Is Evolution Grammatically Correct?

Temujin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, far far too quickly.

I am really lucky that I have become the primary carer for my daughter (better half has a very good job and I am a contractor, so I can work any hours rather than a fixed 9 to 5). Seeing my daughter learn and develop is amazing!

EDIT: In some ways I envy your wife...but, I'm not sure I have the energy to do it again! ?
 
stiggy wiggy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Baffled by the long ago world in which they lived, ignorant people created gods to explain what they were otherwise unable to explain

Naturally, these people labelled themselves as the creation/creatures of the imagined creator

So what?
 
treeplanter said:
Baffled by the long ago world in which they lived, ignorant people created gods to explain what they were otherwise unable to explain
Click to expand...

Correct. Apollo, Hermes, Jove, etc. were created by man.

treeplanter said:
Naturally, these people labelled themselves as the creation/creatures of the imagined creator
Click to expand...

I'm not sure every Greek would admit to that, though I believe Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did.

treeplanter said:
So what?
Click to expand...

Exactly. So what indeed. But you're the guy who typed it, so maybe you're the guy who should answer that.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Exactly. So what indeed. But you're the guy who typed it, so maybe you're the guy who should answer that.
Click to expand...
You are the one who started a thread about it, stigs
Not me

What do you think you are proving?

YHVH/Jesus Christ is real
because creature {i.e. another word for human being}
comes from the root word creator {i.e. another word for YHVH/Jesus}???
 
treeplanter said:
You are the one who started a thread about it, stigs
Click to expand...

No, I did not start a thread about how people create gods.

treeplanter said:
Not me
Click to expand...

No, It WAS you. See your previous post.

treeplanter said:
What do you think you are proving?
Click to expand...

The OP was meant to prove that grammatically, the word creature implies a creator. That should have been obvious, even to you.

treeplanter said:
YHVH/Jesus Christ is real
because creature {i.e. another word for human being}
comes from the root word creator {i.e. another word for YHVH/Jesus}???
Click to expand...

No, that is not why Jesus is real. His reality is not based on language.
 
The OP is based on a falsehood. Nouns from verbs are gerunds. Painting is a gerund. So are farming and sculpting, when used as nouns.

Music is not a gerund. Creature is not a gerund. Creating, when used as a noun, is a gerund and implies a Creator. Creature, which is not a gerund, does not.

All verbs have at least one subject. Since gerund are formed from verbs, all gerunds will have an associated subject. Some other nouns imply an associated subject. Farm implies farmer, music implies musician, but field, mountain, cow, etc. do not. Only gerunds must have an associated subject noun.

Creature is not a gerund. Therefore the OP is a pile of horse droppings.
 
Temujin said:
The OP is based on a falsehood. Nouns from verbs are gerunds. Painting is a gerund. So are farming and sculpting, when used as nouns.

Music is not a gerund. Creature is not a gerund. Creating, when used as a noun, is a gerund and implies a Creator. Creature, which is not a gerund, does not.

All verbs have at least one subject. Since gerund are formed from verbs, all gerunds will have an associated subject. Some other nouns imply an associated subject. Farm implies farmer, music implies musician, but field, mountain, cow, etc. do not. Only gerunds must have an associated subject noun.

Creature is not a gerund. Therefore the OP is a pile of horse droppings.
Click to expand...
Ignore the etymology or grammar of the words themselves. Instead, see How the words relate to one another, for matter is being ordered or brought into rhythm by a Mind.

For example,
stiggy wiggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
A Mind brings order to soil to produce a farm.
A Mind brings rhthym to stone to make a sculpture.
A Mind brings harmony to oils to make a painting.
A Mind bring order to notes to make music.

There are more.

A Mind brings order to ideas to produce intelligence.
A Mind brings order to the elements to produce life.
A Mind brings order to gold to produce a piece of jewelery.

In the same way,

A Mind brings order, harmony, and rhythm to the substance of creation to produce a creature or creatures.

The Mind that does these things is called farmer, sculptur, painter, musician, human, creator, and jeweler, respectively.

It is an analogy. It has nothing to do with grammar.


stiggy wiggy said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Temujin said:
The OP is based on a falsehood. Nouns from verbs are gerunds. Painting is a gerund.
Click to expand...

Only if USED as a gerund, e.g. "Painting is fun." But THE painting, Whistler's Mother, is not a gerund. But that is irrelevant to the point I made, since I was talking about a CREATURE and not CREATING.

Temujin said:
Creature is not a gerund.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! The OP is not about gerunds. Therefore the OP is a pile of horse droppings.

Well, let's examine this sentence:

"The dropping of horse droppings which Temujin just dropped on us has stunk up his post.

The first italicize word is a gerund. The second is a basic noun and requires a dropper. Now that dropper could either be the horse's you know what or
Temujin himself, assuming there is a difference. :)
 
docphin5 said:
Ignore the etymology or grammar of the words themselves. Instead, see How the words relate to one another, for matter is being ordered or brought into rhythm by a Mind.

For example,

A Mind brings order to soil to produce a farm.
A Mind brings rhthym to stone to make a sculpture.
A Mind brings harmony to oils to make a painting.
A Mind bring order to notes to make music.

There are more.

A Mind brings order to ideas to produce intelligence.
A Mind brings order to the elements to produce life.
A Mind brings order to gold to produce a piece of jewelery.

In the same way,

A Mind brings order, harmony, and rhythm to the substance of creation to produce a creature or creatures.

The Mind that does these things is called farmer, sculptur, painter, musician, human, creator, and jeweler, respectively.

It is an analogy. It has nothing to do with grammar.
Click to expand...
It's bad poetry, not ab analogy, and certainly nothing to do with the OP, which is all about (bad) grammar.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Only if USED as a gerund, e.g. "Painting is fun." But THE painting, Whistler's Mother, is not a gerund. But that is irrelevant to the point I made, since I was talking about a CREATURE and not CREATING.



EXACTLY! The OP is not about gerunds. Therefore the OP is a pile of horse droppings.

Well, let's examine this sentence:

"The dropping of horse droppings which Temujin just dropped on us has stunk up his post.

The first italicize word is a gerund. The second is a basic noun and requires a dropper. Now that dropper could either be the horse's you know what or
Temujin himself, assuming there is a difference. :)
Click to expand...
So, your OP is in fact not based on grammar at all but on the fact that "Creature" and "Creator" have similar roots, is that it? There is no grammatical reason for creature to imply creator at all. Your argument such as it is, is based on etymology, correct?
 
TeabagSalad said:
That's just stupid.

Should the theory of thermodynamics be called thermodynamicsiam, or relativity called relativism, or quantum theory quantumism?
Click to expand...
Talk about stupid...the science you talk about can be predicted, tested, repeated and witnessed. EvolutionISM can't.
 
CrowCross said:
Talk about stupid...the science you talk about can be predicted, tested, repeated and witnessed. EvolutionISM can't.
Click to expand...
Come on CC, this is naïve beyond belief. All you do is take contentless swipes at evolution without saying anything substantial. Yes, evolution does make predictions that can be tested. The classic example is that you shouldn't find rabbit fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. None have been found.

And please don't link to that video again, It's an argument from personal incredulity.
 
CrowCross said:
Talk about stupid...the science you talk about can be predicted, tested, repeated and witnessed. EvolutionISM can't.
Click to expand...
Ah, you seem to be another creationist that doesn't know anything about evolution.

Let's see if you can answer a simple question; what do the Theory of Evolution explain?
 
Whatsisface said:
Come on CC, this is naïve beyond belief. All you do is take contentless swipes at evolution without saying anything substantial. Yes, evolution does make predictions that can be tested. The classic example is that you shouldn't find rabbit fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. None have been found.

And please don't link to that video again, It's an argument from personal incredulity.
Click to expand...
Why would a creationist following flood geology expect to find a rabbit of one type of biome mixed with drastically different biomes of other types of animals?
 
CrowCross said:
A lot of the rock strata contained in the earths geological column...represent the biomes and fauna of a particular area.

I would not expect to find a rabbit buried with sea creatures.
Click to expand...
You're not making yourself clear, what has this to do with flood geology? What is flood geology? What effects would you expect if there were a world wide flood? (For which there is no evidence outside of the Bible.)
 
Whatsisface said:
You're not making yourself clear, what has this to do with flood geology? What is flood geology? What effects would you expect if there were a world wide flood? (For which there is no evidence outside of the Bible.)
Click to expand...
Just the multiple layers of sandstone that stretch across the North American continent and in some cases to other continents shows there was a world wide flood.

Here.
Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time. Article.
 
CrowCross said:
Just the multiple layers of sandstone that stretch across the North American continent and in some cases to other continents shows there was a world wide flood.

Here.
Some of the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon are just part of a large formation that cover entire continents. The Tapeats Sandstone crosses North America, southern Israel and Egypt. The Redwall Limestone is found in Nevada, Wyoming, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, England, and the Himalayas. To form these layers the oceans would have to completely cover the continents many times. The only way the strata could have formed is if the entire world was under water at the same time. Article.
Click to expand...
Can you give any corroborating information that's not from a creationist website? I am no geologist, but I do know that creationists can give false information if it helps their cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top