Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 5:57 pm**

So were they white before they went to Europe, Black before they went to Africa, etc? Or did god pick and choose like I do with Skittles "I'll eat all the green ones next!"?

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 6:00 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

Um, no it doesn't.

But you can't form speech on your own. Speech is language.

You can form dialects from a known language.

I'm talking about fully new languages.

Nothing in evolution can come close to explaining this.

Why do you always insist on picking the least controversial stuff about evolution?

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 7:38 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:So were they white before they went to Europe, Black before they went to Africa, etc? Or did god pick and choose like I do with Skittles "I'll eat all the green ones next!"?

In the beginning there was only one race, one language. When man started to build the Tower of Babel He scattered mankind and gave them different languages. The original race? Don't know, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say Middle Eastern since that is where the Garden of Eden was.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 7:41 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
You know, the strangest thing about your crazy theory is that it means new languages can not be formed.

Um, no it doesn't.

But you can't form speech on your own. Speech is language.

You can form dialects from a known language.

I'm talking about fully new languages.I know "G" talk, I guess you can call it a language but really it's just a spin off of English. Go ahead, I want to see you create one not related to any known language.

Nothing in evolution can come close to explaining this.

Why do you always insist on picking the least controversial stuff about evolution?

More importantly why can't you refute any of it?

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:I know "G" talk, I guess you can call it a language but really it's just a spin off of English. Go ahead, I want to see you create one not related to any known language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvish_languages

Nothing in evolution can come close to explaining this.

Why do you always insist on picking the least controversial stuff about evolution?

More importantly why can't you refute any of it?

I can. I just don't think it's going to be a good use of my time.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 8:08 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:I know "G" talk, I guess you can call it a language but really it's just a spin off of English. Go ahead, I want to see you create one not related to any known language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvish_languages

"The phonology, vocabulary and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin are strongly influenced by Finnish and Welsh, respectively." Nice try. It's always good to try, think of where we would be if no one ever tried?

Nothing in evolution can come close to explaining this.

Why do you always insist on picking the least controversial stuff about evolution?

More importantly why can't you refute any of it?

I can. I just don't think it's going to be a good use of my time.

Nice cop out.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 8:22 pm**

icedagger wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:As I said, I accept some people feel what they think is the presence of the abrahamic god. I accept some people feel just as strongly what they think is the presence of vishnu, or baron samedi, or thor. Or that elvis is still alive. You're just dismissing one claim fewer than me.

No, I dismiss the claim that there is no God. We dismiss the same number of claims, exactly.

Right. So how can you criticise athiests for dismissing christians' claims when you do the exact same thing to every other religion?

I don't criticize them for being atheists or thinking they are correct. I criticize them for equating my beliefs with flying teapots and other silly ideas, as well as claims that their belief is more logical, based on more evidence than mine or even is based on evidence, as opposed to all other beliefs that are somehow not based on evidence.

Big difference!

PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:So, you have concrete evidence for your expertise in the form of the stability of your structures. Well done, I would accept you could indeed accurately predict "certain aspects of a stream".

Except, it is not something predictable, testable, etc. More than one engineer dismissed that knowledge, in real life. (not actually mine, that of my bosses).

It eminently is testable. Your structures would tend to be more stable than those designed by engineers. If you really wanted to, you and an engineer could design structures for similar streams, and the results compared. The religious' alleged expertise can't be tested empirically in this way- the two aren't analogous.[/quote]
I am trying to get close, using an analogy.

The best analogy is love. Many people who have not been in love really and truly do not believe it can happen, or at least not to them.. then it does. That is probably the closest you can come to what it is to know God. But, they are only approximations and only approximations expressed on the internet, in a forum. I could explain more in person, but it would take time. Also, some things, you cannot explain, you have to experience.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:
No concrete evidence for your expertise here though. I have no more reason to believe what you say is true than to listen to those who say elvis is alive.

You had to do it... Elvis, Tea pots.. same thing.
Concrete, testable evidence is not the only kind of evidence. If it were , no child would feel loved.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Maybe I'm missing your point, but childrens' love of their parents isn't just based on an assessment of evidence- clearly it's evolutionarily useful for a child to unconditionally love their parent, and vice versa. [/quote]
Actually I would argue it IS based on evidence. The evidence that they cry, and are cared for, etc. Also, yes, it is a need. At any rate, it is real and true, regardless of science's inability to truly quantify and replicate it artificially. (and I don't mean "articifial" in the sense of adoption or such, I mean putting chemicals or electric impulses or whatever into the brian.. science is getting there, but not truly there yet).

PLAYER57832 wrote:As for scientific shackles. Right now, Christians still dominate. However, when you dismiss any alternative simply out of hand, then you, by its very nature, necessarily also omit many other things. For example, it is very likely that other universes exist. It is quite likely that many rules we consider "set" won't apply in that other universe. Just grasping those types of permeations, the possibilities means being able to look outside what you can prove, to consider the "other".

The "other" is what lead people to create machines that fly, it is what lead people to explore, it is what leads people to think and challenge anything that is "known" and accepted.

I don't have a lot of respect for flat earthers, there is just too much evidence contrary. However, we need folks, even folks like that who live on the "edge" to challenge us constantly. If you cannot understand that, without information, people could think the earth is flat, then you won't bother to take the time to make sure the true concepts are taught. If you don't understand that is is possible for people to think that way, then you cannot possibly communicate with whole groups of people.

I realize you consider belief in God to be equivalent to flat earthers, but the difference is that you cannot prove our beliefs wrong. We can prove that the earth is not flat.

I just don't understand how working from the premise that god exists can ever be helpful to science. It never provides an explanation more useful than "god did it". It encourages, if anything, a lack of enquiry. [/quote]
For some. For others it spurs on thinking.

But my basic point is that if you start with a preconcieved notion that x cannot be true, despite the fact that is cannot be proven yet.. then you limit yourself.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:I don't believe in god in the same way that you don't believe elvis is alive. By your logic, believing elvis is dead is no more or less valid than believing he is alive.

No, Elvis being dead is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of proof. My belief in God is also a matter of proof, just a proof that does not lend itself to be trotted out to others, particularly on the internet. And that is the whole point.

Once again, you take something which is known to be false.. not even a true matter of possible believe, and claim that it is somehow equivalent to belief in God, which has proof and evidence, evidence you might not see, but which is really and truly seen by many, many people. We believe in something that you cannot disprove. You just don't wish to believe it could be true.

Scientologists believe in something you can't disprove. Do you accept that your lack of belief in scientology "is no better or worse than a positive belief" in it?[/quote]
If I cannot prove it false, then I may believe it untrue, but will never claim I have the right to deny it. However, when considering other religions, you miss a statement I made. I HAVE proof of God, not solid, scientific proof, but proof enough for me. In that regard, I don't accept other religions. I don't accept them because I have evidence that my belief is true and that theirs is not. My issue with some atheistic arguments here is that they say that just because they don't see evidence, then my belief (and everyone else's who believes in God, etc.) is illogical, stupid, etc.

One irony on Elvis, perhaps intentional in your part, is that there actually is a church of Elvis. However, as far as I know it does not include reincarnation of the man.

icedagger wrote:I would love a benevolent god to exist by the way. I don't confuse what would be nice with what is true though- it's not a question of what I "wish to believe".

Nor is it for me. I believe because God is. I wish I could explain it to everyone, show who God is to everyone, but I cannot. It is not given to me to do that. I believe I have other tasks. Particulary, not on the internet. It just is not readily possible.

I am not one trying to convert or convince anyone. I do try to clarify that say, jay is not a mouthpiece for all of Christianity. I also try to bridge a small bit the gap between some who eschew religion and those religious who eschew science, though lately my patience has worn rather thin and I don't feel I am succeeding much. Above all, I just try to learn other people's views for myself.

This who string of posts started becayse snorri, MeDeFe, neoteny etc each proclaimed variations of "believing in God is illogical", "has no evidence", is "no different than believing in flying teapots". I don't in any way dispute their right to believe as they do. I also know them to each be intelligent, thoughtful people. I agree with them often. I generally respect them even when I don't agree. But.. well, in this one area, we disagree quite firmly. And I do feel their position is harmful, to science.

icedagger wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, the only difference is that atheism is your belief. Else, there is no more evidence for your position or mine. In fact, I would suggest there is much more evidence for God. If I did not see it, I would not believe.

What would you accept as evidence that god does not exist?

More a matter than I would have to not have seen the evidence that I have seen, or would have to find it false. Proving that something doesn't exist is almost impossible. Not entirely impossible, but close. When that something is God, every excuse that people find for God not existing is explained by those who believe. It is a null point. You believe or you don't, but you cannot debate yourself to one or the other idea.

icedagger wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:That is the other distinction. I understand that you don't see any evidence. I understand that this is why you believe Atheistically. I also understand that that belief is very central to your core being, something that, if challenged would shake your world irrevocably. That is the nature of belief. Its just that you, and others here wish to assert it is not belief. That is just wrong. Just because you base your belief on a failure to see evidence, makes it no less a belief.

When I say my position doesn't take belief I mean it doesn't take a leap of faith. This is one of the distinctions between athiesm and religions. If by belief you just mean "something I think is true", then yes, athiesm is my belief. I wouldn't say my "belief" that the abrahamic god doesn't exist is any more central to my being than your "belief" that thor doesn't exist, though.

Belief is anytime you say "I think this is true", any time you go beyond evidence. Now, the distinction, though is that I include ALL evidence. In a way, atheism is sort of at a disadvantage, because it is virtually impossible to prove something like God does not exist. Atheists then have a hard time saying they have belief in the same way that theists do. That is, you don't hear many stories of people walking through fire to prove they are atheistic. However, it really is the same. Only the words differ.

PLAYER57832 wrote:There are two alternatives. 1. proof that can be shared and tested, etc. That is the realm of science. 2. things that cannot yet be tested or proven. Those are the realm of belief.

Belief is not necessarily inferior to proof. Belief takes us places where absolute proof cannot possibly go. They take us into the realms of what make us human. Art, music, feelings, emotions, etc... and religion. ALL religion, including atheism.

I can just about accept your definition of belief, but your definition of religion would have to be pretty meaningless to encompass athiesm. I'd be interested to hear it. I don't see the link between what you call belief- something someone thinks is true- and art, music, feelings, and emotions.[/quote]
The simplest, but necessarily incomplete definition is that religion is just any encompassing, base, worldview that shapes who you are. It definitely includes belief in God, but also things like scientology, pantheism, Buddhism, etc, etc. For some, political belief borders on religion, because people are willing to die for those beliefs. (I don't mean defending property or the state.. that is more concrete, I mean Republican, Democrat, Nazis, etc.)

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 8:23 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:I know "G" talk, I guess you can call it a language but really it's just a spin off of English. Go ahead, I want to see you create one not related to any known language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvish_languages

Many Native American Languages are not related to any other tongue.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 8:31 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
"The phonology, vocabulary and grammar of Quenya and Sindarin are strongly influenced by Finnish and Welsh, respectively." Nice try. It's always good to try, think of where we would be if no one ever tried?

Wanna know something interesting? Klingon is one of the most artificial language ever. (Aside from binary and logic and such things of course). It's sounds are meant to be completely different from what you'd encounter on earth.

It is constructed. It's grammar and vocabulary aren't really based on anything other than out of neccesity to fit complex structures. Obviously, early languages did not need to be complex.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:I know "G" talk, I guess you can call it a language but really it's just a spin off of English. Go ahead, I want to see you create one not related to any known language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvish_languages

Many Native American Languages are not related to any other tongue.

And?

Native Americans came from where? Oh yeah, part of the "scattering of man" and then given Indian languages.

We were talking about creating languages today out of thin air.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 10:45 pm**

Jay: vshnninig, shmflupid, ruhfngtin - plah.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 10:57 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:Jay: vshnninig, shmflupid, ruhfngtin - plah.

Vigerigy igintigerigestiging. Digid yigou jigust higave iga sigeizigure whigile igat yigore cigompigutiger? <----- Gtalk, easier to speak it then write it.

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 10:58 pm**

splumfiginid. smeantorum.Plah!

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 11:01 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:splumfiginid. smeantorum.Plah!

jigonesthigecigurl

Posted: **Tue May 25, 2010 11:02 pm**

[dolint]

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 5:17 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:Scientologists believe in something you can't disprove. Do you accept that your lack of belief in scientology "is no better or worse than a positive belief" in it?

If I cannot prove it false, then I may believe it untrue, but will never claim I have the right to deny it. However, when considering other religions, you miss a statement I made. I HAVE proof of God, not solid, scientific proof, but proof enough for me. In that regard, I don't accept other religions. I don't accept them because I have evidence that my belief is true and that theirs is not.

I think the Scientologists would make the same claim as you do with reversed positions, they have evidence for their religion being true and your religion being false. And they may say that with every bit as much sincerity as you. Do you see the problem someone who has a third position may have?

PLAYER57832 wrote:This who string of posts started becayse snorri, MeDeFe, neoteny etc each proclaimed variations of "believing in God is illogical", "has no evidence", is "no different than believing in flying teapots".

Except that we didn't. At least I know I didn't, and I don't recall Snorri or Neo doing it either.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Belief is anytime you say "I think this is true", any time you go beyond evidence. Now, the distinction, though is that I include ALL evidence. In a way, atheism is sort of at a disadvantage, because it is virtually impossible to prove something like God does not exist. Atheists then have a hard time saying they have belief in the same way that theists do. That is, you don't hear many stories of people walking through fire to prove they are atheistic. However, it really is the same. Only the words differ.

So there's a difference, and it's dissimilar, but it's really the same, just a little different.

Player, how central do you think this "belief there is no god" is in the mind of a person who doesn't believe in god? On average.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 6:57 am**

MeDeFe wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
icedagger wrote:Scientologists believe in something you can't disprove. Do you accept that your lack of belief in scientology "is no better or worse than a positive belief" in it?

If I cannot prove it false, then I may believe it untrue, but will never claim I have the right to deny it. However, when considering other religions, you miss a statement I made. I HAVE proof of God, not solid, scientific proof, but proof enough for me. In that regard, I don't accept other religions. I don't accept them because I have evidence that my belief is true and that theirs is not.

I think the Scientologists would make the same claim as you do with reversed positions, they have evidence for their religion being true and your religion being false. And they may say that with every bit as much sincerity as you. Do you see the problem someone who has a third position may have?

No, it is the nature of this that there is no one choice. THAT is the point. All these choices are based, in part on logic and evidence. None is based entirely on logic.

Disagreements happen in science, too, until the final proof is found. Scientists will argue/debate, believe strongly their various positions. The only difference here is that its unlikely that absolute proof will be found any time soon. That is, of course a pretty big difference, but not in the sense of one idea being more valid than another.

I have seen enough to prove to me my position. You have seen enough to prove to you your position..etc.

MeDeFe wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:This who string of posts started becayse snorri, MeDeFe, neoteny etc each proclaimed variations of "believing in God is illogical", "has no evidence", is "no different than believing in flying teapots".

Except that we didn't. At least I know I didn't, and I don't recall Snorri or Neo doing it either.

Now you are arguing semantics. You have not said all that in one sentence, but snorri, at least has said those things.

MeDeFe wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Belief is anytime you say "I think this is true", any time you go beyond evidence. Now, the distinction, though is that I include ALL evidence. In a way, atheism is sort of at a disadvantage, because it is virtually impossible to prove something like God does not exist. Atheists then have a hard time saying they have belief in the same way that theists do. That is, you don't hear many stories of people walking through fire to prove they are atheistic. However, it really is the same. Only the words differ.

So there's a difference, and it's dissimilar, but it's really the same, just a little different.

Player, how central do you think this "belief there is no god" is in the mind of a person who doesn't believe in god? On average.

It will vary, just like belief in God varies. But religion is much more than just a belief in God (or lack of it), it is the entire moral framework and compass.

Some religions are extremely narrow. You are either Amish or you are not. Now, things are not as "set" even among the Amish as is often believed by "outsiders". However, there are many, many, many rules to be followed. Hinduism, in a sense has many options. (Or, perhaps you could say it is one name for many religions.) Atheism is different, yes, but it is no more different than, say scientology is different from Hinduism, which is diffferent from the Navaho religon, which is different from Judaism, ...etc.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 7:16 am**

FWIW, I have said many times something along the lines of "there is no evidence for god that could not be more reasonably applied to more parsimonious theories except for the beginning of the universe which is representative of an absence of actual evidence that is attributed to a gap god and will only be a matter of time before that is unraveled" and "Russell's teapot is a useful tool to describe this frame of reference."

There was no response to my most recent post(s) in that thread.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 7:34 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:This who string of posts started becayse snorri, MeDeFe, neoteny etc each proclaimed variations of "believing in God is illogical", "has no evidence", is "no different than believing in flying teapots".

Except that we didn't. At least I know I didn't, and I don't recall Snorri or Neo doing it either.

Now you are arguing semantics. You have not said all that in one sentence, but snorri, at least has said those things.

No I haven't. I've said that the idea that belief automatically makes your ideas valid is silly as it could be applied to any number of beliefs you dismiss without pause.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 7:37 am**

Neoteny wrote:FWIW, I have said many times something along the lines of "there is no evidence for god that could not be more reasonably applied to more parsimonious theories except for the beginning of the universe which is representative of an absence of actual evidence that is attributed to a gap god and will only be a matter of time before that is unraveled" and "Russell's teapot is a useful tool to describe this frame of reference."

There was no response to my most recent post(s) in that thread.

The same issue has been brought up in several threads.

My point is that there is a very, very thin line between talking about hypotheticals that truly are hypothetical and esoteric concepts that really don't apply to real thoughts. Atheists very often like to claim their thinking should be set apart. In the end, though, it comes down to you believe what you believe and others believe what they believe. There is no objective distinction. The distinction comes in what evidence you accept or do not, and they way you arrange things to fit your belief in your mind.

That is, by-the-way, why I so firmly believe that all religious values have more or less "equal" right to exist. And, why none has the right to prohibit or dictate the behaviors of other, outside of behaviors that truly harm others, pretty universally accepted morals.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 7:57 am**

Snorri1234 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:This who string of posts started becayse snorri, MeDeFe, neoteny etc each proclaimed variations of "believing in God is illogical", "has no evidence", is "no different than believing in flying teapots".

Except that we didn't. At least I know I didn't, and I don't recall Snorri or Neo doing it either.

Now you are arguing semantics. You have not said all that in one sentence, but snorri, at least has said those things.

No I haven't. I've said that the idea that belief automatically makes your ideas valid is silly as it could be applied to any number of beliefs you dismiss without pause.

#1 I don't claim that other people are illogical in their beliefs, with a few exceptions. The exceptions are primarily when the belief is actually harmful (in non-esoteric ways). Also, when evidence actually and truly contradicts the belief.

What probably seems to be an exception, but is not, is the creationism issue. First, I criticize this as a Christian, and mostly say "no, Christ/the Bible do not specify this belief". I do this because the Bible is also my doctrine, my guide. I also criticize it on a factual basis, becuase the facts do show otherwise. But, the more important issue is that my real problem is that this group is nor really putting forward religion, it is putting forward a set of flat out lies that claim to be religion, but that are really just wide-ranging attacks on science. You, I, anyone educated in what science really says, know that creationists don't put forward any real evidence. However, Jay can believe it is because most of what creationist "scientists" do is poke holes in scientific theories, then step back and say "heh, heh, we are too smart to believe that garbage!" Of course, they conveniently forget to mention that the scientists themselves admit many of the supposed "problems" and/or have already shown the claims the creationists are making to be false. (but they actually make very few real claims).

Even so, I left the issue lie for a long, long time, until I realized that they were fully intent on rewriting the education of ALL children in this country. That goes beyond simply religious tolerance and belief. Undermining science to such an extent in the minds of so many children is outright harmful.

# 2. I don't claim my beliefs are more logical in an objective, outward sense. I fully acknowledge that I cannot offer proof that will convince anyone else, so I don't condemn people who think differently. This is particularly true on the internet. This is the thing. I get the impression you seem to think I am saying you need to or should believe as I. I never have. That is, sure, I feel a certain sadness that anyone doesn't know God, understand him. I feel that whether it is a atheist or someone who feels they are following God, but I know I cannot convince you or anyone else otherwise on an internet forum. I will, however continue to say that no one else has the right to say my beliefs are less logical or less scientific or less intelligent than any other.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 7:59 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Neoteny wrote:FWIW, I have said many times something along the lines of "there is no evidence for god that could not be more reasonably applied to more parsimonious theories except for the beginning of the universe which is representative of an absence of actual evidence that is attributed to a gap god and will only be a matter of time before that is unraveled" and "Russell's teapot is a useful tool to describe this frame of reference."

There was no response to my most recent post(s) in that thread.

The same issue has been brought up in several threads.

My point is that there is a very, very thin line between talking about hypotheticals that truly are hypothetical and esoteric concepts that really don't apply to real thoughts. Atheists very often like to claim their thinking should be set apart. In the end, though, it comes down to you believe what you believe and others believe what they believe. There is no objective distinction. The distinction comes in what evidence you accept or do not, and they way you arrange things to fit your belief in your mind.

That is, by-the-way, why I so firmly believe that all religious values have more or less "equal" right to exist. And, why none has the right to prohibit or dictate the behaviors of other, outside of behaviors that truly harm others, pretty universally accepted morals.

Well, sure, we all believe what we believe. But when we're talking on a website, we're discussing why we believe what we believe. We, as atheists, see no evidence for god. This is not really that esoteric; it's common sense, and many non-atheists agree with that perspective ("that's the whole point of faith" is the common argument). Yet you seem to find this very fact to be an affront to what you believe. We can't help that, and yet you tell us we should not be so conceited and biased, and continue to claim evidence without giving it. How are we supposed to respond to that?

I don't set my beliefs higher or in any other way apart from anyone else's except in the requirement for physical evidence, which is at the very core of my worldview, so I obviously have to maintain a requirement for it with respect to questioning the veracity of a particular belief, and respect it as an explanatory tool. This does not mean I think those who don't rely on physical evidence are stupid or illogical. They are just exceedingly unconvincing (to me). I don't know how they can possibly be convincing without some ability to convey evidence, but I'm open to another source if you can provide one.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 8:13 am**

Player,

Are you not a creationist yourself even if you think He created humans using millions of years of violence and suffering and pain and death?

Also, how about we discuss stuff in a young earth creationism topic if you mean to claim there's no one you consider to be a young earth creationist who has put forth any real evidence?

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 8:33 am**

By the way, this does not say asserted or must be true or secular scientists anywhere in it maybe...

http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel- ... inguistics

There are images there with tiny words and I'm not 100% sure perhaps, but what were you talking about? What's not true?

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am**

Lionz wrote:Player,

Are you not a creationist yourself even if you think He created humans using millions of years of violence and suffering and pain and death?

Also, how about we discuss stuff in a young earth creationism topic if you mean to claim there's no one you consider to be a young earth creationist who has put forth any real evidence?

Let it be known, I think she is a very confused person.

Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: