18 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsGood luck with your game.
Response to point 1.
God made Adam and Eve as full adults with language ability in the beginning and the language was confounded and divided by God not too long after the flood of Noah's day.
That is all I have time for now for I have to eat and get ready to go to Columbia to play OTB chess tonight.
19 Oct 12
Hi RJ
"there is only One God that created man with free will to ask
a bunch of stupid questions."
The typical duck and dodge answers I've been getting since I was 10.
(you forgot to add the mysterious ways in which he/she/it moves in.)
So God created man with a free will.
Good.
In that case he also gave us the free will NOT to believe in him so you have no
right at all to be angry with athiests (these are your words) and try and convert us
to your way of thinking.
By doing so you are interfering with God's will.
Good luck with the game by the way.
19 Oct 12
4 edits
Originally posted by vivifyNow getting back to your objections to the things that support a young Earth. I have already replied to the first one.
Nothing to do right now, so I'll give this a go. The numbers correspond to the order of RJ's points.
1) To invent language (let alone recorded language) takes time, especially when the intelligence to do so has to evolve first.
2) Same as above. Evolution of skills takes time.
3) There've been many catastrophies on earth, like the ones that wiped earth, nor evidence against an old one. Just evidence of the time needed for coal.
2. Learning skills would not take a million years. That could easily be done in a thousand or two. Look at the increase in technology in just a hundred years. People were more likely to be more intelligent in the first 2000 years because degeneration had not had much time to effect the DNA of mankind like it has today.
3. The catastrophe that wiped out the large dinosaurs was Noah's flood, which happened just a few thousand years ago. There is nothing that proves there were any catastrophes more than a few thousand years ago.
4. Find DNA in bacteria that was claime to be millions of years old means the bacteria is instead only a few thousand years old at the longest. Finding pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bones prove the dinosaurs lived no more than a few thousand years ago.
5. Same reply as for 3.
6. No need to reply since you admit you don't know much about it. Read about it in Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Sanford, J., Ivan Press, 2005
7. Saying Mitochondrial Eve lived 200,000 years ago is lot easier than proving it, and proving it has not yet happened.
8. There are other sources on how coal and can be produced by scientists very quickly. So the point is that coal and oil deposits do not testify of an earth older than a few thousand years.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHinds2) I didn't say "learn". I said INVENT. Big difference. Don't twist words. Keeping this in mind, are you able to argue against this point? If so, how?
Now getting back to your objections to the things that support a young Earth. I have already replied to the first one.
2. Learning skills would not take a million years. That could easily be done in a thousand or two. Look at the increase in technology in just a hundred years. People were more likely to be more intelligent in the first 2000 years bec ...[text shortened]... point is that coal and oil deposits do not testify of an earth older than a few thousand years.
3) There's nothing that "proves" a global flood either. However, there's evidence of catastrophies that wiped out the dinosaurs,like asteroids. There's no evidence of a global flood.
Also, there've been several ice-ages in earth's history, for hundred of millions of years Or are you gonna deny that too?
Here's just one of them, that would've caused extinction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1262904/Prehistoric-hailstorm-triggered-1-000-year-freeze-Earth-wiped-animal-species.html
See? Evidence of catastrophies, that would've wiped out organisms able to live millions of years otherwise.
4) It's still not evidence for a young earth, nor against an old one.
5) Same reply as for 3.
7) Still, the available evidence indicate Mitochondrial Eve is far older than a "young earth" of 6,000 years.
8) Your thread is titled "A few things that support a young earth." You have at least two points that don't support it at all. This one of them. And this, like another one of your points, isn't evidence against an old earth either.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyINVENT - whatever. If there is a need for something, it does not take a million years to invent it. Even people today invent things they feel their is a need for rather quickly. They were not required to invent anything near as complicated as is invented today. So your argument does not make sense. It is obivious that you do not want to accept these evidences of a young earth. So nothing I can say will unindoctrinate you.
2) I didn't say "learn". I said INVENT. Big difference. Don't twist words. Keeping this in mind, are you able to argue against this point? If so, how?
3) There's nothing that "proves" a global flood either. However, there's evidence of catastrophies that wiped out the dinosaurs,like asteroids. There's no evidence of a global flood.
Also, there' ...[text shortened]... ike another one of your points, isn't evidence against an old earth either.
19 Oct 12
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo language would be "quickly" invented, by humans with no prior concept of language, even though there's no way to pass info on to humans who can't speak?
[b]INVENT - whatever. If there is a need for something, it does not take a million years to invent it. Even people today invent things they feel their is a need for rather quickly. They were not required to invent anything near as complicated as is invented today. So your argument does not make sense. It is obivious that you do not want to accept these evidences of a young earth. So nothing I can say will unindoctrinate you.[/b
Hmm.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyCan't you read? I am sure I told you that God gave Adam and Eve a language because He talked to them in the garden of Eden. And after the flood God divided that language into many. So man only had to come up with a way to record it in writing. That is not going to take very long if one really wants to do it.
So language would be "quickly" invented, by humans with no prior concept of language, even though there's no way to pass info on to humans who can't speak?
Hmm.
19 Oct 12
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo then this is a different argument. You're claiming humans didn't even invent language, that some deity did it. Well, in order for this to count as a point, you'd have to show evidence that a deity created language, before using written history as a point; otherwise, you're using a circular argument (proof of the bible is language invented by the biblical god).
Can't you read? I am sure I told you that God gave Adam and Eve a language because He talked to them in the garden of Eden. And after the flood God divided that language into many. So man only had to come up with a way to record it in writing. That is not going to take very long if one really wants to do it.
But at least there's now proof that your arguments are circular.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyGood luck getting to such a profoundly brainwashed individual.
So then this is a different argument. You're claiming humans didn't even invent language, that some deity did it. Well, in order for this to count as a point, you'd have to show evidence that a deity created language, before using written history as a point; otherwise, you're using a circular argument (proof of the bible is that language was invented by the biblical god).
But at least there's now proof that your arguments are circular.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifyThe Holy Bible is proof that God created language. There is no proof that man did. History does not record any information that some man created language or what his/her name was. I have more proof for my belief than you do for yours.
So then this is a different argument. You're claiming humans didn't even invent language, that some deity did it. Well, in order for this to count as a point, you'd have to show evidence that a deity created language, before using written history as a point; otherwise, you're using a circular argument (proof of the bible is language invented by the biblical god).
But at least there's now proof that your arguments are circular.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't have "proof", just arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. I was able to refute your arguments; as of yet, you're unable to refute any of mine.
The Holy Bible is proof that God created language. There is no proof that man did. History does not record any information that some man created language or what his/her name was. I have more proof for my belief than you do for yours.
And there doesn't need to be proof that man invented his own language. We've witnesses man invent language (like sign-language, brail, semiphore, et.c), but we've never witnessed any deity create anything, or even exist to do so.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyI refuted all your arguments. You are just too illiterate in your comprehension, as the Duchess has pointed out before, to understand it. 😏
You don't have "proof", just arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny. I was able to refute your arguments; as of yet, you're unable to refute any of mine.
And there doesn't need to be proof that man invented his own language. We've witnesses man invent language (like sign-language, brail, semiphore, et.c), but we've never witnessed any deity create anything, or even exist to do so.
19 Oct 12
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean the same Duchess that saw Marinktomb's post pointing out how weak a player was (Women's Olympiad thread), as sexism against women? Even though Duchess admitted that this player was a "novice"?
I refuted all your arguments. You are just too illiterate in your comprehension, as the Duchess has pointed out before, to understand it. 😏
Based on your arguments, which have been shown to be weak and circular, it's not surprising you'd use use such a logically skewed person as a point for anything.