Dramatic Tablet lends credence to Jesus' existence

calfoxwc

even if it is against you're hypothesis. Jblows

**********************************************************

A. It's "your". "...your hypothesis" "you're" is a contraction of "you are"

as in "you are being an idiot, constantly making points for the article

that weren't made, so you can dispute them.

B. Stick that in your "scientific method"

calfoxwc

Well, Jblu, I was observing your idea that it is okay to put points in your posts that

you say you got from the article, but is not in the article.

I simply gave you a few options to help explain why you do that.

Again, the monumental message is, it, if valid and dated correctly, completely negates

the critics who have been claiming that the stories about Jesus were made up after,

in some kind of "cya", or whatever.

It does prove them wrong to have been claiming that. Nobody anywhere is claiming it proves Jesus

existed and was the Son of God. Nobody.

Interesting - you claim to be a scientist, and know the scientific method...just like woodypeckerhead.

And you both misuse words. Amazing.

MLD Woody

Fuck science. Jesus #1

MLD Woody

It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on

calfoxwc

science this, woodypeckerhead:'

'https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

MLD Woody

@calfoxwc said:

science this, woodypeckerhead:'

'https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

please just keep this to one thread. you don't need to embarrass yourself any more

calfoxwc

Tell us your justification for disagreeing. I'm sure we'd all like an explanation.

You don't get away with just saying "ha..you're wrong, and all the articles don't prove you right".

Explain your phoney "point" - but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak.

MLD Woody

Again, keep that in one thread. I've made my point multiple times. You've posted articles that make my point. It is very simple. Just keep it over there

Clevfan4life

@calfoxwc said:

science this, woodypeckerhead:'

'https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

That was actually pretty interesting Cal, not sure what that has to do with this thread but it's fascinating nonetheless. I like dudes who strike outside the box, and that cat is one of em. My old mans a physicist i'm gonna print that out and show him that, he loves that stuff and can actually relate to it better than I can.

jbluhm86

@calfoxwc said:

even if it is against you're hypothesis. Jblows

**********************************************************

A. It's "your". "...your hypothesis" "you're" is a contraction of "you are"

as in "you are being an idiot, constantly making points for the article

that weren't made, so you can dispute them.

@calfoxwc said:

Tell us your justification for disagreeing. I'm sure we'd all like an explanation.

You don't get away with just saying "ha..you're wrong, and all the articles don't prove you right".

Explain your phoney "point" - but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak.

Well, since you wanted to go down the whole "Grammar-SS" path:

I'm thinking that "thinkin" is an improper contraction of the word "thinking", as in something that you seem to do very little of before you post on here.

Also, there is no need for a comma to punctuate your sentence fragment: "but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak."

But other than that, I hope everything is going well for you in Grammatikland.

Clevfan4life

Nazi grammar cat? I like, I very like.

calfoxwc

I'm thinking that "thinkin" is an improper contraction of the word "thinking", as in something that you seem to do very little of before you post on here.

Also, there is no need for a comma to punctuate your sentence fragment: "but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak." Jblu

******************************

I have fun saying "thinkin"...because I say it that way all the time. It doesn't lend itself to miscommunication,

and I just spell as I say it. It's improper, but not a mistake. See the difference?

And, there may be no need for the comma.... but it is optional, and such, it is valid.

It is used as an introductory element divider. It is not required, but optional, and as a rule,

you should probably use it to preclude any miscommunication.

Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) to connect two independent clauses, as in "He hit the ball well, but he ran toward third base."

Contending that the coordinating conjunction is adequate separation, some writers will leave out the comma in a sentence with short, balanced independent clauses (such as we see in the example just given). If there is ever any doubt, however, use the comma, as it is always correct in this situation.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/commas.htm

Use a comma to set off introductory elements, as in "Running toward third base, he suddenly realized how stupid he looked."

It is permissible to omit the comma after a brief introductory element if the omission does not result in confusion or hesitancy in reading. If there is ever any doubt, use the comma, as it is always correct. If you would like some additional guidelines on using a comma after introductory elements, click HERE.

An absolute phrase is always treated as a parenthetical element, as is an interjection.

Their years of training now forgotten, the soldiers broke ranks.

calfoxwc

I'm thinkin that you are the one who wasn't thinkin, JBlu.

gftChris

Yep, that comma is invalid, neither of the points you posted validate it. It didn't come after a conjunction (point two), and the introductory element is "I'm thinkin" or "I'm thinkin the only point you have" - it doesn't make sense to have it after the "is." For example, you could get by with "I'm thinkin the only car you have, is red" is just about fine, though the comma is unnecessary and makes for bad reading; whereas "I'm thinkin the only car you have is, red" just is plain wrong.

I'm not normally a grammar nazi (<-introductory element/conjunction->), but if you're going to call someone out on it you'd better be damn perfect yourself (conjunction->), and you're not.

I'm not perfect either, by the way, I'm fully aware of that.

calfoxwc

You're wrong, I even bolded and colored the word "but" the same.

I just put it at the beginning, not the end of the phrase. It's still there.

"...but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak."

"He hit the ball well, but he ran toward third base."

as a sentence by itself, I would have said, "You have a dimwtted beak, but that is the only point you have"...

but it was only part of the sentence.

Go back and read, Chris. Click on the link "Absolute Phrase".... and you'll find this:

"Usually (but not always, as we shall see), an absolute phrase (also called a nominative absolute) is a group of words consisting of a noun or pronoun and a participle as well as any related modifiers. "

Now, not only have I used "but" like in the first example, but I have

"...but I'm thinkin the only point you have, is your dimwitted beak."

"point" = noun...... "you" = pronoun............................. "dimwitted" = adjective modifier "beak" = "noun"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle

In the first sentence interesting is used as a true participle; it acts as a verb, taking the object him, and forming the participial phrase interesting him at the moment, which then serves as an adjective phrasemodifying the noun subject. However, in the second sentence interesting has become a pure adjective; it stands in an adjective's typical position before the noun, it can no longer take an object, and it could be accompanied by typical adjective modifiers such as very or quite (or in this case the prefix un-).

Similar examples are "interested people", "a frightened rabbit", "fallen leaves", "meat-eating animals".

See? "dimwitted beak".

calfoxwc

Yep. that comma is valid.

jbluhm86

@mld-woody said:
It helps show a similar story existed before the events of the Bible. It could very easily just mean the authors of the bible already had some folk stories they could base their stories on

You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...

MLD Woody

@jbluhm86 said:
You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...

Right. We need to get back on topic...

Shape shifting Mila Kunis

jcam222

@jbluhm86 said:
You know, it is kind of odd how, after this was brought up, the conversation suddenly was steered away towards interpretations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and proper grammatical sentence structures...

Have you ever heard the saying "to smart for your own good"? It is beyond obvious you very much enjoy hearing yourself talk. There will come a day when that grammatical elegance will not help you. It's a shame you are so smart you can't see the Creator in this wonderous world. This by the way from someone who may attend church once a year.

MLD Woody

Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that