Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Severian <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Evolution - Blind Heart Surgery
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:33:07 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: RoadRunner - Carolina
Lines: 115
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <p6r5105i7s7oe1e2f5g7p8dk0s60548cvf@4ax.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$0@pita.alt.net> <cpl5105n8agametc5ddaic2gnnpdntn40r@4ax.com> <buulvm$qs7$0@pita.alt.net> <f4o5105mejcq4gv3fuq83t03pel54a0g2f@4ax.com> <buup1i$m3$0@pita.alt.net>
Reply-To: severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1074983588 39523 128.100.83.246 (24 Jan 2004 22:33:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:33:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.74.35.238
X-Spamscanner: mailbox1.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 80841 i0OMW9SH082930 mailbox1.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1814
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:46:21 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> wrote:
>"Severian" <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message
>news:f4o5105mejcq4gv3fuq83t03pel54a0g2f@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:54:12 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > >> And that this because the Tower would have been unacceptably tall?
>> >> >
>> >> >'reach the sky' is more than just a physical reaching.
>>
>> >> So it's not a literal meaning. Interesting dodge.
>>
>> >I said it was more than a physical meaning.
>>
>> >I didn't say the literal meaning was not part of the meaning, it usually
>is.
>>
>> So "literal" means whatever you want it to mean? "Reach the sky" means
>> "reach the sky" except when it doesn't.
>You tell me where the sky starts in your opinion, and I'll tell you whether
>it might have reached it or not.
The atmosphere begins at the surface of the earth. Sky is a broader
term, generally "what we see when we look up."
What did "day" mean before there was a sun and earth? The biblical use
in Genesis *has* to be a metaphor!
>> Well maybe, "On the third day" doesn't always literally mean "on the
>> third day," either. Your meaning of "literal" is a brush whose width
>> changes based on *your* prejudices.
>
>"Day" does have a literal temporal meaning, but "sky" doesn't have a literal
>physical meaning.
"Day" only obtains a "literal temporal" and physical meaning once the
sun shines on a rotating, extant earth.
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> That's even more irrelevant. The evolution of language is unrelated,
>> >> except by analogy, to the theory of evolution.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Interesting dodge and how convenient.
>>
>> How convenient that I not conflate two different ideas from two
>> different areas of study?
>
>The area of study is how we got here.
>
>All other divisions are artificial. You can divide the school syllabus how
>you like.
1) Linguistics is the study of languages.
2) Biology is the study of living organisms.
The "Theory of Evolution" applies to #2. Because change is a factor in
many non-trivial pursuits, the word "evolution" is used in many
contexts.
3) When talking about the "evolution of language," people are *NOT*
talking about "how the biological theory of evolution pertains to
language." They are merely pointing out that there is an analogy
between them.
>> >In other words you agee that language could not have evolved.
>>
>> Of course language evolved -- evolution means change. My point was
>> that biological evolution is a fact, the "theory of evolution" is a
>> biological theory explaining evolution, and your attempt to discredit
>> it by positing that all languages didn't come from some proto-language
>> is simply an obfuscation. The _biological_ "theory of evolution" is
>> unrelated to, and independent of, the origin and change of language.
>These are the words of someone who is as good as admittiong there is no
>common ancestry between the language families, but isn't willing to concede
>to the biblical reason of why that is?
We can't explain it, so "God did it." What a useless way to look at
the world.
Biological evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain how
languages changed over time.
What possible difference does it make, w/r/t biological evolution,
whether there is a "common ancestry between the language families?"
I think you're presenting the Chewbacca defense.
>> >So how exactly do we get from monkeys to man, run that by me again?
>>
>> By breeding, mutating, living and dying, through millions of
>> generations.
>If that were so, we would not be speaking to each other now.
Huh? I cannot follow your uber-special logic skills, and fail to see
how your assertion follows from anything you or I have said before.
- Sev
|
| 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 |
|