I am sure that faced with final judgement, the theory played little part.
And assuming he makes it to heaven, I am sure he would consider the threory to be a minor achievement next to prescence of God in his kingdom.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And assuming he makes it to heaven, I am sure he would consider the threory to be a minor achievement next to prescence of God in his kingdom.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Perhaps it is you that should read my posts more carefully because I explained that the sources of the article do not back the premise of the article and that therefore the article, YOUR SOURCE, is invalid.That is exactly what I said in my comment in the very same post. Did you read it?
Let’s do it again: This time my comment will be in red:
This is a post by hecd mind you. Read it carefully, especially the bolded part.
Post 527
What do you think those sources and the other 41 you listed (well apart from Wieland and Duursma) say about the evolution of language and the historicity of the Babel myth? How do you think the authors in those references deal with these issues and why do you think they support your case?** Think about it - that is a pretty powerful reference list of linguists and history of language specialists (well, apart from Wieland and Duursma) and other people working in allied fields.** Do you honestly think that those references support the notion that a) language does not evolve and b) that all the major language groups appeared at once at a Tower of Babel event? Have you actually read any of the references in that list - I’m sure I’ve pointed out to you before that it’s bad form to reference papers that you haven’t read. If they do not support your position, then why on earth do you post them and refer to them as your sources?
Alec
**He is questioning if the sources back the premise of the article, which is valid. Dozens of posts later you are still whining they are not valid sources. **
F
Farsight001
Guest
A red herring is something that at first looks like a clue, but is ultimately unrelated. No, it does not fit better. Again - questioning the validity of a source is a perfectly valid thing to do in opposing an argument.I stand corrected.
It is a red herring that fits better. Rather then discuss the topic, we are discussing the source.
Because it was not an intended insult to create mistrust in your position, but rather an exasperated exclamation from frustration at having to repeat myself several times.Given your demonstrated understanding of ad hominem arguments, can you explain why this would not qualify?
Now can you address the subject?
I see.As for why I don’t reveal mine - am I talking to a FREAKING BRICK WALL?! I
vz71;8316799:
Given your demonstrated understanding of ad hominem arguments, can you explain why this would not qualify?
Farsight001;8317043:
Because it was not an intended insult to create mistrust in your position, but rather an exasperated exclamation from frustration at having to repeat myself several times.
Now can you address the subject?
So it is OK to call someone names (in this case a ‘FREAKING BRICK WALL’) as long as you lay claim to exasperation and frustration.
Seems to me a case has been made for a little more self control.
B
buffalo
Guest
Break it down for me.Perhaps it is you that should read my posts more carefully because I explained that the sources of the article do not back the premise of the article and that therefore the article, YOUR SOURCE, is invalid.
F
Farsight001
Guest
No, but I never called you a brick wall, so the point is moot. Back to the subject now, please? This diverting is getting tiresome.I see.
So it is OK to call someone names (in this case a ‘FREAKING BRICK WALL’) as long as you lay claim to exasperation and frustration.
Seems to me a case has been made for a little more self control.
F
Farsight001
Guest
I just did. There’s no more breaking down for you. If this was a watch, each individual gear would be visible and separate from the others.Break it down for me.
B
buffalo
Guest
Again, a categorical refutation is not a refutation.I just did. There’s no more breaking down for you. If this was a watch, each individual gear would be visible and separate from the others.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Sorry, I’m not playing this game. Do you have a proper source or not? No? Ok. Then you’re making stuff up? Yes.Again, a categorical refutation is not a refutation.
Well it looks good to me.Sorry, I’m not playing this game. Do you have a proper source or not?
Do you have some reason I should not believe the sources provided?
F
Farsight001
Guest
You’re repeating yourself again. As I already said, this is a common game - an attempt to frustrate the opponent so much that they give in or give up. It will not work on me. And I also already answered the question. If you can’t remember what I said, which would boggle my mind, as I’ve said it half a dozen times now, then you can go back read my past posts. Don’t ask me again.Well it looks good to me.
Do you have some reason I should not believe the sources provided?
Well if you do not have a good reason for me to disbelieve the source, I see no merit in your argument.You’re repeating yourself again. As I already said, this is a common game - an attempt to frustrate the opponent so much that they give in or give up. It will not work on me. And I also already answered the question. If you can’t remember what I said, which would boggle my mind, as I’ve said it half a dozen times now, then you can go back read my past posts. Don’t ask me again.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well it’s worked on me. I can’t even remember the question. I am elbow-gnawingly frustrated and I’m not even an active participant at the moment. Makes a discussion with buffalo seem like the height of genteel and erudite debate.You’re repeating yourself again. As I already said, this is a common game - an attempt to frustrate the opponent so much that they give in or give up. It will not work on me.
For heaven’s sake: Farsight says the article on language by the two creationists is invalid even though he hasn’t produced a single refutation of any argument in it, but dismisses it entirely on the identity of the authors. Buffalo says the references in the article are from learned specialists in lingiuistics and they are his sources, or at least he listed them with that implication, even though he hasn’t read any of them and they don’t support the idea that the diversity of language arose at a single Babel-like event anyway. vz seems to be arguing for the sake of it. What a shambles.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
F
Faith1960
Guest
Are you saying that Catholics MUST believe everything the Church says and if the Church later, at some point, changes it’s position, those same Catholics are required to believe something else?So now, having been shown that polygenism was not condemned thousands of years ago, your argument is reduced to:
The Church has taught something, and you disagree with it, because it does not reconcile with your view of reality. You are indeed placing your positions over Church teaching. The CTSA and the Catholic Bibilical Association do not define Church doctrine. I have shown you the Church teaching regarding polygenism. You reject it. You can not show me any Church documents supporting that rejection because there are not any.
“It’s not about my positions” you say- it’s about “alignment with reality”.
Well who decides what does and does not align with reality? You seem to say: you and the circle of theologians that you know.
What you are presenting as your positions and your reasoning for those positions is not in accordance with Church teaching.
A Catholic cannot choose which teachings to accept and which to reject. A Catholic who rejects some Church teachings is a heretic. A Catholic who rejects all Church teachings is an apostate.
Pax and God Bless.
B
buffalo
Guest
Correction: The sources are the sources listed in the article. I did not compile them. The author uses the sources to make his point. As you rightly point out this should be the focus of the debate.Well it’s worked on me. I can’t even remember the question. I am elbow-gnawingly frustrated and I’m not even an active participant at the moment. Makes a discussion with buffalo seem like the height of genteel and erudite debate.
For heaven’s sake: Farsight says the article on language by the two creationists is invalid even though he hasn’t produced a single refutation of any argument in it, but dismisses it entirely on the identity of the authors. Buffalo says the references in the article are from learned specialists in lingiuistics and they are his sources, or at least he listed them with that implication, even though he hasn’t read any of them and they don’t support the idea that the diversity of language arose at a single Babel-like event anyway. vz seems to be arguing for the sake of it. What a shambles.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Now it is a wrong accusation to claim I have not read any the sources. Granted there are some that I cannot access. But that is typical of papers and journals.
B
buffalo
Guest
Therein lies the problem. The Church either possesses the truth or not.Are you saying that Catholics MUST believe everything the Church says and if the Church later, at some point, changes it’s position, those same Catholics are required to believe something else?
F
Faith1960
Guest
So, say it changes it’s position on something it once required Catholics to believe…then what?Therein lies the problem. The Church either possesses the truth or not.
I do not believe matters of faith and morals change.So, say it changes it’s position on something it once required Catholics to believe…then what?
Can you reference a single instance of this changing?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’m talking about scientific discoveries that some posters insist go against Catholic teaching, such as polygenism etc.I do not believe matters of faith and morals change.
Can you reference a single instance of this changing?
F
Farsight001
Guest
I gave multiple reasons already, and I am not the only one. Please address the issue.Well if you do not have a good reason for me to disbelieve the source, I see no merit in your argument.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.