Creationist writing style

In the past I have done some research into artificial intelligence. It would really explain a lot if we attribute these people's very special style of writing to chatterbots. However, I have to wonder. Their responses to other people's posts, while having characteristics of crackpots at work, are still reasonably on topic just enough for me to see a hint of human intelligence at work.Now, it is entirely possible that these characters are indeed chatterbots. Like I said, it would explain a lot. But... I can't help but notice the human elements that occasionally surfaced.Edited by Tazmanius Devilus, : grammir...

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

quote:

---

Some like NJ, CTD, Phat and Buzz (and the recently departed Faith) often write clearly and with proper grammar and usage.

---

yU dont no whut yer talkin abot.

MartinV???Or it is just a similar way of processing information ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : or

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've just been presented with a nice one:

"I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality."---Later, the same guy went on to enquire how humans could eat anything before we evolved teeth.

quote:

---

"I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality."

---

I have to say I'm an admirer of breviloquence.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Beats my example hands down I think I'll go examine my id.

Darwin made that sound straightforward, there is a wonderful style in 19th Century writing, I wonder if they'll be saying that about us one day? (LOL! ) I am continuously amazed by this one:

quote:

---

Of the second branch of full efficacy for natural selection as an externalist and functionalist process, the stunning discoveries of extensive deep homologies across phyla seperated by more than 500 million years (particularly the vertebrate homologs of arthropod Hox genes) - against explicit statements by architects of the Modern Synthesis that such homologies could not exist in principle, in a world dominated by their conception of natural selection - forced a rebalancing or leavening of Darwinian functionalism with previously neglected, or villified, formalist perspectives based on the role of historical and structural constraints in chanelling directions of evolutionary change, and causing the great clumpings and inhomogeneities of morphospace - phenomena that had previously been attributed almost exclusively to functionalist forces of natural selection.

---

In case you didn't check - that's one sentence. Here's another sample:

quote:

---

Following the Kantian dictum that percepts without concepts are blind but concepts without percepts empty, these two categories interpenetrate as “pure” data suggest novel ideas (how can one not rethink the causes of mass extinction when evidence surfaces for a bolide, 7-10 km in diameter, and packing 104 the megatonnage of all the earth’s nuclear weapons combined), whereas “abstract” concepts then taxonomize the natural world in different ways, often “creating” data that had never been granted enough previous intellectual space even to be conceived (as when punctuated equilibrium made stasis a theoretically meaningful and interesting phenomenon, and not just an embarrassing failure to detect “evolution,” in its traditional definition of gradual change - and paleontologists then began active studies of a subject that had previously been ignored as uninteresting, if conceptualized at all)

---

If I had seen that second one in isolation I would have been inclined to think "Brad McFall". See if you can guess who wrote them. Press peek for the answer.

I remember reading Flatland by so-and-so (too lazy to google) when I was very young. The idea was good, but the writing was terrible.I think people back then had too much time on their hands. If they actually talked like the way they wrote things, it was truly a miracle they ever got out of the 19th century. Look at my disclaimer below.I think the English language needs some really major refinings. For example, why the hell do we have "have, has, had"? Why can't we just use one word for all circumstances? What about referring to the past, you ask. Foreigners (especially asians) often say something like "yesterday I go to the store". What's wrong with that sentence? I say absolutely nothing. Why add one more word to the English language (went) if we already have a "yesterday" in there? Yesterday would automatically make the action in the past.Some of my asian friends have explained to me that they don't have specials for plurals and past tense. For example, when the asian would say "yesterday I go to the store" they can literally translate that into their asianic language word for word. I see nothing wrong with that.Frankly, the current English language has too many useless words and useless rules. They're like pieces of fat that we could certainly trim away without missing them.From now on, I will shorten everything I write and ignore all the extra words. And by the way, yesterday I really do go to the store.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

That's no way to breviloquate. You need to revocabulize.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I was just reading an article about postmodernist writing, and found it rang a loud bell.Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and ScienceI wonder if postmodernism is the source of the style we have been noticing.

Maybe it's just that creationists still use a lot of reference material that is decades old. I've had the dubious pleasure of refuting a great chunk of codswallop that was posted by 2 individual creationists. It was the first several chapters of a 1928 book called The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved in 50 Arguments by the Rev. William A. Williams.If that's the decade where their brains are stuck, maybe the language is stuck there too?

For what its worth, I loved the writing in Flatland - by Edwin Abbott Abbott by the way. I guess that makes it a question of taste. Therefore, I do not think they had too much time on their hands, I think that they showed respect to their readers by taking time with what they were writing. Nowadays, I think readers have less time to read and writers less time to write. Perhaps that is part of the illusion the breviloquent writers common in creationist postings are trying to create? Irregular verbs are awful, aren't they? We have nearly 200 of them! It's about the same amount in German, but Italy has over double the amount we have, and Latin has double that! Nearly 1,000 irregular verbs, which is presumably why students of the language get so confused: "People called Romanes, they go, the house?" I assume you mean Asian in the same way I would use Oriental - Chinese and Japanese do have irregular verbs, just very few of them (you could count them on one hand). Turkish, apparently, has none! Good old wiki.

For some reason or another, the imperfections are what make the language what it is. I remember hearing about the creation of a perfect artifical language in an Econ class; all the syntax and vocabulary makes sense and is simplistic, but only something like 2 thousand people in the entire world speak it (the name fails me right now).You cant go out and "fix" a language, thats like going socialist-command-economy on a capitalist-free-market. Both language and economy work best and are most efficiant and widespread when left to evolve on their own.

---

This statement is false.Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

Esperanto? Klingon?TTFN,WK