Friday, November 28, 2008

What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting

Usually one or other message gave room for ramifications in answer, like "angryatheist" (fictitious example) saying:


The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy, biology/evolution and language history.


I would tend to answer:


The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy ...


If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

... biology/evolution ...


I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.


... and language history.


I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.


Then the other guy would answer:


If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.


Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.


I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.


Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?


I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.


Qué?


After which I would get back like:


If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.



Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.

No thanks, but maybe you should, Shakespear said "he who is giddy thinks the world turns around".

...

I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.


Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?


Who says these 60 million years are the true age of T. Rex et al.?

...

I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.


Qué?


The argument (already made twice or three times by dhux) usually goes: the tower of Babel is a myth explaining the difference of languages, but now we have another explanation as the one true namely slow language change, a k a linguistic evolution. My answer is that one miraculous language change, engendering heaps of new languages, does not stop these languages from further change later on, which is what linguists have observed later on.


I have then copy-pasted (Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V):
  • a) my opponents' arguments, also giving them credit for them as in fictitious example "angryatheist" here (if there is a real user name "angryatheist" out there who argues more intelligently, I apologise)
  • b) my own answers to them, where the idea may or may not be my own in the sense of original discovery (usually not) but where the format is about the debate, not where I got my arguments from. Anytime I have been questioned on it, I have referred to my authorities, just as faithfully as for instance dhux has referred to Ayn Rand or Albert Einstein or ... - and I have not used anothers actual words without saying as much,
  • c) entire posts, from message boards to Antimodernism (where I did the kind of reediting for economy as examplified below) and from there to this blog.


I have NOT copy-pasted articles someone else wrote and called them my own.

The way this would eventually look here is:
angryatheist
The Bible is proven wrong by science, like astronomy ...


If you mean heliocentrism, I do not consider it science.

angryatheist
Hey, if you are geocentric, consider a shrink.

No thanks, but maybe you should, Shakespear said "he who is giddy thinks the world turns around".

angryatheist
... biology/evolution ...


I do not think biology validates evolution except on a small scale of change, so called micro-evolution.

angryatheist
Right, huh! And what about dinosaurs that lived 60 million years before the Universe was created according to your Bible?

Who says these 60 million years are the true age of T. Rex et al.?
angryatheist
... and language history.


I suppose you refer to languages usually changing in other ways than the new-language shock wave at tower of Babel. For my part I do not exclude miracles. And the miracle described does not say there were no further language changes after that.

angryatheist
Qué?


The argument (already made twice or three times by dhux) usually goes: the tower of Babel is a myth explaining the difference of languages, but now we have another explanation as the one true namely slow language change, a k a linguistic evolution. My answer is that one miraculous language change, engendering heaps of new languages, does not stop these languages from further change later on, which is what linguists have observed later on.


Now, get back to the real examples, where I have argued against real opponents on message boards, that means the other messages on this blog./HGL

2 comments:

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

I am deteriorating!

In my old good days I would not have retorted: "but maybe you should" (consider a shrink) since I do not approve of shrinks. Not even for my opponents or enemies.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Someone who really appreciated this method of reedition of a debate was SC here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect