Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: broomhed@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 117
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <7418dcc4.0402011505.b465fb6@posting.google.com>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <Xns947A4B5CBF133cheezitsnetzeronet@129.250.170.83> <butoq1$4hq$0@pita.alt.net> <7418dcc4.0401241026.5ed5e62@posting.google.com> <buuke4$o53$0@pita.alt.net> <sblb101kdfsqj3uuji1p2jrfs1j96v3hlu@4ax.com> <bvd0pc$jcp$3@news.onet.pl> <7418dcc4.0401300808.32f06081@posting.google.com> <g73l101gvaog9kqnme2f3ai2qhfos6vn2c@4ax.com> <bvgkjd$g1e$1@news.onet.pl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075676697 49750 128.100.83.246 (1 Feb 2004 23:04:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:04:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.4.159.5
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2091
"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message news:<bvgkjd$g1e$1@news.onet.pl>...
> news:g73l101gvaog9kqnme2f3ai2qhfos6vn2c@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:08:47 +0000 (UTC), in free.christians
> > broomhed@world.std.com (Ann Broomhead) wrote in
> > <7418dcc4.0401300808.32f06081@posting.google.com>:
> > >"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
> news:<bvd0pc$jcp$3@news.onet.pl>...
> > >
> > >> 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. And if evolution can't
> account
> > >> for the rise of labguage families, then what does? How did those
> language
> > >> families come into being? What theory of them would be consistent with
> what
> > >> evolution claims about man's origins?
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> Uncle Davey
> > >
> > >According to your claims about the Bible, all languages split when the
> > >Tower of Babel was being built. This was, as I pointed out, no
> > >earlier than the reign of Ur-Nammu (2112 - 2095 bce). Demonstrate to
> > >us that Finno-Ugric and Indo-European date from this time (and no
> > >earlier) as separate, and distinct languages.
> > >
> > >The Tower of Babel incident is your claim; you get to support it with
> > >data.
> > >
> > >And how tall was the Tower of Babel supposed to be, anyhow?
> >
> > Tall enough to reach heaven, everyone knows that.
> >
>
> What is your evidence that this was 2112-2095 BC?
I'll type this slowly, so that you can understand it:
The reign of Ur-Nammu,
the first ruler of the Third Dynasty,
was
the FIRST TIME
that anyone ever attempted to build
a ziggurat.
A ziggurat is built solely of clay bricks,
sun-dried bricks on the inside, and oven-fired bricks on the outside.
Its base is square.
It forms a sort-of stepped pyramid.
Most ziggurats were five stories tall.
The Tower of Babel was intended to be
a ziggurat seven stories tall.
Ziggurats have only been built in the Tigris-Euphrates area.
Because they are made of very cheap materials,
unlike Egyptian or Mayan pyramids,
they are not raided for materials.
Thus, many, many of them have been found and excavated.
None predate the reign of Ur-Nammu.
As I told you before,
the Tower of Babel is believed to date from
the reign of Nebbuchadnezzar,
which is roughly
NINE HUNDRED YEARS LATER
than the reign of Ur-Nammu.
> I think it was earlier than that.
This is just as silly as trying to claim that "robot" entered the
English language before Capek wrote "R.U.R."
(1) This ziggurat was not built before they starting building
ziggurats.
(2) This ziggurat is big enough, and fancy enough, that it is OBVIOUS
that it is not the first ziggurat ever built.
> What you refer to could have been an attempt to rebuild it.
No.
Another ziggurat, having the same dimensions as the Tower of Babel,
was (within the past 10 years) excavated. This confirmed that the
original, long thought to be the real Tower of Babel, was indeed the
real Tower of Babel, *because* it had the same dimensions *and* a
duplicate -- of the real, original, true Tower of Babel -- had long
been known to have been built in that region. Q.E.D.
Now, I will repeat my questions, which we have all noticed that you
are desperate to evade:
Demonstrate to us that Finno-Ugric and Indo-European date from this
time [2112 bce] -- or later, but no earlier -- as separate, and
distinct languages.
How tall was the Tower of Babel supposed to be?
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
|
| 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 |
|