Roy Hunter wrote:Is that it? A bunch of self-referential, self congratulatory hogwash based on reading the Gospel, some questionable assumptions about Islam, and some self-cancelling logic?
I read it over 6 times before I posted it (no, really).
Seriously? Try and take this as constructive criticism but you have quite a bit to learn about clarity in extended writing.
Bullet point what you want to say.
Sort that into paragraphs (ideally not more than 2 points per paragraph)
Then put all the grammatical fluff around the key points.
It's something I'm currently trying to get adolescents to do and it's difficult to learn but makes communication much clearer.
Not to blow my own trumpet but have a look at this
for an idea about laying out written ideas for clarity.
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:And I saw what Nef Yoo wrote for this thread. If that's perfectly acceptable, then all bets are off.
Erm, Nef Yoo got his own 'special' doctorate. Think a 'well done for not vomiting on the carpet' badge.
Roy Hunter wrote:Also, Professor Roland's not exactly sober right now...
Great, which is why I turn to the (rather dwindling) masses of these forums for an outright opinion based on observation, logical conjecture, and a desire to aid improvement, not biting (EDIT: no, criticism isn't the word I'm looking for . . . insults! That's the ticket!) insults that have no actual helpfully (or even neutrally) critical intent, frankly make an ɑss out of you, and are probably quoted from the comments section of a modern news article.
Ah, see, this is probably a cultural issue. Generally speaking, British people are very happy with self-demeaning humour and the only thing we prefer is putting other people down. Paradoxically, many of the most offensive words we can think of are used to indicate affection with friends. I have been known to greet people I know down the pub with 'Alright wankers?' and I believe the young fellows around Roy's neck of the woods use rather more uncouth language to show affection.
To cut a long story short, if you think Roy was being insulting then you are seriously mistaken. He (and I) can be insulting if you want?
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote:Now seriously, did something happen? Did someone you know kick it or something? Or are you just too deep in that cup there, Dolly Parton?
Don't look at me like that, I'm giving you a way to explain this nonsensical ranting.
Not clever. See, you don't know anyone on here. I will admit I don't either but after 8 years or so you get a pretty good grasp on what people are like. Now, if what you had said was correct? All you have achieved is making someone feel upset or angry about circumstances they cannot control. Roy, for all that you feel he is insulting and belittling you, is attacking your thoughts and voluntarily posted ideas, not who you are.
Would you feel happy attacking someone for their gender, age or skin colour? No? Then other things they cannot change are off limits as well.
StayThirstyMyAguila wrote: daftbeaker wrote:
Roy Hunter wrote:The way it works in tertiary education is that you write a thesis, and your peers decide what qualification you are getting.
I suspect you'd get a BS.
That is something different to a BSc I assume? I think FA might be more likely
I had to look up that last abbreviation (which I hesitate to write because of my school's multiple programs on this laptop, monitoring my very keystrokes). I get the feeling it's one of the less flattering ones. I feel you're going to be much more reasonable and direct than my not-so-dear boy/girl/other over here. If you would, be a dear and explain to me what is so wrong with it.
If you continue with the patronising 'be a dear' stuff, no.
This is with my exam marking hat on:
Alright, here goes nothin':
Oh, before we start, I'll mention that it's going to have a name not uncouth to those of episodes of "The Big Bang Theory". irrelevant
The Creation Implication
We all know the argument against a creator, intelligent or otherwise: The creator must have had a creator, and that creator a creator, et cetera this isn't your high school - lose this(no, the correct grammar would NOT be, 'and et cetera", because, "et" is Latin, and coincidentally also French, for, "and", so the translation would therefore be, "and and cetera", and while this phrase has its uses, this isn't one of them)
. This, as seems obvious to my mind, must also apply to the Big Bang, for the Big Bang is as much a creator as anything else.this is ascribing consciousness to an either unconscious or unknowable process
If you have yet to read The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, then I strongly suggest you do so, or at least to read the passage on pages 164-169 if you need clarification on the 'infinite creators' idea.without a relevant quote this is less useful - I can't be arsed to find my copy and most other people will be the same
The source of our apparent problem, at least, as mine eyes see it, is that any creator implies a mightier creator from whence they came. The answer to this conundrum, my dear boy, girls, and others, is the Greeks.
As usual, the Greeks (and through them, the thieving warlords we call, "Romans") were right. The evidence and its inherent logic, at least, suggests they were correct in their assumption that everything in existence started as Chaos.this bit, apart from rather florid language, is ok
Consider the nature of Chaos: chaos, by definition, follows no patterns and no laws, not those of physics, morality, federal government, states, provinces, religion, nor even those of time itself. Therefore, chaos would follow no timeline¹, and would assume every form and no form all at once.evidence?
Where were we? Oh yes: logically, one of these 'forms' must be one that has the characteristic of rules, and would be subject to those rules (there would be other forms as well, but these are irrelevant). This form would take no time at all (since time cannot exist in pure chaos) to become dominant, because it would immediately denature itself, a.k.a. the chaos and take on that shape until some external influence forced it to do otherwise.this is philosophical nonsense - chaos theory is a very interesting branch of mathematics that does not say what you claim here
Some may argue that this theory does not mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is not necessarily so. I direct your attention to The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson, specifically pages 199-202. This passage, in case you don't have access to it or are simply too lazy to check, uses Kolmogorov complexity to provide proof and a greater understanding of His noodly goodness. It also illustrates how a creator complex enough to create life could have come from something as simple as a box of straight lines (or a box of, "simple carbohydrates", as some would say).
See what I did there?
I now propose my theorem: I propose that the origin-chaos-of-many-forms-all-at-once became a single form that followed certain rules, forcing itself to degenerate to a state of a rule-driven reality, and immediately created a box of spaghetti, along with some way to quickly increase the complexity of that spaghetti, giving us the FSM and, in turn, the world as we see it now.
Unfortunately, if you count the rules of logical conjecture as rules, then chaos does not necessarily have to conform to this logic, and the entire theorem is null and void.and this last sentence sums up why we got in a hissy fit