The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm » Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:09 pm

I no longer read PauloL's posts and won't read this veghead's nonsense any longer either, but I am more or less forced to catch snatches of what they write when they are quoted in the posts of people I do read.

Anyone who thinks American English is a pidgin language is so woefully ill-informed and out to lunch that one cannot but laugh! :lol:

There are an estimated 18 pidgin languages in the world and no, American English is not one of them. :roll:

Whether one thinks American English is better or worse than British English is a purely a matter of opinion with no objective context at all. What about Middle English? Why isn't Middle English "better than" modern American or British English?

How about other languages? Russian? Is Russian "better" or "worse" than English? Why or why not? Does the question even make sense?

No it does not make sense.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:46 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:09 pm
I no longer read PauloL's posts and won't read this veghead's nonsense any longer either, but I am more or less forced to catch snatches of what they write when they are quoted in the posts of people I do read.

Anyone who thinks American English is a pidgin language is so woefully ill-informed and out to lunch that one cannot but laugh! :lol:

There are an estimated 18 pidgin languages in the world and no, American English is not one of them. :roll:

Whether one thinks American English is better or worse than British English is a purely a matter of opinion with no objective context at all. What about Middle English? Why isn't Middle English "better than" modern American or British English?

How about other languages? Russian? Is Russian "better" or "worse" than English? Why or why not? Does the question even make sense?

No it does not make sense.
The language is English. Bad spelling and horrible grammar do not a language make. Funny that the only person who agrees with you is a moronic creationarse whose first language isn't English. American usage of English is just offensive. Webster's effective lobotomising of the population is not something you should be proud of, nor should that eardrum-shattering, nasally foghorn noise your women make. But don't worry about me pumpkin, your idiocracy has poisoned the language everywhere, and you now have plenty of company, thanks to the snowball effect of the internet and thuggish campaign of Americanising every corner of the planet, with your butchered English and general stupidity.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:41 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:09 pm
I no longer read PauloL's posts and won't read this veghead's nonsense any longer either, but I am more or less forced to catch snatches of what they write when they are quoted in the posts of people I do read.

Anyone who thinks American English is a pidgin language is so woefully ill-informed and out to lunch that one cannot but laugh! :lol:

There are an estimated 18 pidgin languages in the world and no, American English is not one of them. :roll:

Whether one thinks American English is better or worse than British English is a purely a matter of opinion with no objective context at all. What about Middle English? Why isn't Middle English "better than" modern American or British English?

How about other languages? Russian? Is Russian "better" or "worse" than English? Why or why not? Does the question even make sense?

No it does not make sense.
Essentially all languages are pidgin. English has a core of Germanic, with cream topping of Old French laced with Latin and Ancient Greek and sprinkled with a little Bengali and other borrowings.
But then French (not called lingua Franca for nothing) is also a mish-mash and each of the English root languages are also originally mixed languages.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:05 pm

My point is that the language is called English. Americans seem to think they have a separate language. It doesn't even qualify as a dialect. One might as well say Jazz and Blues aren't music. The rules of music don't change just because someone comes up with a new style. The new style exists 'because' of the rules of music, not in spite of them. Music evolves. Language evolves. But a major third is always going to be a major third. Justin Beiber isn't going to change that. Abstract painting didn't change the rules of and techniques of painting as a discipline. There are univerally-accepted standards of excellence in every field. Noah Webster's phonetics failure hasn't changed the rules, it has just made the language ugly and ensured that fewer and fewer people are capable of making themselves understood coherently.

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:45 pm

Londoner wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:15 am

I gave you an example where observer's mental status cannot have any role whatsoever, like Euromillions or PowerbBall, but you contradict that and didn't even concede those are random events (in the sense aleatory).

Universe is written in capital letter in English to the best of my knowledge, like Nature, Biology, Sun, Milky Way, Physics and so on. If I'm wrong, tell me.

When did I say evolution, or more exactly natural selection, implies any judgement? And because it doesn't, can't we judge that?

Semantically speaking, the "right" word I used is an exaggeration of course. It means that reaction will only follow if any reagents likely to are present in the conditions that allow that. We could simply say if the right reagents are there, but you complicate and one must rephrase everything. This together with problems with English version used, which is meaningless for a foreign speaker aiming at communication only, makes things even more complicated.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:05 pm
My point is that the language is called English. Americans seem to think they have a separate language. It doesn't even qualify as a dialect. One might as well say Jazz and Blues aren't music. The rules of music don't change just because someone comes up with a new style. The new style exists 'because' of the rules of music, not in spite of them. Music evolves. Language evolves. But a major third is always going to be a major third. Justin Beiber isn't going to change that. Abstract painting didn't change the rules of and techniques of painting as a discipline. There are univerally-accepted standards of excellence in every field. Noah Webster's phonetics failure hasn't changed the rules, it has just made the language ugly and ensured that fewer and fewer people are capable of making themselves understood coherently.
All claims of universally accepted standards never stand the test of time,

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:03 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:05 pm
My point is that the language is called English. Americans seem to think they have a separate language. It doesn't even qualify as a dialect. One might as well say Jazz and Blues aren't music. The rules of music don't change just because someone comes up with a new style. The new style exists 'because' of the rules of music, not in spite of them. Music evolves. Language evolves. But a major third is always going to be a major third. Justin Beiber isn't going to change that. Abstract painting didn't change the rules of and techniques of painting as a discipline. There are univerally-accepted standards of excellence in every field. Noah Webster's phonetics failure hasn't changed the rules, it has just made the language ugly and ensured that fewer and fewer people are capable of making themselves understood coherently.
All claims of universally accepted standards never stand the test of time,
You are so unbearably PC. Go to your local butcher then when you need heart surgery.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:03 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:05 pm
My point is that the language is called English. Americans seem to think they have a separate language. It doesn't even qualify as a dialect. One might as well say Jazz and Blues aren't music. The rules of music don't change just because someone comes up with a new style. The new style exists 'because' of the rules of music, not in spite of them. Music evolves. Language evolves. But a major third is always going to be a major third. Justin Beiber isn't going to change that. Abstract painting didn't change the rules of and techniques of painting as a discipline. There are univerally-accepted standards of excellence in every field. Noah Webster's phonetics failure hasn't changed the rules, it has just made the language ugly and ensured that fewer and fewer people are capable of making themselves understood coherently.
All claims of universally accepted standards never stand the test of time,
You are so unbearably PC. Go to your local butcher then when you need heart surgery.
How's this for being PC?
What I said has got fuck all to do with PC you stupid twat!

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Harbal » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
you stupid twat!
Ad hominem and very possibly off topic. :D

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:55 pm

Harbal wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
you stupid twat!
Ad hominem and very possibly off topic. :D

Nope.
It's not an ad hominem at all. It was a pure insult. Calling a person a 'twat' is not an ad hominem.

AS actually implied an Ad hom, in that she implied that my argument was false because she thinks that people who display PC qualities are incapable of making an argument.
The fact is the regardless of whether or not I am PC, it remains true that so-called "universal standards" fail to stand the test of time.

If I were to say your remarks were wrong because you never finished school - now THAT would be an ad hominem. As it is, I just do not think you know what one is and like many people confuse an ad hom for what is a simple insult.

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:11 pm

Harbal wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
you stupid twat!
Ad hominem and very possibly off topic. :D
But quite accurate whatever you call it.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Harbal » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:18 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:55 pm
As it is, I just do not think you know what one is and like many people confuse an ad hom for what is a simple insult.
So that's why your insults are always simple, it's your way of avoiding the "ad hom", as we philosophers like to abbreviate it.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:21 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:03 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 pm


All claims of universally accepted standards never stand the test of time,
You are so unbearably PC. Go to your local butcher then when you need heart surgery.
How's this for being PC?
What I said has got fuck all to do with PC you stupid twat!
You would say that :|

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:33 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:55 pm
Harbal wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
you stupid twat!
Ad hominem and very possibly off topic. :D

Nope.
It's not an ad hominem at all. It was a pure insult. Calling a person a 'twat' is not an ad hominem.

AS actually implied an Ad hom, in that she implied that my argument was false because she thinks that people who display PC qualities are incapable of making an argument.
The fact is the regardless of whether or not I am PC, it remains true that so-called "universal standards" fail to stand the test of time.

If I were to say your remarks were wrong because you never finished school - now THAT would be an ad hominem. As it is, I just do not think you know what one is and like many people confuse an ad hom for what is a simple insult.
You were contradicting me with a statement of fact with no argument given.

There's no difference between these two because it's all subjective anyway.

Image Image

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7251
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:47 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:55 pm
Harbal wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:25 pm
you stupid twat!
Ad hominem and very possibly off topic. :D

Nope.
It's not an ad hominem at all. It was a pure insult. Calling a person a 'twat' is not an ad hominem.

AS
actually implied an Ad hom, in that she implied that my argument was false because she thinks that people who display PC qualities are incapable of making an argument.
The fact is the regardless of whether or not I am PC, it remains true that so-called "universal standards" fail to stand the test of time.

If I were to say your remarks were wrong because you never finished school - now THAT would be an ad hominem. As it is, I just do not think you know what one is and like many people confuse an ad hom for what is a simple insult.
My apologies. I see that you weren't 'ad homming' me at all. It was directed at someone called AS :oops:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests