Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

Further on this, it has led to statements that Genesis says the world and universe is also 6000 years old! This is so ignorent that one suspects sudden afflictions of dementia here - or worse.

Examine the texts! Clearly, Genesis chapter 1 says there were chunks of 'time period' epochs before life emerged: seperations of the elements, such as light from darkness; water from land; etc. Ignored by ToE and Christians who built Disney like museums of dinosaurs playing with human children! Bah!

The other proof from Genesis is that its calendar of 5770 years, the oldest calendar on the planet, starts 'AFTER' the creation days! Here, the conclusion of the universe being 6000 years based on Genesis is totally ignorent. To venture even further here, one cannot rely on Christian or Islamic assessments on the Hebrew bible, nor of history and science - and one cannot align these with any credibility - a controversial but most plausible statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you nuts or are you nuts? My non-confusing position is clearly stated that speech is 5770 as per the facts we have, but that the earth is nowhere said to be that age - I gave logical reasonings and pointed to the text from which such eronous notions were derived. Homo sapien existence does not impact here, other than they possessed no speech, notwithstanding this is not in contradiction of anything I said.

Anotomically devised larynx cannot of itself denote speech - there has to be surrounding evidential imprint grads. Many life forms possess a larynx. I suggested a NAME because this is irrefutable and that we should have millions, with no excuses applicable, including writings. The vacuum of a name is marked by a vacuum of nations, cities, wars, monuments - all unique human imprints subsequent to speech. Other factors such as population growth and mental prowess ratios also verify the age of a speech endowed life form.

This is humanity's most important issue - speech being the only unique trait of humans, as well as the most powerful tool in the universe. Of note is that the time factor of 5770 is astonishingly accurate, to the extent alarm bells should ringing instead of shoutings of myth. I am astonished - why arn't you? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence: overwhelming.

No sir. Communication is generic to all life forms; speech is varied by a ratio of 1: all other trillions of life forms. And we certainly have no graduated imprints of speech pre-5770, with overwhelming evidence post-5770.

This can also be subjective and agenda based. There are no surrounding imprints of this claim. It begs the question if a larynx [muscular tissue] can be tracked 100's of 1000's of years ago, when even bones do not. It cannot, so we are given formations of bone structures and an assessment its a larnyx holding cavity shape. Such assessments are generally not questioned by those festooned on this agenda positively. There can be millions of other life form bones which can equally evidence such assessments, but these are also never confronted. Nor does the fact a gaping vacuum exists when looking for any surrounding imprints for all that time period.

Here, all we can say is speech endowed life forms never existed pre-5770, by the evidences at hand. This is seen as controversial not because the evidence factor fails - but because it contradicts the core factors of ToE.

They are indicators of a vacuum of speech endowed humans.

Agreed the communications of dolphins and ants are highly complicated, so is their sight, smell, math, weather forecasting - and audio dexterity to boot. But please don't call it speech.

And you would be ammediately pounced upon: the pyramids!

No Pyramids. No nothing!

:bugeye:

:bugeye:

 

You think the pyramids are the oldest human structure known? There are the remains of much older structures and works of man, dating right back into the hundreds of thousands of years. Civilisation as a large scale thing didn't develop until 6000 years ago or so but but certainly Man has been talking and building things for far longer than that.

 

You ignore the blatant fact and have gone walkabout from science. The difference between the pyramids and your 100's of 1000's of years is striking:
we have imprints of names on the pyramids - we do not have this with your example.

I never said the pyramids are the oldest structure, although this is not an exaggeration. Nor did you give any examples of civilization pre-6000. Now don't go quoting mass burials and stone knives - these only prove there was no cvilization. It is a folly to see Genesis as irrelevant here - this only displays a foolish parania.

 

I don't have to prove anything and asking this is prepostrous: we have human history identifiable only for the genesis dating - a fantastic co-incidence by mythologists? You have to prove speech pre-6000. Any names, monuments, wars, nations, cities dated one minute before 5770 - what's your problem?

A diarized calendar with descriptions of names, dates, cities, nations, wars, cultures, diets, domestic animals, jelousy and murder, a geneology, and historically identifiable rivers and mountains. These are traits which are not possible without speech. Now its your turn.

Well read.

Yes. Because it contradicts ToE's adaptation, among other premises. Speech appeared suddenly, bypassing the evolutionary chain, and it happened to only one life form amony trillions - it aligns more with Genesis in its dating. It is varied from a zebra alone having stripes.

You should now make an honest retraction of the Genesis declaration and exacting dating measures. Your previous post did not recognise this and made totally bizarre examples of dating analogies. What is the point of debate if the wrongs are never acknowledged: the Genesis dating is astonishing even as we speak!

 

Modern speech emerged around 50000 years ago. Vocal communication existed long before then. Symbolic language developed as long ago as 1.5million years.

8000 years ago mankind was just coming out of an ice age. We finally had the opportunity to express our cultural expertise.

 

I see. I have spent some time online interacting with YEC's. It's a sad pathology.

Best description I've found:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

 

Not true. This seems like the dawn of speech by all of the evidence at hand. I did quote you a host of evidences which indicate speech. Just because it appears in a document now called scripture, does not mean this evidence does not exist or is not backed by historical imprints. There is not a single disputation ever proven here. I also presented you with a non-mythical diarized calendar. Now its your turn.

Of the Tigres river? Or that Adam, Cain, Noah, Shem and Abraham are authentic names of their times? My history lessons say these names did not exist 10K years ago - yes/no?

No, I don't think it is the only text I need. Feel free to put up a disputational text, even one 2000 years after the fact. Else you must retract and give bite the bullet.

Yes, it did. The evolutionary imprints are all within 5770; before this point we can certainly say speech emerged suddenly - namely, there was no speech 1 year before. There was no history per se either.

 

One can quote the larynx or whatever they like. This does not dent the 5770 date if we only see names from that point on. Can it be the vacuum says that all larnyx are not the same?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bite the bullet. That is how a myth free zone should operate.

 

The article impacts nothing. I am being very reasonable by asking for a single name pre-5770. We should see millions, and these should not be limited so tightly to the Genesis dating. The anomaly of denial is not mine.

 

Not true in any wise. The only truth is we have no NAME pre-5770. This is not even factored in your post, making it an unscientific conclusion. When you say 'finally we had the opportunity' - you are quoting 8000, but speech is limited to 5770 by the evidences at hand. A scientific premise must have on the ground imprints - to the extent it ceases being credible if there is contradicting imprints before us.

 

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA8QsAQwAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

IamJoseph, the only "evidence" we have of speech is that which we have heard in our own lifetimes.

So any depiction referring to speech prior to 5770 is... a lie?