereft of the ability to think analytically about what Google has said, could agree with Google. If the latter, then what's your problem with what Google said?
                  All good questions. Google is a synonym for Hitler, with no danger of contradiction from them.
                  In no case, whatsoever, is the adjective, 'unable', a synonym for the verb, 'can't',
                  Correct.
                  just as in no case, whatsoever, is the adjective, 'unable', synonymous with the verb, 'can't.
                  Cats sometimes eat grass too.

                  Stuart

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    No. Sheep also eat grass.
                    Sad. You can't tell the difference between sheep, on the one hand, and the word, 'sheep', on the other.

                    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    They are synonym cows eating synonymous grass.
                    You can't tell the difference between a cow, on the one hand, and the synonym, 'cow', on the other.
                    You can't tell the difference between grass, on the one hand, and the synonymous word, 'grass', on the other.

                    Why, then--in light of your being pridefully steeped in such elementary error--would you expect anybody to take you even the least bit seriously in your ravings about synonyms and synonymousness, let alone, in your ravings about less elementary things?

                    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    or else it's apathy.
                    Oh, well if you're apathetic, then, by all means, feel free to quit begging for my attention.

                    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    I can't really be bothered
                    Then, again, feel free to quit begging me for attention.

                    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    Cats sometimes eat grass too.
                    Since you've demonstrated that you can't tell the difference between a cat and the word, 'cat', and the difference between sheep and the word, 'sheep'--and since, in your current state of mind, you will invariably fail in regards to other such elementary differences--then pardon me for having to write you off as non compos mentis, and as wholly incapable of having a meaningful conversation with rationally-thinking persons such as myself, and many others.

                    I will pray for you.
                    Last edited by 7djengo7; November 1st, 2019, 07:25 PM.
                    All my ancestors are human.
                    PS: All your ancestors are human.
                    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                      Sad. You can't tell the difference between sheep, on the one hand, and the word, 'sheep', on the other.
                      Just to be clear, let me give you the code I typically use:

                      When I write 'sheep', that is the series of letters that I use to represent the word sheep. When I wish to represent an actual sheep, I will instead write 'sheep'.

                      If you were willing, for my edification, you might let me know your own technique for distinguishing the two.
                      You can't tell the difference between a cow, on the one hand, and the synonym, 'cow', on the other. You can't tell the difference between grass, on the one hand, and the synonymous word, 'grass', on the other.
                      In the case of the metaphor to which this collection of animals is attached, cow is a synonym for sheep, and sheep is a synonym for cat, and with the symmetries thus set up, cat becomes inexorably a synonym for cow.
                      Why, then--in light of your being pridefully steeped in such elementary error--would you expect anybody to take you even the least bit seriously in your ravings about synonyms and synonymousness, let alone, in your ravings about less elementary things?
                      It's a fine line here between the raving of a lunatic and genius.
                      I will pray for you.
                      I am sure you mean well, but if it is all the same then I would prefer you not do that. For I have intentionally blasphemed without repenting for the purpose of avoiding ending up in the Judeo-christian heaven, which I am told involves an eternity, a fate I am very keen to avoid. Of course I don't believe there really is such a state, and you may think me unlikely to qualify in any case, but I want to make sure I avoid it and so if you would refrain from accidentally succeeding in revoking my intentional unpardonable sin I would be most grateful.

                      Stuart

                      Comment


                      • I was wrong.

                        South Africa trounced them.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          I'm not necessarily requiring you to accept the view of the consensus, but if we are going to use science as the tool, then the starting point really should be an established theory, if there is one.
                          There is no such thing as an "established theory." It's a contradiction in terms.

                          There is no falsifiable theory of creation.
                          Of course there is.

                          You may wish to consider the load of cognitive dissonance you place on yourself by that. Something being shown to be impossible is a very high standard to set, and lies dangerously close to the impossibility of proving that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist and isn't orbiting the sun somewhere out there. A more workable justification for most people I think is to reject beliefs that have a very low probability.
                          It works just fine.

                          It's not impossible that geology involves hydroplates, but hydroplates don't explain the appearance of the Himalayas.
                          Did you spend any time researching what Hydroplate says about the Himalayas?

                          Well it's more a matter of worldview I think. I claimed earlier that Occam's Razor is a major reason for the respect in which science is held. If that's right, then I believe one can hold a more 'respectable' world view by eliminating untestable assumptions. Compared with a christian, I think I have quite a short list of untestable assumptions:

                          Stuu's assumptions:
                          1. Stuu exists (I have to assume that because I can't independently demonstrate it)
                          2. The universe I observe is not an illusion

                          A. Christian's assumptions:
                          1. A. Christian exists
                          2. The observed universe is not an illusion
                          3. A creator with a will exists
                          4. The creator actively carries out its will, including occasional suspension of 2.
                          That's not a fair or rational way to approach the difference between our ideas sets. For every assumption we make that you disagree with, that is an assumption that you also hold, just the opposite view. So we assume a Creator. You disagree, which means you assume no Creator.

                          This makes counting assumptions a senseless task, unless you know of one that does not have a negation.

                          What we have to do is compare ideas, the assertion against its negation. Ie, in a universe that has initial conditions so dramatically ideal to accommodate life, which is the more reasonable assumption: A Creator, or no Creator?

                          Feel free to criticise my list if you wish. I am sure it does not possess the robustness of the work of proper philosophers, who apparently are still confused about the sound of one hand clapping, or something.


                          The lists can be as long as they like, but they will always be equal in number for both sides.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • 1987: 4
                            1991: 1
                            1995: 0
                            1999: 2
                            2003: 2
                            2007: 0
                            2011: 2
                            2015: 5
                            2019: 2

                            NZ have scored seven in four games (1.75 per game), Australia 6/4 (1.5), France and South Africa 2/3 and England 1/3.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              There is no such thing as an "established theory." It's a contradiction in terms.
                              That just has to be a denial of the situation. Whether it is right or not, evolution by natural selection is the working explanation 'established' for virtually 100% of biologists. If not 100%, then 99.9%. I would call that established, and I'm curious to know why you wouldn't.
                              Of course there is.
                              One that hasn't already been falsified?
                              Did you spend any time researching what Hydroplate says about the Himalayas?
                              Yes, I remember doing a reasonable amount of reading. Of course this could be an opportunity for you to put the record straight regarding a hydroplate model for what, again 100% or at least 99.9% of, geologists might call a 'relatively recent' tectonic collision in the formation of the Himalayas.

                              Stuu's assumptions:
                              1. Stuu exists (I have to assume that because I can't independently demonstrate it)
                              2. The universe I observe is not an illusion

                              A. Christian's assumptions:
                              1. A. Christian exists
                              2. The observed universe is not an illusion
                              3. A creator with a will exists
                              4. The creator actively carries out its will, including occasional suspension of 2.

                              That's not a fair or rational way to approach the difference between our ideas sets. For every assumption we make that you disagree with, that is an assumption that you also hold, just the opposite view. So we assume a Creator. You disagree, which means you assume no Creator.
                              I don't assume there is no creator. I believe all god hypotheses are testable, so it does not have to be an assumption. Of course I conclude there is nothing like the Judeo-christian god on the basis of the evidence presented for it, but I don't make it a 'given' that there isn't one, and it is always open to further (or any) unambiguous evidence.

                              But I maintain that Judeo-christian believers must assume the existence of their god because there is no unambiguous reason in scripture or observation to believe it is real. Maybe you believe your god is falsifiable, in which case I would accept you removing it from the list of your assumptions. But I would then be very interested to know the falsifiability criteria.

                              On the other hand, given the ambiguous claims made for the Judeo-christian god (can you see it, hear it etc? scripture gives contradictory claims) then it really has to be an assumption, and I think most christians would use the word faith as a proxy for assumption.
                              What we have to do is compare ideas, the assertion against its negation. Ie, in a universe that has initial conditions so dramatically ideal to accommodate life, which is the more reasonable assumption: A Creator, or no Creator?
                              As Douglas Adams put it, that would be like having a puddle surprised at how well it fits its hole.

                              Stuart

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                1987: 4
                                1991: 1
                                1995: 0
                                1999: 2
                                2003: 2
                                2007: 0
                                2011: 2
                                2015: 5
                                2019: 2

                                NZ have scored seven in four games (1.75 per game), Australia 6/4 (1.5), France and South Africa 2/3 and England 1/3.
                                That's a much better ranking system for world rugby.

                                Stuart

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X