Science-Religion. Which wins?

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>haha happens to me all the time :b</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

There is certainly a romantic interest brewing here.

</p>

<p>I am a boy and am not homosexual, so my admiration for mifune is not of the romantic sort. You have, however, managed to convincingly support your point that this forum can lack in sophistication. :)</p>

[mifune]

<p>

You have, however, managed to convincingly support your point that this forum can lack in sophistication.

</p>

<p>That is quite a humorous response. I personally prefer to neglect responding to flippant remarks.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>

Regarding other matters, I attended a lecture today delivered by a Harvard professor in the Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Department on the findings of the progress of human evolution. Unfortunately, I don’t have the slideshow with me or the corresponding scientific papers expounding the work, but it’s quite incredible.

</p>

<p>I can’t access the full paper, but here’s a very short (though very technical and probably not something you would be interested in) summary if you’re interested…</p>

<p>[HapMap2</a> raises the bar : Nature](<a href=“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/edsumm/e071018-06.html]HapMap2”>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/edsumm/e071018-06.html)</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>

@silverturtle

You have, however, managed to convincingly support your point that this forum can lack in sophistication.

</p>

<p>I suppose that’s what happens in a high school forum, eh? My mistake, I forgot the internet is serious business.</p>

<p>For the record, mifune seems to like this little quip of yours ;)</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>

Oh no, you are quite mistaken. There is certainly a romantic interest brewing here.

Omg, think of how good their kids would be at the SAT. They’d all get 4800! [noparse]And mifune writes a 500 word post on how I fail at genetics.[/noparse]</p>

<p>

I personally prefer to neglect responding to flippant remarks.

Lulz, I don’t think we’ll ever have a conversation.</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>I took an opportunity to skim several of mifune’s arguments. Although his posts are thoughtful and mostly logically sound, behind his scholarly rhetoric and circumlocution (of which he is guilty on many accounts) there is an undeniable, scathing contempt for creationists. Which I believe is the fundamental reason his arguments have thus far been unsuccessful in changing the perceptions of his opposition.</p>

[mifune]

<p>Calico: Did you attend?</p>

<p>

behind his scholarly rhetoric and circumlocution (of which he is guilty on many accounts) there is an undeniable, scathing contempt for creationists.

</p>

<p>First of all, I am not being vague. Secondly, I do not despise creationists; I despise their slate of nonsense arguments that are contrived from a multitude of scientific and metaphysical conceits. There is a fundamental difference between disliking and disagreeing with another group or individual.</p>

<p>

Which I believe is the fundamental reason his arguments have thus far been unsuccessful in changing the perceptions of his opposition.

</p>

<p>Creationists largely remain creationists due to a religious fundamentalist upbringing, not because of your erroneous personal perception of “scathing contempt.”</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

First of all, I am not being vague.

</p>

<p>I do believe PioneerJones was using the term “circumlocution” to describe your wholly unnecessary penchant for profuse prolixity (<–like that), not necessarily a lack of clarity, though rapidly reading what is equivalent to 74 pages on Word could indeed result in a good deal of confusion. :)</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Omg, think of how good their kids would be at the SAT. They’d all get 4800!

</p>

<p>To be honest, I don’t find jesting over someone’s sexual orientation to be funny whatsoever.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

I do believe PioneerJones was using the term “circumlocution” to describe your wholly unnecessary penchant for profuse prolixity (<–like that), not necessarily a lack of clarity

</p>

<p>Circumlocution implies vagueness or elusiveness, by definition.</p>

<p>

though rapidly reading what is equivalent to 74 pages on Word could indeed result in a good deal of confusion.

</p>

<p>Indeed.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

To be honest, I don’t find jesting over someone’s sexuhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1065521157al orientation to be funny whatsoever.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/whysoseriousads.jpg[/url]”>http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/whysoseriousads.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Chillax, dude.</p>

<p>

Circumlocution implies vagueness or elusiveness, by definition.

</p>

<p>The definition I am using is this:</p>

<p>the use of unnecessarily wordy and indirect language</p>

<p>Perhaps in your usage of the term, you tend to apply your understanding of the word, but I approach it from a different vantage point: circumlocution, as far as I am concerned, is when an individual uses six words where one would suffice.</p>

[mifune]

<p>Oh, and it turned out to be 75 pages, although I utilized a slightly larger font.</p>

<p>Anyways, it is nice to see you return to College Confidential.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Oh, and it turned out to be 75 pages, although I utilized a slightly larger font.

</p>

<p>Overachieving before classes even start. >__> If I give you $500, do you promise not to ruin the curve?</p>

[mifune]

<p>

If I give you $500, do you promise not to ruin the curve?

</p>

<p>Will you be enrolling in Life Sciences 1a?</p>

<p>Also, I nearly encountered you in the dining hall today, but I was a bit too far out of range to provide you with a hello.</p>

[PioneerJones]

<p>

@mifune

First of all, I am not being vague.

</p>

<p>Certainly not. Rather, you are often unnecessarily verbose.</p>

<p>

@mifune

I despise their slate of nonsense arguments that are contrived from a multitude of scientific and metaphysical conceits.

</p>

<p>In that case, your argumentative methodology is unnecessarily abrasive. I’m not sure what your angle is with this debate, especially when you make comments like these:</p>

<p>

I do realize, though, that you have been implacably conditioned to immediately plug your ears and sing “lalala” at any type of argument that validly criticizes the legitimacy, relative incongruities, values, and fallacious epistemic and ontological assertions of your faith, along with its historical tendencies as a sociopolitical despotism.

</p>

<p>(Which, incidentally, is also a prime example of your verbosity)</p>

<p>

@mifune

Creationists largely remain creationists due to a religious fundamentalist upbringing, not because of your erroneous personal perception of “scathing contempt.”

</p>

<p>This may be true, but it certainly does not help when you blatantly insult the quality of your opposition’s argumentative competency (regardless of whether you are correct).</p>

[mifune]

<p>

The definition I am using is this:</p>

<p>the use of unnecessarily wordy and indirect language

</p>

<p>Circumlocution, in its most common usage, typically denotes the conscious effort of being vague or evasive.</p>

[mifune]

<p><a href=“Which,%20incidentally,%20is%20also%20a%20prime%20example%20of%20your%20verbosity”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The comment of mine that you selected was a perfectly valid statement. Eastfrobeauty had absolutely no interest in providing a logical, well-founded argument.</p>

<p>

This may be true, but it certainly does not help when you blatantly insult the quality of your opposition’s argumentative competency (regardless of whether you are correct).

</p>

<p>Even if creationists or religious apologists can provide an argument with just one argumentative fallacy, it can be considered an achievement (i.e. validly defending an unfounded premise).</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Will you be enrolling in Life Sciences 1a?

</p>

<p>Or perhaps OEB 10. We’ll see.</p>

<p>

Also, I nearly encountered you in the dining hall today, but I was a bit too far out of range to provide you with a hello.

</p>

<p>I told you that you needed to talk louder, dude.</p>

<p>

Circumlocution, in its most common usage, typically denotes the conscious effort of being vague or evasive.

</p>

<p>It generally means that someone is using more words than necessary to convey a point that could be carried across in a far simpler fashion; again, I differ in opinion on the connotative meaning of circumlocution. Depending on the situation, it may mean that someone is being overly verbose, or it could mean that they are trying to utilize a very effective obfuscatory strategy to bore their reader to sleep - sometimes, it’s even both.</p>

<p>Good night. <em>yawn</em></p>

[mifune]

<p>

Or perhaps OEB 10. We’ll see.

</p>

<p>That course tends to receive more approving ratings so that could be a potentially favorable selection. I don’t even believe that LS1a is required for your desired concentration.</p>

<p>

Depending on the situation, it may mean that someone is being overly verbose, or it could mean that they are trying to utilize a very effective obfuscatory strategy to bore their reader to sleep - sometimes, it’s even both.

</p>

<p>Yes, but there is a profound difference between writing something that is quite lengthy, utilizing what may be deemed “higher-level vocabulary,” and pleonasm itself.</p>