The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
It might come as a surprise to you, then, that not all sentences have verbs.Stile said:
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
While fundamentalism had its roots in the 19th Century, the word itself didn't come into the lexicon until 1920 when it was coined by Cutis Laws. At its inception, fundamentalism was an attitude (not biblical doctrine) that rejected the efforts of liberal protestants to make christian beliefs more in line with secular thought and culture. Other social forces led the fundamentalists to focus on TOE as the culprit.Stile said:
The rise of social darwinism in the early 20th c led to the popularity of Eugenics as a tool to improve human kind. Eugenics was seen as a way to apply scientific knowledge to social problems. It also reflected the prejudice of the intellectuals against the recent flood of immigrants to the US. In addition, the militarism of Germany in WW1 was traced by christians to the use of natural selection in social policy and the TOE to the begining of the literary criticism that would lead to the "bible as literature" in academic circles. In response to these particular cultural forces, American christians adopted the fundamentalist name and attacked the TOE as the source of the trouble. Their goal was not to prove the bible as literal, but to head off social changes that they did not want. It is only after the debate develops over time that the inerrancy of the bible comes into play. The response of science to these attacks came in the form of arguments to show that science and religion were not incompatible.
nonconformist
Miserable
The Last Conformist said:
(Sorry-slightly OT, but all sentances are required to have verbs. Without a verb, it is a phrase, not a sentence. Hence "I do" being the shortest (and longest harhar) sentence, whereas "Yes" is a phrase. )
Perfection
The Great Head.
Okay, okay, enough with the grammar talk! You want to talk grammar? Start a new thread!
nonconformist
Miserable
Yom said:
Example please?
A sentence has to have a verb to qualify beyond being a phrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(linguistics)nonconformist said:
The article contradicts itself, though. At first it says that a verb is required, but it lists "Wow!" as a sentence (which would be my example).
Let's not continue this meaningless debate, though.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
It's not meaningless. There's any number of languages (well, hundreds, possibly thousands) in which you can have perfectly grammatical indicative sentences that do not have a verb. That English cannot is a quirk of English grammar.
The relevance is that I'm little inclined to take terribly seriously someone who, as an example of a truism, offers a false statement.
The relevance is that I'm little inclined to take terribly seriously someone who, as an example of a truism, offers a false statement.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Such an off-topic epic I have seldom seen!
Can we go back to arguing about the folly of creationism fables now?
Can we go back to arguing about the folly of creationism fables now?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Perfection
The Great Head.
From http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118441&page=3&pp=20
Please, the occasional misdating occurs as creationists are so fond of amassing lists of incedences, but there is a great deal of veracity to the thousands and thousands of datings that occur that verify a old earth.Mauer said:Thank you for the link Perfection
Why not? It's derived from observations/experiments in a manner that can be evaluated for its veracity.Mauer said:
Stile
Emperor
Well, aside from my silly joke, I missed the following discovery from March.Stile said:
Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue
Did this get any play on the forums when it came out? Seems fairly spectacular to me. I hope they can get DNA out of it. Since organic matter is not supposed to last longer than 100,000 years, and this is a 70 million year old fossil, much rethinking should be in order especially concerning the process of fossilization.
Stile: that was the usual blown-up out of proportion American style report. What is behind it is the usual: fossilized soft tissue with no chance to get DNA and hardly a chance to get anything but a handful of bases of an aminoacid sequence. Except for some collagene, that is.
Yes it got a thread here, but as most posters do not like to read that the bible may be wrong....
(j/k)
Yes it got a thread here, but as most posters do not like to read that the bible may be wrong....
(j/k)
Stile
Emperor
Thanks, Carlos. My attendance on the forums can be very sketchy and a search of the forums didn't pop anything up for me. Not to start anything up again, but since I've been out of town and/or busy lately, I've been meaning to correct one of your analogies.
It is more like someone observing apples and planets and forming a Theory of Gravity. Then that person says the evidence for the ToG is also evidence that all objects are bound by its laws, call it ToG Expanded. But when someone finds galaxies that do not behave as predicted, a mysterious thing called dark matter is proffered as the explanation, with the only proof of dark matter as the unexpected motion. Now dark matter may indeed be the answer, but objects that conform to the ToG can no longer be proof of the ToG Expanded.carlosMM said:
Stile said:
This comparison is actually slightly off IMO.
We know that the step from TOG to TOGE (TOG Expanded) has explained thousands of phenomena well. Thus, TOG has proven to be very robust, and TOGE as well.
If now ONE SINGLE thing pops up, one thing that can be easily explained by a simple single assumption (that is, some OTHER theory, which in itself is fairly vague [matter is always visible] must be amended), then TOGE is still valid as long as is the most parsimonious explanation.
The key wod here is parsimony - the more assumptions you make, the less likely are you to hit the truth.
Now, what to do in the case of dark matter?
- check via other methods
- do not make follow on assumptions from TOGE in all cases where the dark matter ad hoc assumption is needed
- do not refuse stable theories based on TOGE in cases where dark matter ad hoc assuption os needed.
The same is obviosuly true for evolution - if something is not explained by the theory, you must weigh: is it more likely that the theory is seriously off, or is it easily explained by a simple assumption that is otherwise testable.
As we all know, btw, dark matter is NOT just a brain fart derived from one theory, but quite well supported by other theories, for example from particle research. Parallel developments can often be found in the history of ToE - just think of the prediction that birds must be advanced dinosaurs - required a BUNCH of assupmtions, but they fulfilled parsimony. Well, guess what: they were dead on!
ybbor
Will not change his avata
nooooo.... i just typed this out and now it's gone!!!
Well, now that i have gone through the DNA portion of biology, i have a much better understanding of how DNA works (i honestly didn't even know it coded for proteins
). This has given me many new ideas about ID and evolution. I'll start with a qduestion about adding DNA. obviously, the common ancester had to have less DNA than the species they eventually produced, so how did the DNA get there? A bnase insertion mutation would cuase a frame shift, resulting in amazingchaos in the gene, and exponentially decreasing the oldds for a mutation to work. so if we have so many chromosomes - how did they get there?
Well, now that i have gone through the DNA portion of biology, i have a much better understanding of how DNA works (i honestly didn't even know it coded for proteins
). This has given me many new ideas about ID and evolution. I'll start with a qduestion about adding DNA. obviously, the common ancester had to have less DNA than the species they eventually produced, so how did the DNA get there? A bnase insertion mutation would cuase a frame shift, resulting in amazingchaos in the gene, and exponentially decreasing the oldds for a mutation to work. so if we have so many chromosomes - how did they get there?That's the key to evolution.ybbor said:nooooo.... i just typed this out and now it's gone!!!
Well, now that i have gone through the DNA portion of biology, i have a much better understanding of how DNA works (i honestly didn't even know it coded for proteins
Mutations.ybbor said:
There need not be a base insertion (and such an insertion may not necessarily be that bad, depending on where it occurs. If it's in the middle of the genome, then bad luck, but toward the end, it would cause a few changes that are not necessarily fatal. Addition and deletion are other methods of increasing variation. Not to mention sexual reproduction (conjugation in unicellular organisms) and the crossing over of chromosomes (though there are no chromosomes in prokaryotes, there can still be crossing over of DNA in the form of chromatin, I believe).ybbor said:
Do you mean how did the chromosomes get there, or the DNA? The DNA, I have explained. As to how DNA came to be coiled into coils, grouped around histones to create nucleosomes, and then coiled again to create a super coil, and then coiled again to create chromosomes, I'm not sure, but it does not discount evolution. It is not impossible to imagine that it is a simple result of evolution. Organisms with DNA that clusters into chromosomes (which wouldn't come about until eukaryotes evolved) could simply have been selected for by evolution. Perhaps DNA that bonded (weak hydrogen bonds, or some other bond that doesn't require a chemical reaction that changes the nature of the two things bonding) with histones (thereby becoming more compact) was selected for, as organisms whose DNA does this would have increased variation due to crossing over. Histones act in gene regulation, which means that their presence would increase variation, meaning that organisms with histones would be more successful (the histones are coded for by DNA, I believe) due to the increased variation. The coiling may just be a side effect of gene regulation. Maybe a DNA mutation caused the coding of histones, which bonded with the DNA, causing coiling. I can't really say, though. Perhaps carlosMM can elucidate this specific matter, but it is so early in evolution, that it may not yet be known.ybbor said:
Edit: Actually, a lot of the coiling in DNA is caused by hydrogen bonds between the sugar-phosphate backing of DNA, so the coiling may have occurred to the same extent before the development of histones; histones may have simply made the coiling tighter.
- Status
