User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Eve
October 2009 misphrasing

Your October 2009 cartoon has "Until we have a god to study, we have nothing to apply." That is very bad phrasing. Its most obvious meaning is that we don't have evidence to apply until a god comes along to help us.

From the context it appears you meant, "WHEN we have a god to study, we have nothing to apply."

It takes considerable thought to realize you were organizing 2 possibilities like ducks in a row one after the other. That's where "until" would make sense. But 2 alternatives are usually organized "on one hand ... on the other."

"Its most obvious meaning is that we don't have evidence to apply until a god comes along to help us."

Nope, not even close. No god = no observations = nothing to apply. Get it now?

Danlantic said, "Your October 2009 cartoon has "Until we have a god to study, we have nothing to apply." That is very bad phrasing."

Using the word "has" instead of "said" or "wrote" was very bad phrasing - - and it would have been better "phrasing" if you had said, "your phrasing was very bad." Nevertheless, you are criticizing her (so-called) poor phrasing with poor phrasing.

Also, it would have been more diagrammatic if you had included the title of the cartoon "Answers from Genesis?" I thought that the cartoon was depicting a well-known 'Young Earth Creationist Organization' with a similar name, and if it was, it was very mild criticism compared to many others posted on different web pages.

Danlantic said, "Its most obvious meaning is that we don't have evidence to apply until a god comes along to help us."

Only if you don't know that she is waiting on the creationist to give us some evidence that there is a god, and she does not allude to a god coming along to help us at all. The cartoon was about creationist's claiming that god created everything without presenting any evidence that a god exists.

Danlantic said, "From the context it appears you meant, "WHEN we have a god to study, we have nothing to apply."

Your "creative approaches" to interpreting someone else's work amounts to interpreting one sentence into a nonsensical abstraction? Did you read the complete cartoon? In case you did, this was an astonishingly bad interpretation. Allow me to explain why: she was saying that until the creationists present proof that a creator exists, which they have never done, we have nothing to apply to a theory. Danlantic said, "It takes considerable thought to realize you were organizing 2 possibilities like ducks in a row one after the other. That's where "until" would make sense. But 2 alternatives are usually organized "on one hand ... on the other."

Well, you don't have to have much sense to know that alternatives are not involved in this issue. Until (meaning up to now) creationists have not produced any evidence for a god who created everything (on creation week) to apply to a theory; that is the only duck! We have plenty of evidence that the evolution of the universe, and all of the life in that universe, evolved over billions of years into conscious life. It took a hell of a lot longer than a week.

There were a number of pertinent statements that were made before the one sentence, which were left out of his absurd rendition. This is not a complete illustration of what was in the cartoon - nevertheless - "Answers From Genesis" October 2009 Tracie Harris - Quote - "Until we have a god to study, we have nothing to apply. There's no way to use a complete unknown variable in a hypothesis or a theory. It's just saying X did it."

The creationist in the cartoon was arguing against scientific facts that dispute creationist claims by saying "scientists don't know how to interpret scientific data." A creationist claiming god created everything is not proof until they produce their god.

Robert Green Ingersoll Quote: A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Wow, I need to get to this area more often, obviously. I have a good friend who is a writer. Years ago he told me: "You won't always be there to explain your work." And I've never forgotten that. I don't feel any pressing need to correct misrepresentations of my work that I sometimes see online; HOWEVER, one thing I do find is that even outside of this forum, there are always people there to reiterate that the correct meaning is obvious to sufficiently aware/experienced atheist apologists. And seeing Jen and Linda explain the strip--perfectly just gives me, again, the confidence that the strip is understandable.

Absolutely correct Jen and Linda: If we have no god, we have nothing to apply.

I don't think you have to be an apologist of any stripe to know that an analysis of a cartoon's sentence structure is just downright eerie. Sheesh!

Excuse me ma'am, but your cartoon grammar needed some serious correcting. Shazam! That's probably why he couldn't get the message dammit!

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.