Why Current Linguistic Theory leads Nowhere.
Joe Devin
We have now had the modern computer for over half a century, during which
time people have expected to develop machine understanding and AI. Yet
this goal, so far as academia is concerned, remains as elusive as ever. In
this paper I will attempt not only to show you why, but also the way
forward. The causes of the problem, as well as their cures, are quite
simple, so please bear with me and see if you can understand what I am
saying.
In order to provide you with something concrete to work on, I will make
references to the Wikipedia article on parse trees at the end of this
message in order to show up the flaws in its reasoning. I will take the
possibly unwarranted liberty of assuming that this article is probably
pretty representative of the kinds of things being taught to the modern
studentÀof computational linguistics--please pardon me if I am wrong.
My main challenges are these:
1. Nowhere is "word" defined. To me it is presumptuous to talk about words
without ever nailing the meaning of "word." Should we take it for granted
that it is unnecessary to define "word" because everybody knows what we are
talking about when we call something a "word?" Certainly not. Ask any
five professors what a word is and you will probably be given ten answers.
Structural engineers do not build sound structures without knowing what
bricks are, where their bricks come from, what the compression strength of
their bricks is, etc. Yet academia is blithely teaching us about words and
how to build complicated trees out of them (not complicated to me, but
complicated to them, see below) without ever bothering to tell us what a
word really is. I don't think this is the way to do science.
2. This very rigorous science of language is being taught without any real
regard for scientific rigor from beginning to end, and the problem with the
definition of "word" is only the beginning of it.
3. No attempt has been made to map out the modular components of language,
and thus the linkages between them and the way they must work together in
order to create the phenomena of language is being ignored. True science
does not work in this fashion. Instead it must keep providing test
frameworks (hypotheses) which can be rigorously tested until a best fit is
found.
4. No special recognition is given to the fact that (a) language has not
been evolving since the pre-dawn of human history, and (2) all of the
languages known to man are based on a common, or universal, system. Many
linguists will admit this, because the truth of it is obvious--anybody in
the world can learn anybody else's language, which would not be possible if
human language was evolving and did not remain fundamentally the same.
5. Academic linguists typically bring in extraneous information which
complicates linguistics and muddies the waters, the classic example of this
being the misuse of mathematical theory to describe language, which never
quite fits and never works in real-world systems. It is my belief that,
whether deliberately or not, people have done this in order to hide their
own ignorance and lack of linguistic rigor behind a smokescreen of
mathematics, as if mathematics, being the most rigorous of all sciences,
could somehow make up for the rigor they lack. It never works, but it does
keep students confused and wondering what they have "missed."
So let's get to work.
>A parse tree or concrete syntax tree
So what is an "inconcrete syntax tree?"
>represents the syntactic structure of a string according to some formal
>grammar.
Dah-de-dah-dah, "some formal grammar" implying that Yer formal grammar is
just as good as my formal grammar, etc., when in fact here we are working
with universals. Maybe people are deliberately doing this to avoid
embroilment in the Chomskyan controversy. It is pretty hard to tell. But
whatever the case, it is a disservice to real science, which demands rigor
and demands the clearest possible explanation of the facts--no matter which
way that explanation may cut.
>trees may be generated for sentences in natural languages
Wrong. The syntactic trees embedded in natural languages are just THERE.
We do not GENERATE them: we study and document and use them in automated
systems.
>The parse tree here is a greatly simplified one;
A real parse tree cannot be simple or complex--it simply IS what it is. If
all the syntactic linkages between the words of a phrase have been
correctly parsed, then any representation of this system of linkages IS the
parse tree. If the linkages have not all been defined, or if these
linkages are incorrectly understood, then we do not have a parse tree but
some other animal. There is nothing "simple" or "complex" about it.
>for more information, see X-bar theory.
And here it is again--the classic invocation of the voodoo of
math--Ockham's razor be damned!
>In a parse tree, each node is either a root node, a branch node, or a
>leaf node.
Dead wrong, and here we witness the complete and utter confusion wrought by
academics who call themselves "linguists" but don't have a clue as to what
is really going on. Parse trees have only ever had but one kind of node,
and the nodes of parse trees are just WORDS. Time to pack up and go back
to kindergarten!
>A child node is one that has at least one node directly above it to
>which it is linked by a branch of the tree.
Okay, but if I call a "branch" a "link," which this fellow clearly agrees
that it IS, I will probably get shot down by some wise-ass academician.
And if I should tell you that there is only one basic kind of linguistic
link by which ALL of the internal data structures of language can be
modeled, I will probably outrage academicians all over the globe. The
problem is that as humans we are not basically scientists but emotional
whimps who hate being shown what we should have seen all the time because
it was right in our faces all along. And, let's face it, history shows
that many of us are also endowed with a lust to kill the bearers of bad
tidings.
But I will ignore human nature and add insult to injury by asking you, no
matter how much you may hate this, to give me your full attention for a
moment of your time. Can you see why the kind of analysis in this
Wikipedia article is completely nonrigorous and must break down under the
stress of any kind of real scientific analysis? Here it is: We see
undefined terms like "root node," "noun phrase," "subject," "predicate,"
"determiner," etc. Language cannot work if we try to force our automated
systems to grab these "concepts," some of which may be real whereas others
may not, from thin air. As most linguists would agree, things like "np,"
"vp," etc., have meanings, but nowhere in all this analysis can we find any
nodes of meaning onto which to pin anything.
The truth is that the inner workings of language, just like the inner
workings of electronic devices, consist of smaller modules or "black
boxes" linked together in various ways--something modern linguistics, in
its warm-fuzzy approach, has completely missed. And one of these
components is what computational linguists call the "ontology," which is a
collection of meanings and the relations between them that model the
things, states of being, and actions of the real world. Do linguists
agree? You bet. Go ask your favorite linguist, and he will probably say
the same thing. But Heaven help that man who tries to connect any of this
together, because THAT would constitute an act of scooping academia, and
scooping academia is a NO-NO which can never be forgiven! Daddy ALWAYS
knows BEST!
So what does an ontology have to do with any of this, or how is an ontology
connected in any way? Let me begin by reinvoking the following:
>In a parse tree, each node is either a root node, a branch node, or a
leaf
>node.
But this fellow has already told us that a branch is NOT a node but a LINK,
so we can immediately relegate that one to the trash heap.
And if the leaf nodes are just words, then we are left with the, er, "root
nodes." But this fellow has already shown us his confusion by confusing a
branch with a node, so I will assume that he has also confused this "root
node" with some kind of link, since the only real nodes of a parse tree are
just words. Aha! It works! This mysterious "root node" of his is
actually a link from each word to a meaning in the ontology!
which brings us straight back to my pivotal theorem, namely that:
THEOREM: Every word that is a part of any coherent phrase ever spoken or
written by man is simply two links emanating from the same node, namely a
syntactic link and a semantic one.
So here it is again, that damned persistent old cornerstone that the
builders have rejected and without which they can't build anything at all!
And along with it comes a kind of corollary, namely that:
COROLLARY: Every word that is a part of a coherent phrase in any language
has a SYNTACTIC role and a SEMANTIC role.
And that's really all there is to it, so let us examine his sentence one
word at a time:
>John hit the ball.
First "John." The syntactical link runs from "john" to "hit," and it is of
type "subject." The semantic link runs into that damned box called the
"ontology," where it connects to a node representing that particular "John"
under discussion, and its type is "masculine personal name."
Then "hit," which is the top word of the sentence so its syntactic link
goes nowhere but has a type of "verb of declarative sentence." Its
semantic link runs to a node in the ontology whose meaning is to strike,
and the type of the semantic link is "past-tense verb."
And then "the," which links syntactically to "ball" as determiner, and
semantically to a semantic node whose meaning is "determiner for known
objects," or something like that.
So can you guess what will happen for "ball?" Yep, you got it!
Syntactically "ball" links to "hit," and the type of the link is
"patient," or "object." And semantically it has a link running into that
damned black box, the ontology, where it links to a node for "round object"
or whatever, this link type being just "singular noun."
Now if you are smart, you will have seen that these linkages show up the
true roles of some things linguists have puzzled over and written volumes
about for a very long time. The syntactic linkÀtypes constitute what have
been called "case roles," and the semantic link types constitute what have
traditionally been called "parts of speech."
And the way we have just linked these words together is what is
traditionally called "sentence diagramming," or "dependency grammar." Each
syntactic link runs from a word called a "dependent" to another word called
its "regent" except for the top word, whose syntactic link has a type but
goes nowhere.
Eureka? Yep, and hindsight is always 20x20, but please don't forget who
first told you so.
Andlastly we are left with what link types are. As I have already said,
"np," "vp," etc., are various grammatical meanings--either real or
imagined--and all meanings are just more nodes in the ontology. So if we
wish to go further (where you may not wish to go), then each linguistic
link (and linguistic links have link type) is really just three typeless
links as follows: (1) a link running from the origin to a point in the
middle, (2) a link running from this point in the middle to the semantic
node whose meaning is the link typeÀof the linguistic link, and (3) a link
running from the point in the middle to (in the case of a syntactic link)
another word, or else (in the case of a semantic link) to the semantic node
whose meaning is the actual meaning ofÀthe word.
So look, Mom, we have nothing left over and no flapping loose ends, which
is exactly the way things should be in a real working theory of language!
And with a theory like this at last we have some way of moving ahead
instead of just spinning our wheels in the same old same old touchy-feely
pedantic morass.
--Chaumont Devin (alias Joe).
*******Wikipedia article follows*****
A parse tree or concrete syntax tree is an (ordered, rooted) tree that
represents the syntactic structure of a string according to some formal
grammar. In a parse tree, the interior nodes are labeled by non-terminals
of the grammar, while the leaf nodes are labeled by terminals of the
grammar. A program that produces such trees is called a parser. Parse
trees may be generated for sentences in natural languages (see natural
language processing), as well as during processing of computer languages,
such as programming languages. Parse trees are distinct from abstract
syntax trees (also known simply as syntax trees), in that their structure
and elements more concretely reflect the syntax of the input language.
A parse tree is made up of nodes and branches. The image below represents
a linguistic parse tree, here representing the English sentence "John hit
the ball". (The parse tree here is a greatly simplified one; for more
information, see X-bar theory.) The parse tree is the entire structure,
starting from S and ending in each of the leaf nodes (John, hit, the,
ball). We use the following abbreviations in the example: * S for
sentence, the top-level structure in this example. * NP for noun phrase.
The first (leftmost) NP, a single noun "John", serves as the subject of the
sentence. The second one is the object of the sentence. * VP for verb
phrase which serves as the predicate. * V for verb. In this case, it's a
transitive verb "hit". * Det for determiner, in this instance the definite
article "the". * and N for noun.
A simple parse tree
In a parse tree, each node is either a root node, a branch node, or a leaf
node. In the example to the right, S is a root node, NP and VP are branch
nodes, while John, hit, the, and ball are all leaf nodes.
A node can also be referred to as parent node or a child node. A parent
node is one that has at least one other node linked by a branch under it.
In the example, S is a parent of both NP and VP. A child node is one that
has at least one node directly above it to which it is linked by a branch
of the tree. Again from our example, hit is a child node of V. The terms
mother and daughter are also sometimes used for this relationship.
Mok-Kong Shen
> 1. Nowhere is "word" defined. ......
Couldn't we settle for defining a word to be what is separated by
blanks in the conventional art of printing?
> 3. No attempt has been made to map out the modular components of language,
Isn't a syntax analysis based on the structures underlying a language?
> 4. No special recognition is given to the fact that (a) language has not
> been evolving since the pre-dawn of human history, ....
The fact that I can barely understand texts written 1000 years ago
in my native language seems to contradict this.
[The above are my layman's comments.]
Thanks,
M. K. Shen
Ian Parker
BTW Are you Chinese? In English the language for 1009 was still Anglo
Saxon which is incomprehensible to us unless you have studied it.
Chaucer 1400s represents an intermediate form. Just comprehensible,
The first author in "modern" English was Shakespeare who lived in the
late 16th early 17th century. There was fairly strict censorship in
England at that time and on the accession of James I (1603) more was
allowed. He wrote Macbeth and also a play about Henry VIII (reigned
1509-1547). This would not have been allowed under Elizabeth I. It
seems that a written language slows down the evolution of that
language. Chinese became a written language at a very early date.
One thing I fail to understand about the work of Mr. Devlin. All AI,
and this includes linguistics is a formal (therefore mathematical)
representation of language. There is no getting away from this fact.
- Ian Parker
Mok-Kong Shen
> BTW Are you Chinese? In English the language for 1009 was still Anglo
> Saxon which is incomprehensible to us unless you have studied it.
> Chaucer 1400s represents an intermediate form. Just comprehensible,
> The first author in "modern" English was Shakespeare who lived in the
> late 16th early 17th century. There was fairly strict censorship in
> England at that time and on the accession of James I (1603) more was
> allowed. He wrote Macbeth and also a play about Henry VIII (reigned
> 1509-1547). This would not have been allowed under Elizabeth I. It
> seems that a written language slows down the evolution of that
> language. Chinese became a written language at a very early date.
It seems that documents and books could function as sort of standard
for the learned and thus slow down the evolution. But what is spoken
by the common people may deviate quite much from the style developed
in writing and with time may influence what is written in a language.
It is remarkable that till not very long ago (in my youth) in China
letters were almost exclusively written in a style very different
from colloquial Chinese.
M. K. Shen
Joe Devin
> It
> seems that a written language slows down the evolution of that
> language. Chinese became a written language at a very early date.
>
Terribly sorry to have to point out this distinction, but the evolutions of
particular languages have about as much to do with the actual evolution of
language itself as the evolutions of hair styles have to do with the
evolution of fur, to which even a lot of plodding academicians would have
to agree and to which in fact they DO agree. Even linguists will now tell
you this (that human language is not evolving), but I think I remember
saying it first. In fact I published it on the web and then heard it a
couple of years later on Nova--sans reference.
> One thing I fail to understand about the work of Mr. Devlin. All AI,
> and this includes linguistics is a formal (therefore mathematical)
> representation of language. There is no getting away from this fact.
Er, she came bedecked in her formal, revealing curves that even the
housecats recognized as mathematical, but all Ian Parker could see was her
cleavage and those subsurface features revealed by cold LSA calculation
beneath what appeared to his igenvectors!
If (1) all linguistic and AI systems have to be based on formal math, and
(2) systems that deny math (like mine) cannot work, then my systems can't
work, but they do. So now I suppose you will accuse ME of voodoo just as I
accuse you, or what shall we do?
The trouble with a lot of science is that people are being taught that the
universe obeys mathematical laws. The universe does NOT obey mathematical
laws, it just IS, and as humans we try to describe it. In some cases
mathematics will fit, and we can describe what we "see" using math. In
other cases we have to resort to other means. If you don't believe me,
then just try out your math on your mother. Noam Chomsky & Co. have been
barring themselves from human language using X-bar for the past, er, say 50
years and have no resultsÀto show for their pains. I have discarded their
math and come up with systems that really work in ten years. Of course I
admit to a little cheating, because I have had to pick the brains of a few
professors Noam Chomsky never met, and some of them answered me nicely
while others got really mad. Nevertheless my systems work and theirs
don't. Yet now you are asking us to discard my systems that do work in
order to return to "math based" systems that don't work because you just
KNOW that they do HAVE to work even if they don't work, never DID work, and
never WILL work. So now I am getting ready to ask you the old Kamikazi
pilot's question to the admiral--Are you really crazy or what? Maybe
you're just carrying on, but I don't think you're funny. Ooops, God
forgive me for lying, because in fact I really DO, and you would be cute if
only there weren't so damned many others just like you. And you all
believe you can change reality by weight of sheer numbers (pun intended)
and never have to bow down before truth or pay homage to fact if you can
help it!
So now I am giving you one last chance to put up or shut up. Either show
me a working system that operates on LSA, or stop saying these things
before I have you thrown into Trotskyian prison on stale bread and water
for deceiving the masses! Dya hear?
Chaumont Devin.
Web sites:
http://panlingua.net
http://witchit.com
http://chaumontdevin.com
http://oldmaluku.net
Mok-Kong Shen
> Ian Parker wrote:
>
>> It
>> seems that a written language slows down the evolution of that
>> language. Chinese became a written language at a very early date.
>>
>
> Terribly sorry to have to point out this distinction, but the evolutions of
> particular languages have about as much to do with the actual evolution of
> language itself as the evolutions of hair styles have to do with the
> evolution of fur, to which even a lot of plodding academicians would have
> to agree and to which in fact they DO agree. Even linguists will now tell
> you this (that human language is not evolving), but I think I remember
> saying it first. In fact I published it on the web and then heard it a
> couple of years later on Nova--sans reference.
I am a layman, but I suppose you are not quite right here. There
are books and, if my memory is ok, journals on language evolution.
You might possibly 'define' evolution in such a way that what
they call evolution is not what you define it to be, I guess.
But then there would be no sense to debate.
>> One thing I fail to understand about the work of Mr. Devlin. All AI,
>> and this includes linguistics is a formal (therefore mathematical)
>> representation of language. There is no getting away from this fact.
>
> Er, she came bedecked in her formal, revealing curves that even the
> housecats recognized as mathematical, but all Ian Parker could see was her
> cleavage and those subsurface features revealed by cold LSA calculation
> beneath what appeared to his igenvectors!
>
> If (1) all linguistic and AI systems have to be based on formal math, and
> (2) systems that deny math (like mine) cannot work, then my systems can't
> work, but they do. So now I suppose you will accuse ME of voodoo just as I
> accuse you, or what shall we do?
If I understood you right, you mean you have succeeded to develop
a working system based basically on good intuition. On the other
hand, probably the principles underlying that construction could be
studied/analyzed in some way to know why/how the system performs
well. That would need, I guess, methodologies that ultimately
involves math, including logic.
M. K. Shen
Ian Parker
intuition. An AI system is a logical system. Its logic may be
involved, we may be using Matrix Inversion techniques for LSA, but it
is still logical. If we cannot formalize there can be no AI. I would
have thought that was obvious.
BTW - In terms of curves. If you are looking at AI you must look at
all animals not just us. We tend to work by patern recognition whereas
other animals work by small. They say that a bitch in season can be
smelt up to a mile (1.6km) by a dog.
It is possible to formalise attractiveness. The Greeks did it with
golden mean ratios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
- Ian Parker
Joe Devin
> My point is that if you have an AI system you need to formalise
> intuition.
Okay, I have now been back on comp.ai.nat-lang for several weeks, so
where's yer intuition and where's yer formalization and where's yer working
model? I want it straight out of the horses mouth--no references to
obscure information buried on yer websites, no references to arcane
information buried in some book, and no references to some higher
authority. I want to know ONE ORIGINAL THING you have ever done that is
capable of being proven on its own, and I will remind you that even the
proof of the existence of God is very simple, so don't try to hide your
failures in details.
Rock-solid proof for the existence of God:
1. At one time the universe was to hot to support life and intelligence.
2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life or
non-intelligence.
3. Gotcha! Life and intelligence had to be infused into this universe from
a source of life and intelligence existing outside this universe sometime
after it cooled. No ifs or buts.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how
improbable, must be the truth." --Arthur Conan Doyle.
So sad to break this news to all you sinners.
Er, please don't forget that the greatest sin is not screwing but lying.
"And all liars shall be cast alive into the Lake of Fire." --Revelations.
Just wanted to remind you in case you forgot. Stop lying about other
people, stop lying about formalizations, and stop lying about math. It'll
benefit science.
Chaumont Devin
http://witchit.com
http://panlingua.net
http://chaumontdevin.com
http://oldmaluku.net
Mok-Kong Shen
> Rock-solid proof for the existence of God:
>
> 1. At one time the universe was to hot to support life and intelligence.
Who created the unverse, excepting He himself? So why didn't He create
one that was not too hot but ambient from the very beginning?
> 2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life or
> non-intelligence.
I think I read somewhere that virus render the distinction between
life and non-life fuzzy.
> 3. Gotcha! Life and intelligence had to be infused into this universe from
> a source of life and intelligence existing outside this universe sometime
> after it cooled. No ifs or buts.
Does He "live", is He intelligent? Where does His own life and
intelligence come from?
One sees that arguments eventually become "circular". This is
essentially how/why religion differs from sciences and consequently
principally cannot be treated by "any" scientific methodology, in
particular, logic. Amen.
Thanks,
M. K. Shen
Sly
> Rock-solid proof for the existence of God:
>
> 1. At one time the universe was to hot to support life and intelligence.
Life form we know of. Doesn't mean all life forms. Complex life forms
not based on O2 was not even imagined only a few decades ago, now we
found it on our very own planet.
> 2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life or
> non-intelligence.
Prove it. We actually did on this very planet. Both non-life --> life
and non-intellent --> intelligent.
I'd advice you to educate yourself a bit. Here's a good start for newbies:
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
Particularly this one on abiogenesis (most interesting part starts at 2:46):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&fmt=18
> 3. Gotcha! Life and intelligence had to be infused into this universe from
> a source of life and intelligence existing outside this universe sometime
> after it cooled. No ifs or buts.
You failed 1. and 2., and 3. is but your belief.
Joe Devin
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-ko...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Joe Devin wrote:
>> Rock-solid proof for the existence of God:
>> 1. At one time the universe was to hot to support life and intelligence.
>Who created the unverse, excepting He himself? So why didn't He create
>one that was not too hot but ambient from the very beginning?
I cannot speculate because I have no evidence the universe was ever
created, and no conclusive evidence for a "big bang."
>> 2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life
>> or non-intelligence.
>I think I read somewhere that virus render the distinction between
>life and non-life fuzzy.
If this distinction is fuzzy, then go make yer own virus, but be warned
that even if you succeed, you made it and it didn't happen by itself. Any
life or intelligence it has will then be traceable to YOU.
>> 3. Gotcha! Life and intelligence had to be infused into this universe
from
>> a source of life and intelligence existing outside this universe
sometime
>> after it cooled. No ifs or buts.
>Does He "live", is He intelligent?
In proposition #2, above, I should not have said, "in the universe," but
"anywhere." Despite all our best efforts, we simply cannot duplicate
anything approaching an "accidental" appearance of life from non-life in
the lab. Indeed the man who should know this better than anybody else is
Craig Ventor, who is working to understand life right now. All life is
intelligent because it is endowed with the knowledge and ability required
to control complex physical and chemical processes quite beyond our current
ken. There simply is no such thing as any "simple" living organism. No
life or intelligence ever springs from non-life non-intelligence, therefore
our creator/creators is/are/were-once alive and intelligent whereever they
may have been or are.
Of course this proof is based solidly upon the uniformatarian principle,
which assumes that physics and chemistry work the same way anywhere. So it
is a conclusive proof, but only within the assumptions of current science.
Who knows, it may turn out that in some distant galaxy long ago and far
away life started springing up from nonlife all over the place and this is
how we got our being.
What I will say is that within the sphere of current knowledge this solid
proof for the existence of God is undeniable, whereas I have never been
able to find even the slightest evidence supporting the contrary assumption
(that God does NOT exist). So by means of three steps based solidly on
modern science, I can prove the existence of God, whereas no Atheist has
ever been able to prove anything. I am therefore forced to conclude that
Atheism and all its trappings of intellectual superiority are just another
example of the same old human vulnerability to superstition.À Repeat:
Atheism is just another human superstition.
>Where does His own life and intelligence come from?
Why, from Brahma, of course (ha-ha), whose own life comes hence from the
Cosmic Bull or else the Papal Bull or else perchance some other kind of
bull!
--Chaumont Devin.
Brian Martin
Actually life arose in some part, from that heat that you mention. Heat
speeds up reactions and increases mutation rates, increasing the
possibilities of new combinations. For example there are sulphur based
life forms existing around sub-oceanic volcanic vents, which owe their
existence to the high temperatures, and are non-carbon-based and
non-aerobic life forms. They probably don't go to church neither.
Anyhow, this group is for AI and natural languages, not alt.theology
Sorry mate, I like some of your theories, but this is way off topic.
Personally I believe in "goodness" but not in "God".
Brian Martin
>
> Why, from Brahma, of course (ha-ha), whose own life comes hence from the
> Cosmic Bull or else the Papal Bull or else perchance some other kind of
> bull!
>
Actually the world rests on a turtle, which stands on a larger turtle,
and after that it's just turtles all the way down ....
Joe Devin
There is no use arguing with people like yourself because you simply
reargue clear facts as if they were conjectures and throw them back in
people's faces. Science is not the quest for clever arguments. It is the
quest for TRUTH.
>>1. At one time the universe was to hot to support life and intelligence.
>Life form we know of. Doesn't mean all life forms. Complex life forms
>not based on O2 was not even imagined only a few decades ago, now we
>found it on our very own planet.
Complex life forms not based on O2 do not exist in hot plasma, and if you
have any education at all, which you must have even to spell the words to
write these silly sentences, then you obviously know this.
>> 2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life
or
>> non-intelligence.
>Prove it.
Er, I am not the one making the claim, which is not what I wrote but rather
the traditional Darwinian argument that life can spring spontaneously from
the right combination of muck. Scientists proved a long time a go that,
for example, flies do not spring spontaneously from meat as people once
believed. The idea that life can spring spontaneously from muck is, of
course, just the same old dead idea all dressed up in bright new clothes.
Extraordinary assumptions require extraordinary proof. The assumption that
life can somehow spring spontaneously from the right dead muck is certainly
extraordinary, but no extraordinary proof follows. All we get are empty
arguments like yours.
>and non-intellent --> intelligent.
Er, I take back my comment about the spelling.
>I'd advice you to educate yourself a bit. Here's a good start for newbies:
And I advice YOU to unscrew yer stupid head from wherever it is and start
thinking.
>http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
My proof of the existence of God requires only three propositions. Pray
why does YOURS require YOUTUBE? Is this perhaps part of your extraordinary
proof?
>> 3. Gotcha! Life and intelligence had to be infused into this universe
from
>> a source of life and intelligence existing outside this universe
sometime
>> after it cooled. No ifs or buts.
>You failed 1. and 2., and 3.
Please show me where I have twisted any fact, shown ignorance of any fact,
or said anything untrue, and if you can't, then please shut up and go find
some other place to post your simpleminded rubbish.
--Chaumont Devin
Sly
>>> 2. No life and/or intelligence in the universe ever comes from non-life
>>> or non-intelligence.
>> Prove it.
>
> Er, I am not the one making the claim, which is not what I wrote but rather
> the traditional Darwinian argument that life can spring spontaneously from
> the *right combination of muck*.
See? It clearly doesn't come out of nothing! Which proves your point 2
is wrong.
> Scientists proved a long time a go that,
> for example, flies do not spring spontaneously from meat as people once
> believed. The idea that life can spring spontaneously from muck is, of
> course, just the same old dead idea all dressed up in bright new clothes.
>
> Extraordinary assumptions require extraordinary proof. The assumption that
> life can somehow spring spontaneously from the right dead muck is certainly
> extraordinary, but no extraordinary proof follows. All we get are empty
> arguments like yours.
Of course it is not.
Before = "flies coming out of nothing"
Now = "life coming out of the correct chemistry elements and the correct
condition". Which btw has been partly reproduced in lab
>> and non-intellent --> intelligent.
> Er, I take back my comment about the spelling.
Incorrect again. It only shows English is not my mother-tongue :)
> My proof of the existence of God requires only three propositions.
Good, now they're propositions, not facts. You're making progress here.
> Please show me where I have twisted any fact, shown ignorance of any fact,
> or said anything untrue, and if you can't, then please shut up and go find
> some other place to post your simpleminded rubbish.
I and a few others already did :) And others, probably the most
intelligent ones, simply didn't care about your post :)