i want a straight up answer from YEC's

[ThatRobGuy]

hey now you guys arent YECs!

That's why you were able to get a straight answer from them!!

Honestly my take on the whole situation is...
(assuming this applies to you)
Remember when you were younger and believed in Santa Claus...when you were 4 or 5, you were perfectly content believing that, and no matter what anyone would've told you, you wouldn't have believed differently....If someone would have told you that your parents were sticking the presents under the tree, you never would've believed it. But, by the time you're 9 or 10, and you reached your own personal age of logic, you realized that the idea of a 300 pound man in a red suit with flying deer coming down your chimney didn't really add up and couldn't have happened, you're willing to accept a more reasonable answer.

Unfortunately, when it comes to science and beliefs, the age of logic isn't always 9 or 10. I was raised in a strict baptist home for the first 15 years of my life, and then my family and I decided to try a non-denominational church with a more level-headed way of thinking. It was then that I realized that it wasn't a sin or evil to have the questions that I used to have about the old testament and the stories that didn't add up. Of course, now I'm agnostic because I question other things too (but that's a different topic).

People generally raise their kids to partake in whatever faith they have...the only problem is they also imply within that, that everyone else is wrong.
So it's hard to break old habits.

 

[yasic]

On the issue of languages...


I am pretty sure (not 100% though), that a chinese person will on average learn english slower then he will learn japanese. Therefore by your arguement, english is harder to learn then japanese.

Also, an average french person will learn english much faster then japanese, therefore by your arguement english is much easier to learn then japanese.

Obviously your arguement does not work. (Assuming my first premise is true, which i am nearly positive it is).


The problem with your arguement is that your not taking into account all factors. English and french and spanish (and even russian for that case, despite the diffrent alphabet) all originate from a common turkish language*, therfore most of the roots of the words are the same, making it easy to learn. languages like hebrew may have diffrent base languages making them harder to learn as a secondary language when you already know english, without themselves (necesarly) being more difficult to learn.


(If you do not trust me on this, i can provide the source, its just very hard for me to get it right now...)

 

[f U z ! o N]

little nipper has wayyy to much of an ego problem.
oh little nipper you don't seem to understand evolution now do you. don't make me find the Apes don't shave so evolution is fake thread

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'd say english is just as complex to a chinese or just someone living in the southern France.

No, because English and French are both Indo-european and share several constructions and a lot of vocabulary. Hebrew seems complicated because it's a semitic language and works a different way to how indo-european languages work. Semetic languages take a three consonant root and give it different but related meanings according to the arrangement of vowels around it, as if the English word "cattle" sat along side a word "cotley" meaning "milk", "acutil" meaning "udder" and so on.

But no, a Hebrew speaker cannot learn English any quicker than an English speaker can learn Hebrew. It's unlikely that any one language is considerably more complex than another - they are complex in different ways. English has very few inflections, but lots of irregularities and lots of tenses and conditionals, all done through use of auxiliary verbs. Anglo Saxon, interestingly, had few tenses and lots of inflections. Finnish has something like fourteen noun cases, French a lot of difficult and similar but different vowel sounds.

 

[Loke]

I know you're right, Karl. My point was Hebrew is just as complex to some, as english are to others.
You're english I guess. If you travel to the southern France, you will discover english isn't of much use down there. They simply can't understand or pronounce the words.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Of course not. My point was simply that they'd find it easier to learn English from scratch than they would Hebrew, if they were to learn one of them, just as I found it easier to learn French than Welsh, because the common vocabulary between English and French is much larger than that between English and Welsh.

 

[Oliver]

You're english I guess. If you travel to the southern France, you will discover english isn't of much use down there. They simply can't understand or pronounce the words.

Well, in some places in southern France even I would have problems understanding their french, let alone the few sentences of english they can articulate! (I'm French btw).

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, in some places in southern France even I would have problems understanding their french, let alone the few sentences of english they can articulate! (I'm French btw).

Americans have the same problem with some of the dialects found in this country. For instance, creole in the south and dialects found in some fishing villages in Maine.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, in some places in southern France even I would have problems understanding their french, let alone the few sentences of english they can articulate! (I'm French btw).

Provencal and Occitan may not be widely spoken as such, but they haven't half influenced French in the south of the country, I understand.

 

[LogicChristian]

Because the evidences for an old Earth are outnumbered by evidences against it. For instance, written documents only go back 6,000 years. These documents are much more sophisticated than today's language.

So you're saying that the beginning of human literacy is the beginning of time itself? The beginning of mankind's literacy is also the beginning of the entire universe.

That's quite a jump in logic. It's also a very self-centered point of view for humans to have.

Also, the magnetic field can't have existed more than 10,000 years and yet still be weak enough to protect life. The claim that it repolarizes is based on FAITH, not facts.

Besides, if Evolution is so undisputable, why are so many scientists rejecting it?

www.answersingenesis.org.

The magnetic field goes through cycles, it weakens, shifts, and then strengthens with time.

Also, if it can't have existed more than 10,000 years, why are you telling us everything began about 6,000 years ago. If you're going to argue with evolution, the least you could do is not contradict yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it?

Because we walk by faith, not by sight; and given that faith is believing in something, even when evidence says otherwise, we therefore don't care what the evidence says; especially if it contradicts the Scriptures.

 

[JustMeSee]

f U z ! o N: Last Activity: 28th December 2008 04:05 PM

AV, I doubt that member is around to read your post.

 

[dad]

given the OVERWHELMING evidence for an old earth and evolution why do you consitently ignore it? why do you get your points refuted over and over and over but never listen? why don't you do some research? why do you belive things that come from a site such as AIG when they reject any science that would destroy their beliefs? why why why? is your faith really that weak? are you afraid of science? as someone's signature on here says, if your faith is affected by science that is weak faith. now why are you guys so closed minded? why? i want answers.

There is no evidence for an old earth. Try to free your mind. Be objective, and honest.

 

[sandwiches]

Try to free your mind. Be objective, and honest.

Advise you'd be wise to be heed.

 

[MoonLancer]

There is no evidence for an old earth. Try to free your mind. Be objective, and honest.

You use the word objective, but something tells me your not using that word right.

 

[JustMeSee]

It is always easier to win an argument with a member that hasn't posted/visited CF in over two years.

 

[AV1611VET]

f U z ! o N: Last Activity: 28th December 2008 04:05 PM

AV, I doubt think that member is around to read your post.

I'm sure he won't care then; and in the off-chance that he may return after such an absence and find his thread dynamic, I would conjecture his elation.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is always easier to win an argument with a member that hasn't posted/visited CF in over two years.

Why should a question or a point die with its author?

O the short leash with which we ascribe to the pen.

(I just made that up -- )

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Why should a question or a point die with its author?

Because no one cares.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because no one cares.

They cared enough to ask it, did they not?