In <bvd0pc$jcp$3@news.onet.pl>, "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl>
wrote:
>
>news:sblb101kdfsqj3uuji1p2jrfs1j96v3hlu@4ax.com...
>> In <buuke4$o53$0@pita.alt.net>, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> How tall would the Tower of Babel have been if it had been completed?
>> >> (Note: I recommend you use the archaeological record to justify your
>> >> answer.)
>> >
>> >This is a mere irrelevance. Kindly posit a common ancestor of Indo
>European
>> >and Finno-Ugric.
>>
>> And thus we see the Uncle Davey method of argumentation in all its
>> glory: He must assign others arguments to defend (whether they assert
>> them or not), but he himself need never defend anything.
>Nice try, Jack, but I'm afraid unless you can show me what the common
>ancestor between Finno-Ugric and INdo-European, then evolution doesn't apply
>to the origins of these language families.
So you're finally agreeing that biological evolution and linguistic
evolution are entirely different fields? I guess there is some hope
of progress here.
Oh, and how tall is that tower again, Davey? The one you think really
existed? If you can't provide a simple fact like that, why should we
believe anything you assert?
>And if evolution can't account
>for the rise of labguage families, then what does?
Oh, I don't know. How about linguistics? You think there might be
some theories in the field of linguistics?
> How did those language
>families come into being? What theory of them would be consistent with what
>evolution claims about man's origins?
You mean what would be consistent with the *evidence*? Only that
prior to some time period our ancestors didn't have the physical
equipment to manage complex speech. The details of how language
originally arose are hotly debated in part because there isn't much
evidence to answer the questions.
>This is an important question. It was also what this argument was about when
>I brought it up. The architectural aside is the distractor, thrown in by
>someone who couldn't answer the question, so she decided to change the
>question. Don't criticise my debating techniques, it was Anne Broomhead who
>swept in with that one.
No, Davey, I can read. You brought up Babel. She asked you a
question about your story - one that you assert is *factual*. If it's
a lesson about the relationship of God and man, or a just-so story
from an ancient people, then the height of the tower doesn't matter in
the least. If the story is supposed to be real, then it's a valid
question.
--
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 |
|