We all know that the linguist M. Adjineri has proven that anagrams of a word always form a description of that word. (It's called the Law of the Excluded Riddle)
For example, Sir Alec Guiness anagrams to Genuine Class because Alec Guiness has class.
How about this one:
"evolutionist"
rearranges to form
"i live on stout"
Stout is a kind of beer. Guinness is a stout (But Alec Guinness is not stout).
This proves that all evolutionists are alcoholics thus proving that evolution is wrong. It also explains why they drink every time I ask a question.
2007-08-02 07:17:55 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nadine... are you sure there's no such person as M. Adjineri? Perhaps you should say his name out loud and see what you think then...
2007-08-02 07:32:43 · update #1
novangelis, you're right. "Sir Alec Guinness" can't be rearranged to form "Genuine class" but "Alec Guinness" can.
2007-08-02 07:35:13 · update #2
yes .. beer tends to support evolution and the ape mentallity ..
2007-08-02 07:20:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh boy...talk about stretching it. This sounds like one of those arguments where if you play a song backwards you can hear Satanic messages. Sorry, anagrams of words are accidents, not factual. How can rearranging a word make it more descriptive than the actual word as it was meant to be read? anagrams of the word "anagram" are aanrgma, or gmaaanr. Try some more yourself. Good luck with that.
2007-08-02 07:26:38 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Grudge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I accept the scientific theory of Evolution by natural selection. And I DO in fact live on stout. It's delightful. I guess you did get me there.
Fun fact:
26 Guiness stouts contains all the vitamins and minerals you need in a day.
2007-08-02 07:20:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It took a million million years for people to conform from some thing slightly smarter than a chimp to a trendy, clever, technological person. The Earth has been around for form of four billion years...2 billions years of which existence has been present. So if one "considerable" replace can happen in a million million years, then we've had over 2 THOUSAND "considerable" differences... ...and differences seem swifter than that. that is extra like over a era of approximately one hundred thousand years, which potential there has been time for over 20 thousand considerable differences to the somewhat some species in life. Edit: And as quickly as you realize that the "differences" seem in an exponential way, then you definately see that clever existence is merely approximately a fact (assuming intelligence is, finally, the "maximum suitable" thank you to stay to tell the tale). What I recommend via it is that say you have a single organism. Now quickly forward a million million years. Now the organism has developed such that there are 2 techniques of surviving. Now quickly forward yet another hundred years--now the 1st organism has split into 2 "extra useful" organisms and the 2nd has split into "2" as nicely (which potential you have 2*2 = 4 "stepped forward" organisms). Now those 4 split back, interior the subsequent million years--now you have 2*2*2 = 8 "stepped forward" organisms... ...shop doing this and you get (assuming one considerable progression be-gets 2 "stepped forward" species): 2^(2 billion/ million) --> 2¹??? ~ 10³?¹ so which you get 10³?? = (10³)¹?? --> equals 1000 time 1000 circumstances 1000 circumstances 1000...one hundred circumstances!!! so as that's what proportion diverse organisms can get up from one if it takes a million million years to supply a "novel" new organism (that organic determination dictates is "extra useful" than the previous)...over a era of two billion years that's how long the Earth has harbored existence (so some distance as all of us be conscious of).
2016-12-15 03:53:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are probably a troll, but you are definitely a liar. There is no such person as "M. Adjineri" and there is no such thing as the "Law of Excluded Riddle"! This is just so stupid!
Update: Ooooh! I hate to be "gotcha-ed" but you certainly got me with that one. Now I feel foolish...:<(
2007-08-02 07:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well. How I could I ever argue with such a logical scientific fact as the word jumble. So does this prove that God is really a dog or what?
2007-08-02 07:23:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
But "Alec Guinness" is rearranged to "genuine class".
2007-08-02 07:26:37 · answer #7 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I kinda think too much stout is what gets into some people who espouse the, "If we came from apes, why are their apes still?" mentality. Or maybe drinking by their mamas during gestation?
2007-08-02 07:22:32 · answer #8 · answered by biology.teacher 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope you're joking!
By the way, Guiness is very good. It's better than other beers. Well, that's what they say...!
If you want to disprove evolutionism, you should open a science book. And for your information, no theologian denies evolutionism. Their arguments for God's existence are related to cosmology.
Please, be an EDUCATED Christian, not a brainwashed, fundamentalist Christian.
2007-08-02 07:22:38 · answer #9 · answered by Offkey 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last religious guy I met was cheering himself on because he made himself the last in line for communion that way he could take as big of a drink out of the cup as he wanted.
2007-08-02 07:25:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your examples demonstrate that the Law of Excluded Riddles is based on drunken logic.
2007-08-10 05:59:51 · answer #11 · answered by akoypinoy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋