Scientific Errors

[Whatsthepoint]

Skye, what formal education in the field of lingusitic studies have you aquired?

 

[جوري]

Skye, what formal education in the field of lingusitic studies have you aquired?

In my under-grad along with my major (molecular biology) I have minored in chem, and art history and took six courses in languages plus the history of.. how about you and your good pal?

all the best

 

[جوري]

An addendum to AZY from my previous post.. you forgot this:

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:

(1) SAY: "O you who deny the truth!

(2) "I do not worship that which you worship,

(3) and neither do you worship that which I worship! 1

(4) "And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped,

(5) and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. 2

(6) Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !" 3

​

Do you see how I can tell you are not read?

All the best!

 

[Whatsthepoint]

In my under-grad along with my major (molecular biology) I have minored in chem, and art history and took six courses in languages plus the history of.. how about you and your good pal?

all the best

Well the system here is different than in the US, and the school I go to doesn't enable you to take 6 courses in languages, but I took 3 foreign language classes in which I'm rather fluent, plus I am fluent in my mother tounge and 2 languages that are closely related to it and I can read an additional of 3 slightly less related languages to my own, as well as a fair portion of 3 languages related to the ones I took classes of.

 

[جوري]

Well the system here is different than in the US, and the school I go to doesn't enable you to take 6 courses in languages, but I took 3 foreign language classes in which I'm rather fluent, plus I am fluent in my mother tounge and 2 languages that are closely related to it and I can read an additional of 3 slightly less related languages to my own, as well as a fair portion of 3 languages related to the ones I took classes of.

Great -- you can take as many or as little as you want here, plus outside of academia you can take courses at say the french institute or German institute.. my father as well is fluent in 7 languages plus wrote the first comprehensive Swahili/Arabic dictionary..

We are a family that loves words.. other than that in introduction courses they cover things like
1-The most difficult language being Chinese
2-Poorest language German
3-richest language
4-most evolved Semitic language
5-Romantic languages
etc etc

All the best!

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Great -- you can take as many or as little as you want here, plus outside of academia you can take courses at say the french institute or German institute.. my father as well is fluent in 7 languages plus wrote the first comprehensive Swahili/Arabic dictionary..

We are a family that loves words.. other than that in introduction courses they cover things like
1-The most difficult language being Chinese
2-Poorest language German
3-richest language
4-most evolved Semitic language
5-Romantic languages
etc etc

All the best!

I find it hard to believe anyone would present this as facts, apart from no. 4, they all depends on several factors and are subjective, the criteria itself would have to be subjective, I don't know what you hard or who told you what but I am certain categories 1 through 3 and 5 are not universally accepted in the lingusitic scientific community.

 

[جوري]

I find it hard to believe anyone would present this as facts, apart from no. 4, they all depends on several factors and are subjective, the criteria itself would have to be subjective, I don't know what you hard or who told you what but I am certain categories 1 through 3 and 5 are not universally accepted in the lingusitic scientific community.

people who set criteria try to make it as scientific as possible, even if it appears to the naked eye like a random thing:
Can you tell the difference off hand between:
schizophrenia, Schizophreniform, Schizotypal and Schizoid personalities? They all seem so grossly related save for the thin line criteria that defines them..
A group of scholars in the field get together and decide what that is and then they disseminate it throughout academia.. They do that in almost everything from surgery to Pathology to languages.

I am only relaying what I was formally taught.. (quite possible it has changed through the yrs) but I doubt it!

All the best

 

[Azy]

I am only relaying what I was formally taught..

What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".

You have made an argument as well based on 'faith', you have faith that God doesn't exist but haven't provided any evidence to his non-existence

That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.

Not only have you not proven that he doesn't exist but you haven't given us any logical reason(s) as to how everything came to be using science..

Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.

Correction, I covered it, after your rant about Christianity and its branches!

Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.

'Call them' doesn't mean put a gun to their head? correct? You've been warned and that is all anyone can do for you!

No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.


Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?

 

[جوري]

What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".

I take it you drowned me in bull because you couldn't find an answer on the 'world wide web' to a simple pathology slide? What is that? You need to purchase Robbins review of pathology-- after having learned something about histology? through formal proper education -- Yeah I thought so!

It would be easy for me to assert a point through a google search such as what you have done earlier, you see all you needed was this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Arabic+is+the+richest+language&aq=f&oq=

to find out more than one source on the matter..
but that is the method of unlearned, which is actually exactly what you are!
Further I have said nothing to a 'minor in languages'.. I said I have taken several courses on languages. Unlike you I don't feign degrees I don't actually have or hide behind a web search when having no appropriate understanding of the subject or how to sort through it..

That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.

That is what an atheist is-- Someone who denies the existence of god through unwavering faith!
You either consider that God exists or you don't.. which is it?

Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.

I said my faith is based on logic save for the portion of it that falls on trust.. do re-read here

My faith is based on logic, save for the parts that should be left to (trust) of the one that made the other 90% components incontestable!

I don't owe you an explanation otherwise of my journey ( I have also said something of that matter that finding God is a solo journey).. You on the other hand are not only impressing upon us a universal negative but you haven't gone the extra mile to provide us with how it all came to be either from:

or

the two alleged 'scientific' stances on the matter.. or generously taught us in a likewise logical scientific fashion why that should dispel the "God did it myth"!

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.

and I have repeatedly told you, logically or not, I have no interest in starting a long theological/scientific debate with you -- how many times must I state it for it to take hold?

Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.

Perhaps you should re-visit what you initially wrote

What a bizarre claim to make considering the man-made Bible was the dominant religion for so long and has 2 billion followers.
.

.. or do you have difficulty with both comprehension, reading and writing?

No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.

I have never made either claim, I stated (see above and previous) I have reached the decision that God exists through logic, and the Quran certainly is its own testament to the truth, one can employ more than one formula to reach the same conclusion Why should my route be more or less impressive than Dr. Jeffrey Lang or Dr. Laurence B. Brown (it is a personal quest) -- I will not slave however, over exegesis with you anymore than I (as in previous threads) can enclose an entire medical compendium for you, or teach you parsing and linguistics or how to drive a stick shift or revive someone in Vfib, or spoon feed you Jello (who the hell do you think you are?) and I have so much as told you that nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing you rot in hell!

Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?

You are forewarned in the same manner smokers are forewarned by the surgeon general on the box which they purchase.. any further reading on the matter will have to be done on your own private time!

all the best!

 

[Muhaba]

What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".
That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.

Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.
Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.
No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.


Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?

You should study the Quraan, preferably starting with the last chapters and going backward. this is because the last chapters were revealed first and they are shorter so you can study them in very little time. you can also read their commentary at this website: http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/

If you want guidance and are sincere in your search, God will definately help you.

 

[Azy]

From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.

Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University

That is what an atheist is-- Someone who denies the existence of god through unwavering faith!
You either consider that God exists or you don't.. which is it?

That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.

I have reached the decision that God exists through logic
I said my faith is based on logic save for the portion of it that falls on trust..

Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.

Perhaps you should re-visit what you initially wrote
.. or do you have difficulty with both comprehension, reading and writing?

Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.

I have so much as told you that nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing you rot in hell!

You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.

 

[alcurad]

Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.

Azy, what logic is Not predicated on faith?
that is, what are axioms if not assumptions based on faith,,

 

[Azy]

Azy, what logic is Not predicated on faith?
that is, what are axioms if not assumptions based on faith,,

This is correct but there are faiths based on experience and evidence, and there are faiths based on other things.

 

[جوري]

From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.
Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University

Interesting indeed-- When classifying a melanoma, a pathologist has the good fortune to use of two elements to his/her pathological staging, either to measure thickness, such as in Breslow, looking for depth in mm or uses Clark's classification aka (level of invasion-- whether limited to epidermis, papillary, reticular or subcutaneous etc etc.. Are they both correct? absolutely!.. a wise pathologist usually doesn't withhold or dismiss the research of other pathologists even if new and improved methods arise, it certainly doesn't nullify what is previously established and in his/her report might even go as far as to provide the clinician with both classifications where the clinician can then choose what s/he may to employ appropriate treatment-- thus referring me to a quote written by someone disillusioned or disenchanted with a term, doesn't do much for me (sorry)!


Try to translate that to your mind, the next time you google me from a website to cement a point you are trying to cement ( as irrelevant and auxillary as it is to the topic and as a sudden point of interest to deflect away from the real problem (which is you alleging to have read and comment on topics you've not even remotely skimmed through) !.. I always knew I could give you some 24,000 site to a point I am making it isn't that difficult, but instead I urged you to get a proper education and I still hope it is something you'll consider.. You'll go out there in the world and make a fool of yourself repeatedly where you can be more painfully scrutinized not just by a mere screen name on a public blog but for failure to distinguish and weed through a myriad of information thrown at you!

That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.

Agnosticism is a place of vacillation to most people.. it is a rest house but not a permanent solution!

Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.

To me God, the Quran are an undisputed fact based on sound reasonable judgment of a criteria which I have set up with a particular confidence interval. You are not the one who is to dictate to me what I should take into consideration or weed out in the process. What works for me, does not work for everyone.. Many a colleagues modern day, still consider 'Psychiatry' to be a nonsensical branch of medicine based on alot of quackery and that is certainly their prerogative.. but there is a science even to something as hypothetical and colorful as mental disorders!

Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.

Your meanings evolve as you post, I say it is good to keep a certain margin given how many times you end up with a foot in your mouth!

You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.

You are a great example of why kids should stay in school =)

all the best!

 

[Chuck]

From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.

Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University
That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.
Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.
Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.
You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.

 

[جوري]

:haha: brilliant.. I am not a fan of ganging up on people, but I really enjoyed this .. Thank you, don't mind if I use it along with my other fav.

for those days when I wanna fill my life with drivel

 

[alcurad]

now now,,