Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[HumblePie]

Actually, nursery rhymes were often used to tell other bits of info. Ring around the Rosies is not actually about kids playing, Rock a bye baby is not actually a song invented to get kids to sleep faster. On and on.

Many rhymes such as Ring around the Rosies were done to get kids to somewhat understand the deathly nature of the plague at the time. Kids, unlike adults, typically have a shorter attention span unless what is being taught also includes entertainment of some variety. This is why Sesame Street doesn't just take raw actors and have them read text books to kids. If they did kids wouldn't watch it to learn the educational content therein. Instead they use puppets and other methods to entertain children to gain their attention so that they may learn the more boring educational content being presented.

Also other rhymes and such were used as ways to get around laws at the time against speaking out against something. When looking at writings which are NOT of a technical or explanatory nature it is sometimes a good idea to look at the timeline and circumstances under which it was written to gain a better insight to what is written.

Untrue. If you ask your only child if they broke the lamp and that child just look at you and says nothing, what do you think it means?

You are an idiot. If a kid doesn't respond to a broken lamp it doesn't mean the kid broke it. If you are the type of parent that assumes they did without extra evidence as proof then you are a horrible parent if you punish that child. If you come upon a situation where there is a broken lamp and your child standing next to it, the circumstances would seem to indicate that the child broke it even if that child isn't forthcoming with information as to why the lamp was broken. However, unless you have some other evidence as to how the lamp actually broke then you should not be punishing that child. Use your brain to find that information by either coaxing it out of the child, or some other method of information gathering such as video camera or checking on the household pet and where they are.


But don't think that by the child remaining silent while standing next to a broken lamp has any other meaning other than what the situation shows you. If you think there is something extra then you might as well claim that a quiet child by a broken lamp proves the existence of brain sucking aliens from Mars.

 

[cybrsage]

OK...here is an example I hope will help a bit in explaining that what is not said matters a lot in what is meant:

If there is a sign on an upcale diner in Matha's Vinyard which says "Whites and Asians allowed inside", what does this sign really say? Is it saying "we think you might not know, but all races are allowed inside, including whites ans asians" or is it saying "only whites and asians allowed inside"?

Since the former is simply stating the obvious, the latter is the best way to read the sign. It says much in what it does not say.

A sign on a public bathroom says "women". I disagree, it is a door, not more than one woman. If I open the door and no one is inside, is the sign lying...there are no women in the door. What does that one word label mean? Oh, it means "this bathroom is reserved for women only, men are not to use this bathroom". Lots of words there which were not on the door...

 

[HumblePie]

The crown is the top of your head. It is the meaning of the word.

It is one possible meaning of the word. Some words do have multiple meanings and to derive the meaning of a given word one must read the context in which it is written. Hidden meanings are usually done when the author is TRYING to do hidden meanings, but one is typically given clues when reading a passage that is trying to have a "hidden meaning."

Why? Because why write out something with a "hidden meaning" as an author if there will be no one to understand it? There is no hidden meaning in the Jack and Jill nursery rhyme at all. Crown was picked because it is synonymous with head and rhymes with down. End of story.

 

[HumblePie]

OK...here is an example I hope will help a bit in explaining that what is not said matters a lot in what is meant:

If there is a sign on an upcale diner in Matha's Vinyard which says "Whites and Asians allowed inside", what does this sign really say? Is it saying "we think you might not know, but all races are allowed inside, including whites ans asians" or is it saying "only whites and asians allowed inside"?

Since the former is simply stating the obvious, the latter is the best way to read the sign. It says much in what it does not say.

A sign on a public bathroom says "women". I disagree, it is a door, not more than one woman. If I open the door and no one is inside, is the sign lying...there are no women in the door. What does that one word label mean? Oh, it means "this bathroom is reserved for women only, men are not to use this bathroom". Lots of words there which were not on the door...

Again, you are an idiot. Just because something is POORLY written, doesn't mean there is any extra meaning behind it. Your examples are stupid.


Why? Take your first example of the sign. Signs are written in the context of what is around them. They are NOT explanatory documents. They are short information blurbs that require the reader to look at their surroundings to gather all the information needed. They have no hidden meanings. Without further information there is nothing else to derive logically from your sign example. Maybe that was a sign put up in the early 1800's in an Asian country that had some visiting white people ONLY and nothing else. During a time when racial tensions were high and it was a sign for a building showing that it was not bigoted and served both white and asian patrons.

Again your examples are dis ambiguous at best. Rhetorically stupid though is what I would call them.

 

[cybrsage]

Here is an example which is closer to the subject:

The engineer pressed the on button and leaned back in his chair to rest after finishing the self replicating and evolving program. Does this mean the self replicating program is resting too?

Of course not. It is now turned on, which means it is doing what it was designed to do, replicate and evolve. To think the program would not be running after it was turned on is silly, and people would look at you strange if you said the above sentence means the robot is not replicating and evolving.

 

[cybrsage]

It is one possible meaning of the word. Some words do have multiple meanings and to derive the meaning of a given word one must read the context in which it is written.

Of course, and the context used was Jack and Jill.

Hidden meanings are usually done when the author is TRYING to do hidden meanings, but one is typically given clues when reading a passage that is trying to have a "hidden meaning."

Why? Because why write out something with a "hidden meaning" as an author if there will be no one to understand it? There is no hidden meaning in the Jack and Jill nursery rhyme at all. Crown was picked because it is synonymous with head and rhymes with down. End of story.

Dunno. Jacks and Jills are also units of measure which went out of style. Regardless, there are many nursery rhymes which do have hidden meanings.

 

[HumblePie]

Here is an example which is closer to the subject:

The engineer pressed the on button and leaned back in his chair to rest after finishing the self replicating and evolving program. Does this mean the self replicating program is resting too?

Of course not. It is now turned on, which means it is doing what it was designed to do, replicate and evolve. To think the program would not be running after it was turned on is silly, and people would look at you strange if you said the above sentence means the robot is not replicating and evolving.

Again, your example is stupid. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. No one with logic and information of what a program is would not understand that sentence. Just stop already. You are making a huge fool out of yourself.

 

[cybrsage]

Again, you are an idiot. Just because something is POORLY written, doesn't mean there is any extra meaning behind it. Your examples are stupid.

Only because you are too much an idiot to follow along.

Why? Take your first example of the sign. Signs are written in the context of what is around them. They are NOT explanatory documents. They are short information blurbs that require the reader to look at their surroundings to gather all the information needed. They have no hidden meanings. Without further information there is nothing else to derive logically from your sign example. Maybe that was a sign put up in the early 1800's in an Asian country that had some visiting white people ONLY and nothing else. During a time when racial tensions were high and it was a sign for a building showing that it was not bigoted and served both white and asian patrons.

Again your examples are dis ambiguous at best.

So you agree that what it does not say is vitally important. Why go through so many words just to say "I agree, what the sign does not say is important"?

Rhetorically stupid though is what I would call them.

That is because you are too much an idiot to follow along. Sucks to have someone toss back your own slurs, eh?

 

[cybrsage]

Again, your example is stupid.

Wait, you actually think that since the program's creator rested, the program also must rest? Why do you think that?

If you mean something else, well, you should say it. Simply saying "nuh uh" is worthless.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. No one with logic and information of what a program is would not understand that sentence. Just stop already. You are making a huge fool out of yourself.

Exactly. You just agreed that what is not said is just as important as what is said. All you need is to have an understanding of the subject.

 

[HumblePie]

Of course, and the context used was Jack and Jill.



Dunno. Jacks and Jills are also units of measure which went out of style. Regardless, there are many nursery rhymes which do have hidden meanings.

Grrr, stop being obtuse. I never said there weren't nursery rhymes without hidden meanings. Many of those were used as political speech where political speech was being oppressed. The target audience at the time obviously understood the message though. It is the same thing as an inside joke. Gah, you are retarded.

 

[HumblePie]

Wait, you actually think that since the program's creator rested, the program also must rest? Why do you think that?

If you mean something else, well, you should say it. Simply saying "nuh uh" is worthless.

No you moron. Anyone who knows what an engineer is and what a program is would know by your sentence that when an engineer turns a program on to run then the program would do it's work regardless of what the engineer did unless the engineer stops it. Only people who lack the informational knowledge of what an engineer or program are would come up with different meanings to your sentence. Which is why YOU ARE STUPID.

 

[cybrsage]

Grrr, stop being obtuse. I never said there weren't nursery rhymes without hidden meanings. Many of those were used as political speech where political speech was being oppressed. The target audience at the time obviously understood the message though. It is the same thing as an inside joke. Gah, you are retarded.

Yes, they said things other than what the words said. Thanks for agreeing with me again.

 

[cybrsage]

No you moron. Anyone who knows what an engineer is and what a program is would know by your sentence that when an engineer turns a program on to run then the program would do it's work regardless of what the engineer did unless the engineer stops it. Only people who lack the informational knowledge of what an engineer or program are would come up with different meanings to your sentence. Which is why YOU ARE STUPID.

You keep calling me stupid while agreeing with me. I think you need to start taking your meds again.

 

[HumblePie]

So you agree that what it does not say is vitally important. Why go through so many words just to say "I agree, what the sign does not say is important"?

YOU ARE STUPID. There infer from that.


I said there is a fucking difference between a technical document or an explanatory document and fucking fiction or a damn wall sign. You are an idiot thinking fucking asshole raping aliens are going to come out and penetrate you when you read a sign that says, "Whites and Asians only" because the sign doesn't also state that there are ass hole raping aliens in the bushes next to you about to come penetrate you.

For fuck sake stop being a moron.

 

[cybrsage]

YOU ARE STUPID. There infer from that.

Why? You said that anyone who understand programs would know that what is not said has meaning.

I said there is a fucking difference between a technical document or an explanatory document and fucking fiction or a damn wall sign. You are an idiot thinking fucking asshole raping aliens are going to come out and penetrate you when you read a sign that says, "Whites and Asians only" because the sign doesn't also state that there are ass hole raping aliens in the bushes next to you about to come penetrate you.

For fuck sake stop being a moron.

What do you think a sign which reads "Whites and Asians only" means? Do tell.

 

[HumblePie]

To clarify, almost all forms of writing have a target audience. They take on some level of assumption about the reader having some prior knowledge about what they are reading. Signs for example assume the reader of the sign is going to be aware of their surroundings to infer proper meaning to a message the sign is trying to deliver. WITHOUT THAT KNOWLEDGE the sign doesn't mean anything to anyone. You can not infer extra meanings to a sign without that assumed knowledge the writer has of the reader.

THAT is what I'm trying to point out. If you can't understand this basic concept of written language then you really are stupid.

PS, only one of posts above mentioned ass raping aliens going after cybersage. Since the previous posts I had written didn't state that, it was obvious they were going after him to everyone else right?

 

[cybrsage]

To clarify, almost all forms of writing have a target audience. They take on some level of assumption about the reader having some prior knowledge about what they are reading. Signs for example assume the reader of the sign is going to be aware of their surroundings to infer proper meaning to a message the sign is trying to deliver. WITHOUT THAT KNOWLEDGE the sign doesn't mean anything to anyone. You can not infer extra meanings to a sign without that assumed knowledge the writer has of the reader.

THAT is what I'm trying to point out. If you can't understand this basic concept of written language then you really are stupid.

Exactly. EVERYTHING written is done with a target audience in mind. Things are understood to be there when they are not actually written down. You find this in every written form.

The Torah is no different. The target audience understood that when God said He rested after finishing the creation of the world, that the world was going to continue growing and changing on its own.

What is not written is almost as important as what it written. It is that way in all forms of communications. That is what I have been saying from the start.

 

[HumblePie]

Exactly. EVERYTHING written is done with a target audience in mind. Things are understood to be there when they are not actually written down. You find this in every written form.

The Torah is no different. The target audience understood that when God said He rested after finishing the creation of the world, that the world was going to continue growing and changing on its own.

What is not written is almost as important as what it written. It is that way in all forms of communications. That is what I have been saying from the start.

No, no, NO.

You are infering your OWN meaning on what the authors of the bible, torah, or other fictional work. The authors and those they were writing to at the time had ZERO knowledge of evolution. None what so ever. So how could write something that would infer such knowledge? YOU have knowledge of evolution thanks to modern science, but the people back then didn't.

That is why your examples are fucking retarded.

 

[cybrsage]

No, no, NO.

You are infering your OWN meaning on what the authors of the bible, torah, or other fictional work. The authors and those they were writing to at the time had ZERO knowledge of evolution. None what so ever. So how could write something that would infer such knowledge? YOU have knowledge of evolution thanks to modern science, but the people back then didn't.

You do not have to understand evolution to know the world changes over time. You simply have to watch the land erode after a storm. You are assuming change can only mean evolution. Evolution is a member of the set of change, but there are many member in the set of change.

This would have been even more obvious to those whose survival depended upon understanding these changes.

That is why your examples are fucking awesome!

I changed what you said to what you meant. Since you have been agreeing with me this entire time, you must have meant awesome.

 

[HumblePie]

You do not have to understand evolution to know the world changes over time. You simply have to watch the land erode after a storm. You are assuming change can only mean evolution. Evolution is a member of the set of change, but there are many member in the set of change.

This would have been even more obvious to those whose survival depended upon understanding these changes.



I changed what you said to what you meant. Since you have been agreeing with me this entire time, you must have meant awesome.

No you dipshit. Those fictional texts also state that man is made in the image of God. That he was made first and foremost to be the "best" on the planet. That we were designed as life form to never change. That everything was created for us so long as we do the will of God.

That is not something that sounds like a changing eco system. Why? Because those dumb fucks back then didn't know that life changed. It is one thing to see the landscape change. Why? Anyone that has ever lived can pick up a rock and move it. There, the land changed. But no one back then knew how to put genetic markers in corn for example so they didn't know life could change as well. There is a fucking difference.

You are taking your own current form of knowledge and trying to REINTERPRET what some dumb fucks back in the past stated. That is the epitome of retarded.

Look at science. One day someone says life doesn't change. That all life remains static. That was the current observational evidence science had at the time. Then some scientist comes along and finds evidence that life on this little island has changed over time. So science now takes what it had previously written and thought was right "All life doesn't change" and tosses it out when new evidence is found. "Life on that island changes, but the rest of life isn't proven to change as well yet."

Then from that new statement more evidence is searched for in either direction. To prove that only life on that island changes or if other forms of life change. Eventually we get to where we are now and that is the Theory of Evolution that all life on this planet changes.

That is NOT to say that life, if there is other life out there in the universe, are ALSO bound be the same theory of evolution. It is most likely the case, but science as we know it CAN NOT STATE THAT. Inferring that possible alien life forms outside our knowledge also evolve is a logic fallacy.


But because the Theory of Evolution doesn't talk about life outside this world doesn't prove or disprove alien life exists. The theory of evolution as written only pertains to the CURRENT LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE. When new knowledge is accumulated it will be changed if needed to fit the new evidence and knowledge. That is how science works. Retarded religious dipshits like you try to reinterpret and twist words written in the past to fit your current views and knowledge level. That is why you are stupid and your examples are stupid.

Science doesn't take the original statement, "All life is static" and have that statement fit into the new evidence and knowledge that life evolves by reinterpreting the statement to try and twist it to fit in with newly discovered facts somehow.

 

[Pens1566]

Idiotic, and prolific. Quite the combo this one is.

I sense a presence I've not felt since ...

 

[cybrsage]

No you dipshit. Those fictional texts also state that man is made in the image of God. That he was made first and foremost to be the "best" on the planet. That we were designed as life form to never change. That everything was created for us so long as we do the will of God.

Well, you start with a false premise, so no wonder your results are flawed.

Where does it say we were designed to never change? It both does not say that, and it does not imply it. In fact, in the image of God is meant on a spiritual level, not a physical level.

That is not something that sounds like a changing eco system. Why? Because those dumb fucks back then didn't know that life changed. It is one thing to see the landscape change. Why? Anyone that has ever lived can pick up a rock and move it. There, the land changed. But no one back then knew how to put genetic markers in corn for example so they didn't know life could change as well. There is a fucking difference.

Your hubris is showing.

You think people were stupid back then. You are wrong. They were MUCH more in tune with nature than we are today. They knew nature was always changing, slowly morphing (and something rapidly morphing).

To say people a long time ago did not have an understanding of nature is silly.

Look at science. One day someone says life doesn't change. That all life remains static. That was the current observational evidence science had at the time. Then some scientist comes along and finds evidence that life on this little island has changed over time. So science now takes what it had previously written and thought was right "All life doesn't change" and tosses it out when new evidence is found. "Life on that island changes, but the rest of life isn't proven to change as well yet."

Everyone already knew life adapted prior to the 1800s. Don't be silly. What Darwin did was create macro evolution...which was a novel idea. His view of it was very flawed, but it spurred others to alter it and come up with a very good theory.

 

[randomrogue]

Get a room you two.

 

[cybrsage]

Get a room you two.

Will you join us? I have heard great things about you. :sneaky:

 

[HumblePie]

Well, you start with a false premise, so no wonder your results are flawed.

Where does it say we were designed to never change? It both does not say that, and it does not imply it. In fact, in the image of God is meant on a spiritual level, not a physical level.



Your hubris is showing.

You think people were stupid back then. You are wrong. They were MUCH more in tune with nature than we are today. They knew nature was always changing, slowly morphing (and something rapidly morphing).

To say people a long time ago did not have an understanding of nature is silly.



Everyone already knew life adapted prior to the 1800s. Don't be silly. What Darwin did was create macro evolution...which was a novel idea. His view of it was very flawed, but it spurred others to alter it and come up with a very good theory.

LOLERZ! You want to re interpret the words, Man is made in the Image of God as a "spiritual" only meaning and not the literal one? Despite VOLUME of religious documentation stating to the contrary at the time? I'm talking of works from dead sea scrolls, to hieroglyphs, to later writings done by "saintly scholars" that all state the same fucking thing. Man is physically made in the image of God. God made everything at once on this planet for mankind. That nothing changes because God made it and thus God is infalliable so no changes are ever needed to what he created perfectly in the first place.

Those are writings from texts, scrolls, and even later scholarly interpretations denoted later. Then along comes science and says, "Hold the phone! shit changes!" Now you got a gap of those religious morons that try to come up with every fucking illogical reason imaginable to state science is wrong, and those religious morons that try to reinterpret what was said in the past based on current knowledge so that the con still feel comfy in their delusions of an all powerful deity that looks over them.