Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

Names? And yet you are not a credible linguistic scholar and you apparently think that you know. How can syllabaries and ideographic writing be "forms of" an abjadic script? And Chinese myths say that it was Cāng Ji. So? On what grounds can we rest assured of it? Your say-so? Yes. I also know when they date from. And you know this how? Perhaps you could expand on this further. If you really think that letters this disparate:י ש א ל... are "formed from one prototype form", then I don't see of what system of writing one could not make such a claim. Doubtless every system of writing was the product of intelligence. To be more specific, human intelligence. If you wish to attribute a particularly inefficient form of script to God Almighty, then I for one would like to see some evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is absolutely untrue. May I suggest that you study geology before you start talking about it? Now, if only creationists had some experimental evidence for this. After all, if it was true, they'd just have to get a real scientist to date a rock, keep it underwater for a year or so, and then get the scientist to date the rock again. If its measured age had increased by several billion years, they'd have proved their point.Funny how no creationist ever does this, isn't it?Instead, they concentrate on trivial misunderstandings like the following: This, of course, has nothing to do with uranium salts leaching out, and everything to do with the fact that the K-Ar method can't be applied to pillow basalt, as you'd know if you'd taken a moment's interest in the subject you're talking nonsense about. Evidence? Clearly not all of them. But perhaps by the time the Gospel of Luke was written, the Roman Empire had brought the Jews into contact with Greek learning --- the Greeks, of course, discovered that the world was round centuries before the Gospel of Luke was written. I don't see the point. Yes, some ancient manuscripts talk about the sizes of things. Why do you mention it? What you have given us is an unclear argument substantiated by no evidence whatsoever. That there's one born every minute?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There is no contradiction here.She said that no credible linguistic scholar could determine the origins of writing. But clearly she is neither credible nor a linguistic scholar, so there's nothing to stop her from doing so.

But cuneiform is not an alphabetic script. It's logographic/syllabic.Why didn't you research the subjects you're talking about? A few minutes' study would have told you you were wrong. But this is not actually true. Stop making stuff up. Ah, yes, omphalism. Apparently your take on the Tower of Babel is that if it really had happened, the effects would be just exactly the same as if linguists were absolutely right about the evolution of languages.Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.One question, though --- we have actual written records of the descent of the Romance languages from Latin. How does that fit into your fantasy world?

I am not Coyote. He and I are two different people.Can't you be right about anything? No, you can date pillow basalt radiometrically, just not with K-Ar. You just admitted that the Hawaiian pillow basalts do not support your fantasy about water magically changing radiometric dates. Is there anything that does, or is this just more of the koo-koo stuff you make up in your head?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The sad thing is that nowadays it's possible to publish for free. Anyone who pays a single cent for the privilege is being royally ripped off.

Yes. Specifically I'd like you to produce evidence and reasoning instead of assertion and stuff you've made up. Speak for yourself. I can. But that's because I know stuff about geology. What a curious falsehood. Of course it has. For example, we can be absolutely certain that the Flood never happened.

And the fact that I am 36 also "fits with the Biblical perspective", but does not confirm it.The fact that there are things that are much older than 6,000 years blows the "Biblical perspective" to pieces.

Oh yes, Gentry's mistake, a blunder so awful that even creationist websites like AnswersInGenesis disown it. What, carbon has been found in something which is by definition made out of carbon?Well, that proves that the Earth is young ... er ... how? How about it? Yes, water can rapidly cut a channel (not, of course, a canyon) through unconsolidated volcanic ash. You do not explain how this is meant to prove that the Earth is young. And of course it doesn't --- the fact that water can wash away ash would be true no matter how old the Earth was, as you'd know if you'd spent five seconds thinking about the subject. As you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in the subject you're talking about, the sediment on the ocean floor is hundreds of meters deep.But of course you're not interested in geology, you're just interested in being wrong.Well, let me congratulate you on your multiple errors of fact and reasoning. Your pastor must be very proud of you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, for a start, his unwarranted assumption that the radiohalos were caused by polonium. But this is not true. Naturally, since water can erode unconsolidated volcanic ash wherever it's found. And this would be true whatever age the earth is. You don't. I do. No, I'm going to ask you for references to the scientific literature. Then I'll tell you why you're wrong. You said that there should be dozens of meters. There are hundreds.If you now wish to move the goalposts, please show some sort of scrap of a shred of a scintilla of working. Even if we accept your say-so as to the relevant figures, which I should tell you frankly that I don't, and if we assume that all the sediment is insoluble, which it isn't, you're still off by a factor of at least 3. I think some idiot must have assumed that sedimentary rock has the same density as water. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. No geologist in the world claims says that there's any ocean on Earth as much as 3 billion years old. The oldest oceanic rocks are 200 million years old or less. Anything older has been subducted. You'd know that if you'd ever bothered to study a little basic geology instead of learning to recite crap you read on creationist websites. That is not how old the Earth allegedly is (it's older, as you would know if you'd ever taken a passing interest in geology) and there is plenty enough sodium. The reason creationists manage to be so howlingly wrong about this subject is that, because of their complete ignorance of geology, they are unaware that sodium leaves the oceans as well as being added to it. Because you can't record history using megalithic monuments. You have to, y'know ... invent writing. Apart from having been proved absolutely false, which makes it kinda unlikely.---In any case, it seems to me that you're wandering off topic. The topic of this thread is not "common creationist mistakes about geology". Can we go back to you being wrong about linguistics? At least that's original.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you don't like being proved wrong, you should spend more time trying to be right and less time whining about the people who prove you wrong. I can't even tell you if this is true, since the claim seems to stem from the notorious creationist liar Carl Baugh. Genesis says no such thing. So, you're going to believe scientists when they study the geological record and tell you that the atmosphere was once richer in oxygen --- and ignore everything else they say about the geological record?Well, that's mighty convenient for you. But I am more fortunate still, because I can take the whole of reality into account, instead clinging to tiny little fragments of it and ignoring all the rest. Show your working. And who likenethedeth it, yea verily, unto a hyperbaric chamber? Only that's not in the Bible either. Oxygen toxicitySo when, according to you, did bacteria come into existence? Obviously for your fantasy world to be consistent they can't have been created by God "in the beginning". They must at least post-date Methusalah. But this is not true, which is one reason why the link you have provided does not say that it is true.The genes for snake toxins have been identified. Guess what, they're in the genomes of snakes, not of imaginary symbiotic bacteria.If you'd even been interested in this subject for thirty seconds or so, you'd know this. Google is your friend here. Evidence? There's not even scientific evidence for creationist fantasies, let alone a scientific explanation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.