Hello is not attested as a word before 1860. Its use is not international as it has been spread with the use of the telephone, being in some countries only known as a phone greeting.
Hell in a place in Norway.
Yes indeed. I've been there. Didn't know about this, though:
Mona Grudt, Miss Norway 1990 and Miss Universe 1990, is from a small town near Hell. During the 1990 Miss Universe competition, she listed herself as "The beauty queen from Hell" as a publicity stunt.
I once stayed in a hotel in Philadelphia which was amazingly cheap, and which turned out to be run by a messianic religious sect. If you said "Hello" to the desk staff, they reacted with theatrical grimaces of horror, apparently because "Hello" contains the word "Hell". You could wish them "Good Evening", but I think they preferred you just to say "Peace!"
I once stayed in a hotel in Philadelphia which was amazingly cheap, and which turned out to be run by a messianic religious sect. If you said "Hello" to the desk staff, they reacted with theatrical grimaces of horror, apparently because "Hello" contains the word "Hell". You could wish them "Good Evening", but I think they preferred you just to say "Peace!"
RickLewis wrote:I once stayed in a hotel in Philadelphia which was amazingly cheap, and which turned out to be run by a messianic religious sect. If you said "Hello" to the desk staff, they reacted with theatrical grimaces of horror, apparently because "Hello" contains the word "Hell". You could wish them "Good Evening", but I think they preferred you just to say "Peace!"
That's hilarious...maybe i should said them a few other words to comprehend...put them off English entirely!
Helsinki being the capital of Finland i find quite funny.
RickLewis wrote:I once stayed in a hotel in Philadelphia which was amazingly cheap, and which turned out to be run by a messianic religious sect. If you said "Hello" to the desk staff, they reacted with theatrical grimaces of horror, apparently because "Hello" contains the word "Hell". You could wish them "Good Evening", but I think they preferred you just to say "Peace!"
That's hilarious...maybe i should said them a few other words to comprehend...put them off English entirely!
Helsinki being the capital of Finland i find quite funny.
Wow you'd make an easy crowd to please at the Komedia!
There's a character in the British comedy The Inbetweeners, who says that he stopped believeing in God when he realised that god was dog spelled backwards. You are him but without the common sense.
chaz wyman wrote:Wow you'd make an easy crowd to please at the Komedia!
There's a character in the British comedy The Inbetweeners, who says that he stopped believeing in God when he realised that god was dog spelled backwards. You are him but without the common sense.
Yes, it does take more than common sense to comprehend the existence of God.
Nothing is quite as funny as KNOWING all atheists are wrong.
chaz wyman wrote:Wow you'd make an easy crowd to please at the Komedia!
There's a character in the British comedy The Inbetweeners, who says that he stopped believeing in God when he realised that god was dog spelled backwards. You are him but without the common sense.
Yes, it does take more than common sense to comprehend the existence of God.
Nothing is quite as funny as KNOWING all atheists are wrong.
reasonvemotion wrote:Science can neither prove nor disprove evolution any more than it can creation. Certainly there are no human eyewitness accounts of either.
You can only say that if you have your eyes closed.
There is much more in the way of proof for evolution than creationism (which is a myth).
There are mountains of fossil evidence, and many eyewitness examples of evolution in action.
Last edited by chaz wyman on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Evolution News and Views noted that Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the book The Signature in the Cell.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”
“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”
Meyer said it is incumbent upon us to develop a robust research program of questions that flow from an ID perspective. If ID is correct, life ought to look different than if it were the result of random processes of mutation and selection. One of the key predictions that illustrates how it ought to look different is the prediction about junk DNA. We’ve been saying since the early ’90s that the non-protein-coding regions of the genome — which the Darwinists said to be junk — are not going to be shown to be junk. If ID is true, it makes no sense for a designing intelligence to design an information system in which 97 percent of it is doing nothing. We’ve predicted that yes, you ought to see some mutational decay and some errors over time, but the signal should not be dwarfed by the noise. What we’ve been seeing in the last 10 years is that that prediction has been substantially, overwhelmingly confirmed. That’s an example of how the ID perspective is anticipating discoveries in science, suggesting testable predictions, and I think that’s the future of ID.
Meyer argues that intelligent design is critical of more than just evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection that lead to diversification, but of common descent itself.
reasonvemotion wrote:Evolution News and Views noted that Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the book The Signature in the Cell.
Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”
“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”
Meyer said it is incumbent upon us to develop a robust research program of questions that flow from an ID perspective. If ID is correct, life ought to look different than if it were the result of random processes of mutation and selection. One of the key predictions that illustrates how it ought to look different is the prediction about junk DNA. We’ve been saying since the early ’90s that the non-protein-coding regions of the genome — which the Darwinists said to be junk — are not going to be shown to be junk. If ID is true, it makes no sense for a designing intelligence to design an information system in which 97 percent of it is doing nothing. We’ve predicted that yes, you ought to see some mutational decay and some errors over time, but the signal should not be dwarfed by the noise. What we’ve been seeing in the last 10 years is that that prediction has been substantially, overwhelmingly confirmed. That’s an example of how the ID perspective is anticipating discoveries in science, suggesting testable predictions, and I think that’s the future of ID.
Meyer argues that intelligent design is critical of more than just evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection that lead to diversification, but of common descent itself.
What is your point?
Dawkins does not have to share a platform with any and every idiot that knocks on his door.
