Is Evolution Grammatically Correct?

[stiggy wiggy]

Music implies a musician.

A farm implies a farmer.

A sculpture implies a sculptor.

A painting implies a painter.

See the simple logic which our grammarian ancestors used in making nouns from verbs? The subjects implied the direct objects and vice versa.

Oh, and there's this one:

A creature implies a Creator. And there are trillions of creatures on this earth. Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

 

[Whatsisface]

Music implies a musician.

A farm implies a farmer.

A sculpture implies a sculptor.

A painting implies a painter.

See the simple logic which our grammarian ancestors used in making nouns from verbs? The subjects implied the direct objects and vice versa.

Oh, I forgot one:

A creature implies a Creator. And there are trillions of creatures on this earth. But I guess we modern more enlightened types must assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word, eh?

Nothing in the above gives hard evidence one way or another as to why there are creatures.

An implication alone isn't hard evidence there is a creator.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Nothing in the above gives hard evidence one way or another as to why there are creatures.

It wasn't meant to do that. It asked a question which you didn't answer.

 

[treeplanter]

Music implies a musician.

A farm implies a farmer.

A sculpture implies a sculptor.

A painting implies a painter.

See the simple logic which our grammarian ancestors used in making nouns from verbs? The subjects implied the direct objects and vice versa.

Oh, and there's this one:

A creature implies a Creator. And there are trillions of creatures on this earth. Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

Alright, there's a creator - what makes him/her/it worthy of our love and devotion?

There are many a musician, creating wonderful music, that are utterly unworthy of our love and devotion
The same can be said of farmers and their farms, sculptors and their sculptures, and painters and their paintings...

 

[Whatsisface]

It wasn't meant to do that. It asked a question which you didn't answer.

What was that question?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Alright, there's a creator -

Great! I didn't expect such a quick conversion from atheism to theism with my little post.

There are many a musician, creating wonderful music, that are utterly unworthy of our love and devotion
The same can be said of farmers and their farms, sculptors and their sculptures, and painters and their paintings...

I agree 100%. Roger Waters comes to mind.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

What was that question?

It's the last thing in the OP and the only question in it.

 

[Whatsisface]

It's the last thing in the OP and the only question in it.

Oh for goodness sake. Why aren't you being straightforwardly clear?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Oh for goodness sake. Why aren't you being straightforwardly clear?

You asked what the question was.I answered straight forward and clearly:

It's the last thing in the OP and the only question in it.

Are you now requiring me to copy/paste that question for you? OK:

Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

 

[Whatsisface]

You asked what the question was.I answered straight forward and clearly:

It's the last thing in the OP and the only question in it.

Which was what?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Which was what?

The question mark at the end should have been a dead giveaway. I even enlarged it for you previously. This time I will enlarge and bold the entire question so you can't miss it once again:

Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

 

[Whatsisface]

The question mark at the end should have been a dead giveaway. I even enlarged it for you previously. This time I will enlarge and bold the entire question so you can't miss it once again:

Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

You're not making any sense, as usual, what's your point?

 

[Temujin]

Music implies a musician.

A farm implies a farmer.

A sculpture implies a sculptor.

A painting implies a painter.

See the simple logic which our grammarian ancestors used in making nouns from verbs? The subjects implied the direct objects and vice versa.

Oh, and there's this one:

A creature implies a Creator. And there are trillions of creatures on this earth. Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

A hill implies a hiller.

A planet implies a planeter

An illness implies an illnesser

A colour implies a colourer.

Or not, and the OP is completely absurd. Take your pick.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You're not making any sense, as usual, what's your point?

Well, at least this time you didn't ask me again what the question was. I guess you finally realized, what with the question mark and all, that it was staring you in the face all along. Looks like you can't answer it though.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

A hill implies a hiller.

No such word. Strike one.

A planet implies a planeter

No such word. Strike two.

An illness implies an illnesser.

No such word. STEERIKE THREE!

If you're unfamiliar with America's Pastime, that means "YOU'RE OUT!"

 

[TeabagSalad]

Music implies a musician.

A farm implies a farmer.

A sculpture implies a sculptor.

A painting implies a painter.

See the simple logic which our grammarian ancestors used in making nouns from verbs? The subjects implied the direct objects and vice versa.

Oh, and there's this one:

A creature implies a Creator. And there are trillions of creatures on this earth. Must we modern more enlightened types assume that our logically and linguistically minded ancestors must have screwed up with that word?

Your question doesn't really make any sense, given the way that languages develop. The origin of the word creature is the same as create (late Latin 'creatura'). But over the last couple of thousand years the word has shifted in meaning (via old French and Middle English). So, while the words have similar origins they are no longer related in terms of meaning.

The idea of languages being developed by "logical and linguistically minded ancestors" is rather laughable really.

 

[Whatsisface]

Well, at least this time you didn't ask me again what the question was. I guess you finally realized, what with the question mark and all, that it was staring you in the face all along. Looks like you can't answer it though.

It makes no sense. What's your point?

 

[Temujin]

No such word. Strike one.



No such word. Strike two.



No such word. STEERIKE THREE!

If you're unfamiliar with America's Pastime, that means "YOU'RE OUT!"

No such words, because no such things. Some objects require a Creator, others don't. You have not established the the universe as we know it is was created. Therefore there is no need for the word creator. As for evolution, it has been established long since that the evolution of the millions of different species that inhabit and have inhabited the earth, arose without any help, supernatural or otherwise. Hence the fact that there is no such word as evolver either.

 

[Temujin]

Your question doesn't really make any sense, given the way that languages develop. The origin of the word creature is the same as create (late Latin 'creatura'). But over the last couple of thousand years the word has shifted in meaning (via old French and Middle English). So, while the words have similar origins they are no longer related in terms of meaning.

The idea of languages being developed by "logical and linguistically minded ancestors" is rather laughable really.

Indeed. If they had been, no one would have come up with English. The only such language I can think of is Esperanto, and who speaks that?

 

[docphin5]

No such words, because no such things. Some objects require a Creator, others don't. You have not established the the universe as we know it is was created. Therefore there is no need for the word creator.

As for evolution, it has been established long since that the evolution of the millions of different species that inhabit and have inhabited the earth, arose without any help, supernatural or otherwise. Hence the fact that there is no such word as evolver either.

Evolution could not have happened unless all the ingredients were in their proper place to begin with. In that sense, evolution had a lot of help.