Finally, there are cases where identical twins have invented their own
unique language which are, on the outset, very sophisticated. Considering
the arbitrariness of sound and meaning, it's very likely that languages
_can_ spring up this way spontaneously, and likely did a million years ago.

There's one problem with this last.  While this may be true (and I
haven't done the research to know or not), such "languages" will not be
as suited to communication as the languages extant today.  Why?  Lack of
terminology, and lack of flexibility.

You're equivocating.

More specifically, you're mixing up two definitions of "complicated".  You
began by claiming that "primitive" languages are too complicated to have
arisen by themselves.  When given an example of primitive languages that
obviously arose by themselves, you criticize it by pointing out that they
don't have complicated _terminology_.  But that's not what you meant
before--you meant that primitive languages had complicated _grammar_.

All of the languages in the
world today, and I do mean ALL of them, are equally capable of
communicating whatever thoughts and ideas you care to convey.  They are
all equally "old" as well, if you will.

Go ahead, tell me how to say "microprocessor" in any tribal language.

You can't, except by using a loanword or using a circumlocution such as
"that thing inside that big box", either of which languages newly invented
by infants could also do.

Of course.  My point was that these highly complex languages are used by
very primitive peoples, like the American Indians, the aborigines in
Australia, and the natives of Africa.  Why do they need such complexity?
Answer:  they don't.  So why did it "evolve"?

Things don't evolve solely because they are "needed".

The Bible runs into trouble with history and physical reality because it's
a religious book, not a historical chronicle or physics article.

It's a historical chronicle too.  Why do you think two of the books are
called I and II "Chronicles"?

Because someone said "let's put the word 'Chronicles' on the top".

But in "hell", you
die.  You are burned up and destroyed.  NOT tortured forever.  That's a
false, "orthodox" Christian dogma.

And of course I should take your word for this?  How am I supposed to tell
between false and true Christians, so I know which one to believe?

[healing story]

There's no explanation for it other than God.  ;)

Odd how God's healing is limited to cases where spontaneous remission
can happen, or where it's possible to imagine that things got better.  God
never, for instance, regrows lost arms.

Besides, what if it was magic cast by some trickster entity who does it
because he gets great fun out of watching people get the attribution wrong?