The Demise of Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think it's so if you post and then realise you missed a bit, spelled a word wrong, messed up the quote tags, etc, you can go and fix it and it's still counted as the original post.

And if this goes well, you've been told you were mentioned in this post and yet your name isn't here.

I got the original e-mail because I have the thread watched. And I did get tagged in it, yes.

 

[Kylie]

I got the original e-mail because I have the thread watched. And I did get tagged in it, yes.

Yeah, I put an @Warden_of_the_Storm in and then went and edited it to remove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I put an @Warden_of_the_Storm in and then went and edited it to remove it.

I have seen that occur on other forums too. It is not a problem that is limited to this one. Once a person is tagged in a post erasing the quote and their name does not take away the tag. I have done that myself where I started to respond to one person, changed my mind and responded to another. The first person still got tagged.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I got that too. Perhaps the post was edited afterwards?

Must have been a very different post to the final version - @roman2819 responds to @Jimmy D and you, @Warden_of_the_Storm and I all get notifications that we've been mentioned. I'd love to know what the original post said!

 

[Kylie]

Must have been a very different post to the final version - @roman2819 responds to @Jimmy D and you, @Warden_of_the_Storm and I all get notifications that we've been mentioned. I'd love to know what the original post said!

Me too!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Me too!

My guess is that, given the direction his posts have taken, @roman2819 is trying to pretend that his argument has always been that context is important and we all, apparently, said something contrary. That's certainly the direction his posts are going.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your profile shows you to live in Singapore. Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

I live in Singapore. Given the level of Enlgish spoken here most locals, even those who are not English 1st language speakers, would not make these mistakes. @roman2819 is either not a local or is very well versed in English and fighting a weak argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

I live in Singapore. Given the level of Enlgish spoken here most locals, even those who are not English 1st language speakers, would not make these mistakes. @roman2819 is either not a local or is very well versed in English and fighting a weak argument.

I cannot entirely agree with you. I lived in Singapore for seven years and my wife is Singaporean. She speaks three languages fluently, but makes no sense in any of them and would be entirely capable of making the errors ascribed to Mitty.

 

[Kylie]

I cannot entirely agree with you. I lived in Singapore for seven years and my wife is Singaporean. She speaks three languages fluently, but makes no sense in any of them and would be entirely capable of making the errors ascribed to Mitty.

How can a person speak a language fluently and yet make no sense in that language?

 

[Ophiolite]

How can a person speak a language fluently and yet make no sense in that language?

Well, first consider that the intent of my post was to suggest that there is great diversity in the command of language of people with a common background. To do this I used a comic trope from an earlier era. The logic of humour is not necessarily linear, or self-consistent.

Secondly, I have certainly met people who speak a language fluently, in the sense that they have a wide vocabulary, a knowledge of grammar and can structure sentences and paragraphs readily, without delay. That, to me, is fluent. And yet these same people, in deeper discussion, may expose the fact that they do not fully understand the meaning of the words, they are using - or certainly not all of the nuances - may be confused by subtleties of grammar, and can seem unaware of , metaphorical usage, or the presence of irony, or sarcasm.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, first consider that the intent of my post was to suggest that there is great diversity in the command of language of people with a common background. To do this I used a comic trope from an earlier era. The logic of humour is not necessarily linear, or self-consistent.

Secondly, I have certainly met people who speak a language fluently, in the sense that they have a wide vocabulary, a knowledge of grammar and can structure sentences and paragraphs readily, without delay. That, to me, is fluent. And yet these same people, in deeper discussion, may expose the fact that they do not fully understand the meaning of the words, they are using - or certainly not all of the nuances - may be confused by subtleties of grammar, and can seem unaware of , metaphorical usage, or the presence of irony, or sarcasm.

Linguistic fluency is more than just grammatical correctness. Fluency requires understanding of a language. While there is a difference between fluency and bilingualism, that's really a matter of degrees. As I said before, the mistakes being made by our Singaporean poster would not be made by most Singaporeans. If you look at what he says, he flips and flops and changes arguments at every turn. He's gone from saying "my modern interpretation is correct" to saying "you need to understand context". That's a complete about-face and not something a person would do if they did not understand the language. It's just an attempt to avoid admitting he was wrong.

For the record, I speak 8 languages well enough to do business, but I'd say I'm fluent in just 3 of them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Linguistic fluency is more than just grammatical correctness. Fluency requires understanding of a language.

You are repeating what I said.

While there is a difference between fluency and bilingualism, that's really a matter of degrees.

Which is implicit in what I said.

As I said before, the mistakes being made by our Singaporean poster would not be made by most Singaporeans.

Which is a non-sequitur.
I think you are wrong, lah, or rather are equivocating "most Singaporeans" with "most Singaporeans, including Mitty".

If you look at what he says, he flips and flops and changes arguments at every turn. He's gone from saying "my modern interpretation is correct" to saying "you need to understand context". That's a complete about-face and not something a person would do if they did not understand the language. It's just an attempt to avoid admitting he was wrong.

This can be symptomatic of illogical thinking, or sloppy thinking,or problematic language skills, or obfuscation, or confusion, or deliberate lying, or observer error. There is insufficient data to determine which is the case here and you have established, by focusing on a single explanation, that you probably lack the objectivity to so determine even if there were enough data.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you are wrong, lah, or rather are equivocating "most Singaporeans" with "most Singaporeans, including Mitty".

You are entitled to think what you like, but that doesn't make you right any more than me stating my opinion makes me right. I have at no point stated that I am unquestionably correct. You, though, appear to be taking that line for yourself.

This can be symptomatic of illogical thinking, or sloppy thinking,or problematic language skills, or obfuscation, or confusion, or deliberate lying, or observer error. There is insufficient data to determine which is the case here and you have established, by focusing on a single explanation, that you probably lack the objectivity to so determine even if there were enough data.

I believe you are making one of the mistakes our Singaporean poster is guilty of - you are addressing what you think I said, not what I actually said. That's poor form, Mr Ophiolite.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are entitled to think what you like, but that doesn't make you right any more than me stating my opinion makes me right. I have at no point stated that I am unquestionably correct. You, though, appear to be taking that line for yourself.

As written, your assertion is much more definitive than "an opinion that might be wrong". My response has been no more than a challenge to that perceived over-confidence.

By offering multiple reasons to account for Mitty's assertions it should be clear that I do not know what the correct one is. It is difficult to see how you convert that list of options into taking a line that I am unquestionably correct.

I believe you are making one of the mistakes our Singaporean poster is guilty of - you are addressing what you think I said, not what I actually said. That's poor form, Mr Ophiolite

If that is the case then try writing more clearly in future.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As written, your assertion is much more definitive than "an opinion that might be wrong". My response has been no more than a challenge to that perceived over-confidence.

"Most locals would not make that mistake" is not a particularly definitive assertion. It is an opinion that leaves room for error.

By offering multiple reasons to account for Mitty's assertions it should be clear that I do not know what the correct one is. It is difficult to see how you convert that list of options into taking a line that I am unquestionably correct.

"I think you are wrong" would be the clue. Don't you read your own posts?

If that is the case then try writing more clearly in future.

Perhaps. But by the same token you should also take time to read what I actually write, not what you think I have written.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are repeating what I said.

I'm saying a lot more than you said. I may be "repeating" what you think you said, but you didn't actually say it. What you actually said was:

Secondly, I have certainly met people who speak a language fluently, in the sense that they have a wide vocabulary, a knowledge of grammar and can structure sentences and paragraphs readily, without delay. That, to me, is fluent.

There is no mention of understanding language there. Indeed, you continued your argument by saying that these supposed fluent linguists do not necessarily understand the language.

Which is implicit in what I said.

Indeed it is not.

Which is a non-sequitur.

Perhaps you do not understand what a non-sequitur is. The point I was making was not predicated on any of the previous statements in that post.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm saying a lot more than you said. I may be "repeating" what you think you said, but you didn't actually say it. What you actually said was:

There is no mention of understanding language there. Indeed, you continued your argument by saying that these supposed fluent linguists do not necessarily understand the language.

Indeed it is not.

Perhaps you do not understand what a non-sequitur is. The point I was making was not predicated on any of the previous statements in that post.

I'm going to leave you to your beliefs as to what was going on here. I have enjoyed many of your posts, will likely enjoy many more in future, and I am agreement with a substantial number of your views. However, there is an aspect, which if analysed publicly or privately, will lead to unseemly behaviour on both sides, so I am walking away from it. You can signal agreement to the principle of ending it before it properly begins by not replying to this post.

 

[roman2819]

Linguistic fluency is more than just grammatical... our Singaporean poster...gone from saying "my modern interpretation is correct" to saying "you need to understand context". That's a complete about-face and not something a person would do if they did not understand the language. It's just an attempt to avoid admitting he was wrong.

For the record, I speak 8 languages well enough to do business, but I'd say I'm fluent in just 3 of them.

Regarding your comments above, i can say this:

I am confident that I try to comprehend the Bible in context, try to interpret with context in mind, and am confident of my interpretation.

I don't understand what you mean by 'modern interpretation'. if someone today try to figure out ancient texts eg Shakespeare, is it modern interpretation? The context does not change, it does not change from ancient to modern just because we interpret it 1000 years later. It is readers today or any era who have to understand the original intent of the writers, what they were saying, and what did they mean -- this means trying to make sense of what they read.

For example, if they read God created sea creatures on Day 4, and wonder if God's Word should be itaken literally or figuratively, trying to decide to-be-or-not-to-be, then they are speculating. Many people including Christians, unfortunately, do not even realise they are guessing, and do not know how to consider the original intent and context.

 

[Speedwell]

Regarding your comments above, i can say this:

I am confident that I try to comprehend the Bible in context, try to interpret with context in mind, and am confident of my interpretation.

I don't understand what you mean by 'modern interpretation'. if someone today try to figure out ancient texts eg Shakespeare, is it modern interpretation? The context does not change, it does not change from ancient to modern just because we interpret it 1000 years later. It is readers today or any era who have to understand the original intent of the writers, what they were saying, and what did they mean -- this means trying to make sense of what they read.

For example, if they read God created sea creatures on Day 4, and try to decide if God's Word should be itaken literally or figuratively, and try to decide to-be-or-not-to-be, then they are speculating. Many people including Christians, unfortunately, do not even realise they are guessing, do not know what is trying to think about the original intent and context.

That is true. Many Christians assume that the narratives in the Bible are historical narratives written to the same historiographical standards which we employ today.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Many people including Christians, unfortunately, do not even realise they are guessing, do not know what is trying to think about the original intent and context.

And yet you are certain that your interpretation, using your modern values and knowledge, is correct. Do you really not see the problem with that claim?

Let's stick to the example we've been discussing. According to you, the passage in Isaiah about a round Earth means the Hebrews knew the Earth is a globe. Why? Not because of context but because that's modern knowledge. You feel compelled to insist that that's what the passage must mean to fit it into your worldview. I look at it and say there is no reason to force that meaning into the passage. The context does not require it and the passage does not appear to be meant to be a literal description.