Author Topic: Incomprehensible, Depressing Mindforget  (Read 4742 times)

I'm about your age and I've been having quite a bit of depressing mood swings lately

and wtf it seems that most people who grow up with religiously strong parents end up athiest

Then that's an erroneously positioned participle, which is a whole new error in and of itself LOL

well maybe if you weren't handicapped i wouldn't have to cut the sentence up and make it simpler for you

well maybe if you weren't handicapped i wouldn't have to cut the sentence up and make it simpler for you

>butcher English language
>call people idiots when it's misconstrued

I seriously don't know what to post in these kinds of topics dealing with religion.
And I probably should have avoided it.

Using a definite, singular article
It's funny, because he uses 'a', which is indefinite.

It's also funny because English does not have a plural indefinite, unless you count 'some', but that is not actually on the list of three articles.

EDIT: Even more funny is how English doesn't even have a definite, singular. It has an indefinite/definite, singular. It is impossible to mess up grammar in that way while using 'the'.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 12:04:07 PM by Doomonkey »

It's funny, because he uses 'a', which is indefinite.

It's also funny because English does not have a plural indefinite, unless you count 'some', but that is not actually on the list of three articles.

:c

>butcher English language
>call people idiots when it's misconstrued

except he didn't butcher the english language

except he didn't butcher the english language

"Cutting off an airplane in a junkyard argument" isn't an English idiom bro

"Cutting off an airplane in a junkyard argument" isn't an English idiom bro
You rapist, you didn't punctuate that sentence correctly!

"Cutting off an airplane in a junkyard argument" isn't an English idiom bro

pretty sure it is, i've heard it used before

it can be used in a lot of different ways

You seem to have the false impression that you understand grammar, Stocking.

We know that the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years across. What you're speculating is that after that 93 billion light-years, we go back to where we started (If we were traveling)? This is an interesting concept and I honestly can almost see that being a possibility but to me it's much easier to understand that there is nothing afterwards. Then again we would get no where upon reaching this point because we would have reached the edge of time. Can't make any progress if there's no time to do so.


Also, keep me out of the on-going argument. It looks extremely pointless.

I'm speculating that spacetime itself might be curved in on itself, so that at some point it "repeats". That might not be at the edge of the observable universe though. Think of it like travelling along a circle.


Stocking, "airplane in a junkyard" is a TYPE of argument. Do you understand that? I'm referring to the argument that a tornado in a junkyard has a greater chance of producing a 747 than molecules do of producing life.

Also, how would you have phrased that sentence?

Stocking, "airplane in a junkyard" is a TYPE of argument. Do you understand that? I'm referring to the argument that a tornado in a junkyard has a greater chance of producing a 747 than molecules do of producing life.

Also, how would you have phrased that sentence?

"I'm going to stop participating in this stupid argument."

what really makes me wonder is how anything could have existed in the first place

what existed before the primeval atom and how did it get there in the first place? bwahhh