Is Evolution Grammatically Correct?

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.
The same can be said of any natural event. Are you saying that volcanoes, hurricanes or supernovae require "a lot of help" ?
 
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...
…IMO, the proverbial hitting the nail on the head.

To deny a creator is illogical because there is in fact a creation in which we live. The question, as you point out, is to determine if the creator is both personal and worthy of our aprobation.
 
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.

creature

So I take it you can't think of any other supposed exceptions to a noun besides creature which is used as an object in which another noun such as creator with the same root is NOT used as the subject of the previously mentioned object/noun.
 
The same can be said of any natural event. Are you saying that volcanoes, hurricanes or supernovae require "a lot of help" ?
I am saying that life would not have been possible without all the ingredients being brought together to produce us. Life did not start with evolution for without the ingredients of life there could be no evolution.
 
I am saying that life would not have been possible without all the ingredients being brought together to produce us. Life did not start with evolution for without the ingredients of life there could be no evolution.
Fair enough. Evolution requires life. It isn't interested in whether the ingredients for life were brought together by happenstance or deliberately. I wouldn't categorise having a perquisite state in order to occur as "needing a lot of help". That implies intelligent outside agency, which isn't actually needed.
 
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?
No, we shouldn't assume anyone screwed up with that word. But also, more importantly, a creature doesn't imply a creator:

1. A painting is necessarily the product of a painter. However a painter is also a creator who creates paintings. Paintings are not creatures (according to the modern definition of 'creature') despite being the product of a creator.

2. However, there's more. The word 'creature' came into English through French from Latin. It used to mean 'anything created'. So once upon a time, a painter may have called his painting a "creature".

3. As you know, the word 'creature' into English through Latin and French. But it actually originated from a Proto-Indo-European root word meaning "to grow".

So, a creature used to be anything that grew. A creator was someone who made things.

4. Your list is obviously missing the word 'creation'. This word is a noun meaning the act of creating, and the product of creation is also called a creation. Created by a creator.

A creation implies a creator, a creature implies growth.
 
No, we shouldn't assume anyone screwed up with that word. But also, more importantly, a creature doesn't imply a creator:

And yet it does, as I showed in my OP.

1. A painting is necessarily the product of a painter. However a painter is also a creator who creates paintings. Paintings are not creatures (according to the modern definition of 'creature') despite being the product of a creator.

Correct. Nothing I typed indicates that paintings are creatures. Why would you point out such an obvious and irrelevant fact?

2. However, there's more. The word 'creature' came into English through French from Latin. It used to mean 'anything created'. So once upon a time, a painter may have called his painting a "creature".

So? That doesn't change the fact that paintings are produced by painters and creatures are produced by creators.

3. As you know, the word 'creature' into English through Latin and French. But it actually originated from a Proto-Indo-European root word meaning "to grow".

So?

So, a creature used to be anything that grew. A creator was someone who made things.

Correct. God as our Creator MADE all the trillions of creatures that roam this earth.

4. Your list is obviously missing the word 'creation'. This word is a noun meaning the act of creating, and the product of creation is also called a creation. Created by a creator.

Correct. Our Creator made this creation. Thanks for adding that.

A creation implies a creator,

BINGO!

a creature implies growth.

Yes, the creatures created by our Creator do indeed grow.
 
Using this logic, anything that is created, like a car or painting or whatever, must be a creature....

Wrong. The fact that any creature must have a creator obviously does not mean that anything created must be a creature. I am connecting two nouns. You threw a verb into the equation. The fact that all paintings must have a painter obviously does not imply that anything painted must be a painting. A painted automobile is not a painting.

You're just not very good with logic.
 
So I take it you can't think of any other supposed exceptions to a noun besides creature which is used as an object in which another noun such as creator with the same root is NOT used as the subject of the previously mentioned object/noun.

I am a coder who codes programmes.
Or, a programmer who programmes programmes.
Or, a coder who programmes code.
Etc. Etc.

English is an odd language with many rules, to which there are more exceptions than cases that obey the rules. Relying on English grammar to prove a point is a fool's errand.

The retired Vicar (Pastor) in my village holds a doctorate in English, he is a very entertaining gentleman who has described English as "Three languages, standing on each others shoulders dressed in a long coat trying to buy a pint."

His other genius observation was "English is the sort of language that hangs around in dark alleys and mugs other language for their vocabulary!"
 
I am a coder who codes programmes.
Or, a programmer who programmes programmes.
Or, a coder who programmes code.
Etc. Etc.

English is an odd language with many rules, to which there are more exceptions than cases that obey the rules. Relying on English grammar to prove a point is a fool's errand.

The retired Vicar (Pastor) in my village holds a doctorate in English, he is a very entertaining gentleman who has described English as "Three languages, standing on each others shoulders dressed in a long coat trying to buy a pint."

His other genius observation was "English is the sort of language that hangs around in dark alleys and mugs other language for their vocabulary!"
I am eternally grateful that English is my mother tongue. When you see native speakers struggling it must be very difficult to learn from scratch.
 
I am a coder who codes programmes.
Or, a programmer who programmes programmes.
Or, a coder who programmes code.

Good for you. But you really should make up your mind as to what your profession actually is.

English is an odd language with many rules, to which there are more exceptions than cases that obey the rules. Relying on English grammar to prove a point is a fool's errand.

Instead of saying "English is an odd language," you should be saying "creature is an odd English word" if you think it's the only English word which used as a direct object noun does not imply a subject noun with the same root. Or if you don't think that you should be providing another exception.
 
Last edited:
I am eternally grateful that English is my mother tongue. When you see native speakers struggling it must be very difficult to learn from scratch.
I only really realised how ridiculous English can be when my daughter started talking. She's 3 now and I still find myself "correcting" her when she obeys a rule that is wrong. Today's example was while playing hide and seek: "I hided really well."

The language is a mess! 🤣
 
Good for you. But you really should make up your mind as to what your profession actually is.



Instead of saying "English is an odd language," you should be saying "Creature is an odd English word" if you think it's the only English word which used as a direct object noun does not imply a subject noun with the same root. Or if you don't think that you should be providing another exception.
Several other examples have been given. Just read the thread.
 
I only really realised how ridiculous English can be when my daughter started talking. She's 3 now and I still find myself "correcting" her when she obeys a rule that is wrong. Today's example was while playing hide and seek: "I hided really well."

The language is a mess! 🤣
My wife is Early Years trained, and this is apparently a developmental stage that all English speaking children go through. It's a good sign, apparently, showing the ability to apply rules in unfamiliar settings. Sadly, they grow up very quickly.
 
Back
Top