Grammar

quote:

---

Well should I believe an evolution scientist over a creation one, and if so why?

---

1) You should believe thousands of scientists over a dozen creationists. Why? One person could screw something up. Two could screw it up. But when thousands of people run the same tests and investigate the same things, and get the same results, you should pay attention. The chances that they all screwed things up in a complementary manner are tiny. Makes sense, no?2) In science, when some radically different idea comes along and it has merit-- ie. evidence-- scientists change their minds. Creationists have been recycling most of their arguments for a couple of hundred years. Read the pre-Darwin creationists/catastrophists. Why haven't scientists changed their minds? Because the evidence just isn't there.3) Creation 'science' requires rewriting virtually everything we've learned in the past few hundred years. And here is the clincher... creation science doesn't provide evidence that we should do all of this rewriting, it simple postulates that IF we rewrote everything else, then creation science would have a foundation.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

so it's about numbers to you John.

---

Ever wonder why important legal documents require two signatures? Every wonder why missle launches require two people, two keys, launch codes and external authorization? The reason is that two people are less likely to screw up or lie than one lone individual.Have you seen the movie "Apollo 13"? If not, rent it and watch. When they need to calculate an engine burn, they all whip out their slide rules. Why? Why should they all perform the calculations when one could do it? The answer? One person could make a mistake. Any one of the engineers in the control room could make a mistake. Several could screw it up. But could the whole room screw it up? Of course. The chances of that are much less than the chances that one individual will screw it up. Now, what do you suppose would happen if one guy got a fantastically different answer than everyone else in the room? hmmm... they'd probably all do the math again. If the same results came in a second time, do you think it reasonable to toss the majority in favor of the one guy? Suppose that the one guy refuses to show everyone else his notebook? Suppose that the one guy finally gives a few pages to the other folk and they find numerous basic mistakes in the math? Do you think it reasonable to accept the one guy over the rest of the room? I hope you do think it reasonable, because this is exactly what you are arguing we do-- accept the few creationists over the thousands of other people in the room.

quote:

---

So if everybody agrees to kill but a few disagree does that make the few wrong.

---

You might have noticed that I did not say 'ask a bunch of people about subjective values.' This is a red herring, mike. It doesn't apply. Try this little experiment. It does apply.Get a piece of poster-board and write a sentence on it. Now place it just out of comfortable reading range, but not quite out of reading range altogether. Invite some friends over and have them read the board. Write down the results.Now which do you think is more likely to be the write answer?1) Randomly choose one friend and accept that reading. Throw out all the other readings.
2) Gather all of the readings together, compare them, and debate the possible readings. When the group comes to an agreement, based on a majority of 95%, accept that answer.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yes, indeed-ie! Good point. Those OT folk had a grand old time killing people for all manner of infractions-- like cursing your mom, giving your seed to Molech, committing adultery, slipping it to the live-stock, having 'familiar spirits', having the misfortune of being a priest's daughter AND a whore, cursing and blaspheming while arguing...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Mike, all I did was read Leviticus. Since you 'take the whole bible as truth' you are in a bit of a quagmire. The Bible does say 'Thou shalt not kill.' It also provides many offenses for which death is to be the punishment. You can't have it both ways.

quote:

---

As I am a follower of Christ and he says we are all with sin , who then has the right to kill someone?

---

Apparently, whomever enforces the laws in Leviticus has this right. But according to Jesus no one does. hmmm.... both cannot be true.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Well if we read the whole bible as 'a whole' and accept what Jesus says as I'm sure he knows , if those in leviticus were without sin?

---

Now you are postulating that the people in the OT were free of sin? Have you not also said that no one is without sin?

quote:

---

are you concerning yourself too much with this?

---

No. You are not concerning yourself enough with it. You are brushing aside a big web of contradictions.

quote:

---

Once in school a bully kicked me...

---

ummm.... God gave the Levitical laws because he knew the good people of the Bible would not follow them, thus teaching us that what he told us to do is the wrong thing and we really should be doing the opposite?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Mike, you got out of the difficulty by saying... This was your rebuttal to my post #56. Let me fill in the blanks for you.1) Levitical laws demand punishment by death.
2) Jesus teaches "Let he who has no sin... "
3) Everyone has sin.
4) So the question I asked was "Who was intended to carry out God's commands?"
5) You respond with the statement quoted above.
6) How in hell does this make sense? You really can't have it both ways.

quote:

---

so you did fail to understand as I thought you might, what I am saying is that a good person is incapable killing or hurting someone

---

I don't buy that. There are times when a good person needs to beat the crap out of someone-- say, to foil a rape.

quote:

---

and since 'he without sin can cast the first stone' and only Jesus is without sin? do you get it?

---

Mike, think about your position. God gives us COMMANDS in Leviticus. If we do not follow those commands, are we not disobeying God? If we DO follow those commands, we are violating Jesus' maxim. So what gives?And why the objection? You are saying exactly what I suggested-- that God gave the commands knowing that no one would follow them. Now, NOT doing what God says has in some twisted way become DOING God's will. What is the point of God giving laws at all?Look... there are basically two cases.1) Follow the OT laws. You can't fault someone for doing precisely what God stated explicitly. Can you? However, doing what God stated violates what Jesus teaches.2) Do not follow the OT laws. Now we are following Christ, but NOT DOING what God told us to do.We loose in each case. It is pretty simple.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

"Also, would a little grammar be too much to ask for?"

---

Warning! Warning! Dangling 'for.'Perhaps, "Also, would it be too much to ask for a little grammar?"------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that the word 'for' could dangle, but then, I didn't learn English...

---

I must ask. Did you learn English? Grab any grammar book or -- God forbid, look it up on the web-- and you'll find that 'for' can indeed dangle.

quote:

---

in the very state where Bushisms originate and where everything should be expressed in as non-dangling a way as possible, lest the locals don't understand

---

I believe Bush probably dangles quite a few modifiers.Interesting that you are equating official English usage with Texas and at the same time making fun of the state for its dialect, which is far from standard. If only you could see how foolish your stance appears!By the way, Brainiac, it was tongue-in-cheek. You corrected Mike's and offered an equally bad sentence as an alternative.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 07-29-2003]

quote:

---

Well, from the fact that you ask I must conclude that it is indeed English I'm writing or else you wouldn't have understood, would you?

---

The point is, of course, that you are painfully ignorant of a major rule of English grammar.

quote:

---

I'd hardly call expressing things in as non-dangling a way as possible 'official English usage'.

---

Lol... the irony! God, the irony! I can hardly wade through it!Formal, official, strict English grammar does indeed forbid dangling prepositions. Any grammar teacher in this country would mark a sentence wrong if it ended in 'for.' Try looking it up. Here, let me help. OWL // Purdue Writing Lab
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/rpriebe/cs_ed_sp02/links/prep.htmThe rule is violated more than followed, of course.

quote:

---

I got that right then, eh?

---

Yes, but the irony is that the grammar you have been attributing to Texas, isn't a part of the regional dialect.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

No, actually the point is that I'm (painfully or otherwise) aware of more rules of English grammar than many a native speaker.

---

Probably. You kids are missing the irony. You corrected Mike's sentence and offered a really bad one as an alternative.

quote:

---

Exactly. Who says I'm writing official, strict English, anyway? The style here is pretty colloquial and I see no problem adapting to it.

---

Lol... yet you bothered to 'correct' Mike? A bit hypocritical, eh? And then argued that your version was indeed 'correct' English. How much more clear can that be?

quote:

---

So I, a non-native speaker, don't know the ins and outs of Texan regional dialects. Big deal.

---

Read your own posts, bud. You sure pretended to have such knowledge.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yes, so there.Rh points out that most people don't follow the rules. I stated as much. Most people don't follow the rules.People have been arguing over dangling prepositions for a long time. Rh has given the other side's version. And really, I pretty much agree with Rh. But you are missing the reason I posted on the topic in the first place-- It is incredibly funny that you corrected someone's grammar and offered such a stereotypically bad sentence as an alternative.BTW, Rh, the first site I referenced does contain an example of a dangling preposition, despite the subject being 'dangling modifiers.'------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 07-30-2003]

I would have sworn I'd replied to that post. I remember writing it. hmmm.... must have never posted. grrr... I hate that.Rhhain's focus on the word 'too' is so far off base that it is comical. I don't care about, nor did I mention, the word 'too.'My comment concerned your rewrite of IrishRockHound's sentence, which can be found in post #70 of this thread. Granted, somewhere along the way I got it into my head that you were correcting mikethewiz instead of IrishRockHound. That is embarrasing, but irrelevent.The 'correct' or 'more correct' sentence you offered is stereotypically wrong. English teachers have a fit over that sort of thing. I know this. I gave them many such fits.What is bizarre about this is that Rhhain responded to your post # 72 first and acknowledged that such a rule exists in English, and accurately portrays the hundred year old debate about the rule. So far, so good. But then he changes directions and stubbornly denies what he's already acknowledged. Typical Rh, based on my past experience debating with him.Now, with his last post, he's thrown in a bit of misdirection. Again, typical.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Typical John, confusing his inference for the other's implication.

---

Don't be an idiot, Rh. I understand that must be hard, but try.Quote old movies all you wish, it doesn't make any more since now than it did the first time. It is language. All I have is what I can infer. All anyone has is what can be inferred. Unless you have some secret line on direct communication-- ie. telepathy-- stop whining.

quote:

---

Question: When did "generally considered" become equivalent to "there is a rule"?

---

Its language. That is about as close as you can get. Or do you wish to change position again? Or maybe you just inferred the wrong god-damned meaning of rule and went on a hissie-fit?Gee... I see that one definition of rule reads "a principle that customarily governs behavior" and another that reads " a rule describing or prescribing linguistic behavior.""Generally considered" fits nicely with "customarily governs" and, frankly, it foolish to think countless grammar books aren't "prescribing linguistic behavior" whether anyone follows the prescriptions or not.

quote:

---

And in another classic example of dishonesty, John leaves out the full context.

---

In fact, I referenced just this very context. You are a bad liar, Rh.

quote:

---

Now, all but the most casual observer would agree that it appears that I am not exactly beholden to that "general consideration" regarding ending sentences with prepositions.

---

Obviously.Strangely, it has nothing to do with what you like or dislike. Weird, huh? Hard to imagine.That the 'general consideration' exists at all is sufficient.

quote:

---

Again, it would appear to be the case, even to the most casual observer, that I am not exactly defending the case that sentences should never be ended with prepositions.

---

Never said you were. I said you acknowledged the rule. You did. I did not say you defended it. I don't care. And after having acknowledged it it you go about denying it. Bizarre.Is it your position that only rules that are universally accepted are 'rules'? If so, we can just about ditch the whole language. There are no 'real' rules. But that would be silly, so shift to some reasonable conception of 'grammatical rule,' eh?

quote:

---

In other words, I responded that you were whining about the sentence ending in a preposition...

---

LOL... damn sure was. It was a joke, based on the agony every kid I have every known has gone through in English class.

quote:

---

...but that to be slavish to this heuristic is to commit an even worse error: Awkward speech (i.e., "up with which I will not put.")

---

Only if you are not clever.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you missed the subtlety, John, but do not confuse your inference with my implication.

---

It is sad that you have no clue as to how language actually functions. But once I get that memo on telepathy we can just skip language altogether.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-12-2003]