Originally posted by Validity
Actually Darwins theory has been heavily modified....
exactly. The "game of telephone" played by scientists has actually increased our understanding of evolution
Originally posted by Validity
Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain,
which was my point from the beginning
Originally posted by Validity
his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.
only if the context is "using the bible as a valid form of history".
Even then, the Bible is commonly used by historians, as some of the oldest stories do have some historical veracity. I'm not on my computer at home, so I can't quote it, but the lecture series "War and World History" gives an excellent view on how to use religious text for historical purposes
though, I've already agreed with your point. You shouldn't believe, or disbelieve, in the bible specifically because it is old
Originally posted by inimalist
exactly. The "game of telephone" played by scientists has actually increased our understanding of evolutionwhich was my point from the beginning
only if the context is "using the bible as a valid form of history".
Even then, the Bible is commonly used by historians, as some of the oldest stories do have some historical veracity. I'm not on my computer at home, so I can't quote it, but the lecture series "War and World History" gives an excellent view on how to use religious text for historical purposes
though, I've already agreed with your point. You shouldn't believe, or disbelieve, in the bible specifically because it is old
Well O.K. you agree with the others and I. I'm glad you can change your stance. You're probably better reading Dawkins, this is actually a quote from him the thread starter has used. Another reason why you and the mod look silly.
Originally posted by Validity
Actually Darwins theory has been heavily modified....
That was one of the worst possible comparisons you could have made.
What you reference are not Darwin's original theory: those are alternate versions with their own "authors" having ownership of those and they make a point to differentiate their work from others.
Darwin's original theory is still preserved at 100% accuracy because we still have his original writing on it. (Saw the little manual he wrote his stuff down in.)
On top of that, we have original publications available.
This is completely different than the old testaments writings which contain 0 original manuscripts and 0 original "published" works.
Originally posted by Validity
If you knew how to spell 'conceding', 'absolutely' etc, I'd take you seriously. Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain, his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.
Being able to spell words properly is not a measure of how poor or how well someone is making their point. Though it is true that it can detract from the "appearance" of their education and intelligence if they can't even right click a word and left click on the auto-correct's recommendation. I blame that on "lazy" rather than someone being stupid. Granted, I rarely use the auto-correct as I post my of my shit from work where we do not have an auto-correct feature like Firefox has...but me being able to spell words better than some should in no way make my points better than theirs. There are people that post here that have original languages other than English. I think it is quite douchy to judge another based on their ability to produce proper grammar and spelling; as I've said in other posts, as long as what they post can be understood without much effort to decipher, grammar, punctuation, and spelling be damned. In fact, I'm an advocate of phonetic spelling.
Also, in the first post of yours, you did not put an apostrophe before you "s" in "Darwins", which makes that word not possessive.
There should also be a "comma" right after the word "Actually", as well.
In your second post, you should have another comma after the word "absolutely" in your first sentence.
You make the "actually" comma mistake, again, in your second sentence. In your second sentence, after you second "as", you should have said "as the others" instead of "as they other" because you have to have proper adjective and object agreement in number. The last "and" should have a comma directly after it and the phrase "in context" should end in a comma to prevent run-on confusion.
See, this is why you do not criticize another for how shitty their posts are: it is extremely easy to be criticized for the same reasons.
Also, inimalist is correct as his explanation is broader and, in context, relates back to the original topic.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have never seen someone so blatantly sock in order to support themselves in a discussion.
I did it before on another website that I was a "global mod*" on, just to get a laugh from my members.
It was pretty funny when only 2 members knew what was happening as they others argued with that fake account. Good times.
*We called ourselves "super moderators", not global moderators.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That was one of the worst possible comparisons you could have made.What you reference are not Darwin's original theory: those are alternate versions with their own "authors" having ownership of those and they make a point to differentiate their work from others.
Darwin's original theory is still preserved at 100% accuracy because we still have his original writing on it. (Saw the little manual he wrote his stuff down in.)
On top of that, we have original publications available.
This is completely different than the old testaments writings which contain 0 original manuscripts and 0 original "published" works.
Being able to spell words properly is not a measure of how poor or how well someone is making their point. Though it is true that it can detract from the "appearance" of their education and intelligence if they can't even right click a word and left click on the auto-correct's recommendation. I blame that on "lazy" rather than someone being stupid. Granted, I rarely use the auto-correct as I post my of my shit from work where we do not have an auto-correct feature like Firefox has...but me being able to spell words better than some should in no way make my points better than theirs. There are people that post here that have original languages other than English. I think it is quite douchy to judge another based on their ability to produce proper grammar and spelling; as I've said in other posts, as long as what they post can be understood without much effort to decipher, grammar, punctuation, and spelling be damned. In fact, I'm an advocate of phonetic spelling.
Also, in the first post of yours, you did not put an apostrophe before you "s" in "Darwins", which makes that word not possessive.
There should also be a "comma" right after the word "Actually", as well.
In your second post, you should have another comma after the word "absolutely" in your first sentence.
You make the "actually" comma mistake, again, in your second sentence. In your second sentence, after you second "as", you should have said "as the others" instead of "as they other" because you have to have proper adjective and object agreement in number. The last "and" should have a comma directly after it and the phrase "in context" should end in a comma to prevent run-on confusion.
See, this is why you do not criticize another for how shitty their posts are: it is extremely easy to be criticized for the same reasons.
Also, inimalist is correct as his explanation is broader and, in context, relates back to the original topic.
I did it before on another website that I was a "global mod*" on, just to get a laugh from my members.
It was pretty funny when only 2 members knew what was happening as they others argued with that fake account. Good times.
*We called ourselves "super moderators", not global moderators.
You write a lot, but say and understand very little.....
man, not to drop an OT or anything, but does Whirly just get banned, period, anytime he shows up?
I guess he could always be just trying to troll, but a couple of these sock names have seemed willing to discuss things, like, I dont think the OP or "validity" did anything specifically worth banning, you guys know-what-i-am-saying? Is it just policy that he is gone as soon as we identify a new member as whirly?
Originally posted by inimalist
man, not to drop an OT or anything, but does Whirly just get banned, period, anytime he shows up?I guess he could always be just trying to troll, but a couple of these sock names have seemed willing to discuss things, like, I dont think the OP or "validity" did anything specifically worth banning, you guys know-what-i-am-saying? Is it just policy that he is gone as soon as we identify a new member as whirly?
Well, socking is a bannable offense. So, yeah. I wish they'd give him some time though, he makes interesting points sometimes.