Dramatic Tablet lends credence to Jesus' existence
-
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.
-
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".
-
Yep. that comma is valid.
-
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
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...
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
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...
-
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...
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.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...
-
Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Yeah, it's common problem everywhere.
People that THINK they are too smart.
And thinking that way, isn't for their own good. Why,
all too often, they end up all alone, never date, and get
on web sites like, what was it? Nambla?
And they go around molting and pecking....
-
I don't think NAMBLA members are too smart for their own good... Lol
-
you know some? a lot...of them?
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
-
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.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.
As I have stated before, and I will undoubtedly have to say it again in the future, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I base my views on life upon the best available data that I have. Is it perfect? No. Has science answered every question about life? No. But therein lies the key difference between religion and science: science does not have all the answers, but scientists from all fields are continually advancing our knowledge of the universe; they are constantly testing and refining theories about our reality, and improving our understanding of the world based on tangible evidence. Religion, conversely, maintains that there is nothing to discover, that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity, who watches over every human being every moment of their lives (and afterlives) like some celestial dictator; a cosmic Kim Jeong-Un. And to top it all off, we are supposed to maintain an unwavering faith in this "creator" without a scrap of proof to suggest that he even exists, or worse, base our entire beliefs in him upon dusty, old Iron Age scribblings, of which there is ample evidence of multiple human revisions, omissions, and modifications. So no, I will not apologize for using my brain and faculties of reasoning to dismiss a bunch of superstitious fairy tales, nor will I apologize if that offends yours or anyone else's apparently delicate sensibilities.
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 and I appear to be wasting our breath on this Woody. Cal and the other detractors are either unable or unwilling to stick to the topic and try to answer this. That's why Cal is going to probably continue on with his insults and off-topic distractions. The debate in this particular thread is pretty much over in my book. I suppose he'll run out of blaze articles and Wikipedia links eventually.
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.Too smart for your own good? Religious leaders must hate that
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.
Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
-
I don't follow religious leaders. If you can't understand the meaning of it tough shit. Have you read his posts? On and on with his superiority complex. You are kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum with most of your posts.
Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
No, I do respect your right to free speech and your opinion. My religious belief is that you have been granted the ability to choose what to believe as well. I do however believe that science and Christian beliefs in many cases aren't mutually exclusive.Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but here in the United States, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think I have a "superiority complex"; I just respond to posts as I see fit, and I try to do so in a half-way intelligent manner. If that somehow offends you, by all means, you are more than welcome to click that "ignore" button on my username.
-
Right. We need to get back on topic...
Shape shifting Mila Kunis
ikr?
-
Religion, conversely, maintains that there is nothing to discover, that everything was created by a mysterious, omnipotent and omnipresent deity jbloo
*********************************
Grandious. Check. Slightly bigger words. Check. "Religion....maintains....nothing new to discover"
What a giant pile of liberal pseudo-reality.
List of Christians in science and technology -...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers...... techniques in medical science. A devout Christian, ... on Religious Belief and madediscoveries ... New Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and ...
-
still waiting on jblu to catch on with
learn...think....then post.
well, and Cleve. And the woodpecker.
Actually, Chris has done it once or twice........
I think Edward does it...
but then he writes bs anyways.....
-
Happy Halloween everybody hope you get as drunk as I do ?
-
and then when they lose their argument...
they CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I nailed that one....good liberal dishonest job, Edward.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login