Christians. Could you be wrong?

[FatAndFaithless]

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

Just a note: If you're trying to provide evidence for your claims, don't link something as stilted and blatantly biased and dishonest as creation.com. I'm sure there are plenty of somewhat-more-reputable sites.

[Esquilax]

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

Isn't it funny how the only sources I can find making this claim of yours are creationist ones?

And that when I look at unbiased sources, I find that the character you're claiming means "eight," actually means "divide"?

And that the source you link to proudly states the same inexcusably dishonest presupposition that all creationist sites do (check out the last item on the list)?

Once again, your source is crap.

[JesusHChrist]

Once again, your source is crap.

Goddamn internet keeps another person away from Christ with those goddamn facts!

[Undeceived]

In what way? Isn't the "mitochondrial eve" generally accepted among secular scientists? Even evolutionists agree that all genes trace back to one man/woman.

Yes, but that man/woman never met. They are from two different genetic lines, in two different geographies, hundreds of miles apart. Probably millenia apart as well.

Are you suggesting convergent evolution?

[JesusHChrist]

Yes, but that man/woman never met. They are from two different genetic lines, in two different geographies, hundreds of miles apart. Probably millenia apart as well.

Are you suggesting convergent evolution?

I'm not suggesting anything. Why not read the wiki article link? It covers the material nicely, and meanwhile destroys the Adam/Eve bullshit without even trying.

A&E is yet another childish fairytale that anyone calling themselves an adult should not believe.

[Undeceived]

The characters are ancient.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2...96-108.pdf

Isn't it funny how the only sources I can find making this claim of yours are creationist ones?

And that when I look at unbiased sources, I find that the character you're claiming means "eight," actually means "divide"?

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased? is a stylized way of writing eight. It also can mean "person remaining" which itself is interesting. Your source even says "The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight.'" So it could mean both. But right now I'm looking and I can't find anything that backs up the "divide" meaning.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't it funny how the only sources I can find making this claim of yours are creationist ones?

And that when I look at unbiased sources, I find that the character you're claiming means "eight," actually means "divide"?

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased? is a stylized way of writing eight. It also can mean "person remaining" which itself is interesting. Your source even says "The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight.'" So it could mean both. But right now I'm looking and I can't find anything that backs up the "divide" meaning.

I repeat my request for an unbiased source for this claim. Are you going to ignore it again?

[FatAndFaithless]

Isn't it funny how the only sources I can find making this claim of yours are creationist ones?

And that when I look at unbiased sources, I find that the character you're claiming means "eight," actually means "divide"?

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased? is a stylized way of writing eight. It also can mean "person remaining" which itself is interesting. Your source even says "The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight.'" So it could mean both. But right now I'm looking and I can't find anything that backs up the "divide" meaning.

You..do realize talkorigins cites and provides the sources for all its material, right? It's literally in the first few lines of the page.

[Undeceived]

Yes, but that man/woman never met. They are from two different genetic lines, in two different geographies, hundreds of miles apart. Probably millenia apart as well.

Are you suggesting convergent evolution?

I'm not suggesting anything. Why not read the wiki article link? It covers the material nicely, and meanwhile destroys the Adam/Eve bullshit without even trying.

Going back, you said

No Adam and Eve - we know this from genetics

But in evolution, there was clearly a first human. Just as there was a first human in the Bible. How do they contradict according to genetics ? (not using dating)

[FatAndFaithless]

Are you suggesting convergent evolution?

I'm not suggesting anything. Why not read the wiki article link? It covers the material nicely, and meanwhile destroys the Adam/Eve bullshit without even trying.

Going back, you said

No Adam and Eve - we know this from genetics

But in evolution, there was clearly a first human. Just as there was a first human in the Bible. How do they contradict according to genetics ? (not using dating)