(August 15, 2014 at 2:14 pm)Undeceived Wrote:(August 15, 2014 at 11:26 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Hm. The characters Undeceived refers to are modern, simplified Hanzi characters. I wonder why they didn't use the ancient characters? Why use characters that have had centuries to be modified since Christians made contact with China when there are characters thousands of years old scratched on ancient artifacts?
The characters are ancient.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2...96-108.pdf
Sorry to take so long to reply, I had trouble accessing the site. Why would you think a creationist asserting they are ancient is evidence they are ancient? That's the claim the creationist is making, I don't believe it. For starters, the guy 'refuting' the letter thinks hieroglyphs are inherently religious when they're nothing of the sort, and he admits to not being an expert on Chinese. Don't you think an expert in Chinese is exactly what's needed to make this case...and if they had a reputable one backing them up, THAT is whose work they would cite?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.