Evolution vs. Creation

[anonymous]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>You're telling me that DNA is not complex? Are you telling me that a computer code is not complex?

10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
RUN

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> English started in England...
Their influences, cut accross the US, Canada, etc.

This has been solidly refuted. You never check references on anything you spout. You just have your ignorance, an internet connection and are off to the races.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> You have proved nothing either. Simple and clear.

We have proved you are lying. There is no reference in Wikipedia about him having ever been an atheist. He was from a religious family and is a known biblical scholar.

[bohart]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
You like, actually you NEED, to keep believing this, don't you.
This is called projection. I can reverse your argument and it actually makes MORE sense (to everyone but fundies).
Observe: It's obvious that your belief in ID is not founded on science, but on your worldview. Stop pretending that science validates your entrenched philosophical views.
See, I change 'evolution' to 'ID' and have a statement that can garner much more support from people actually educated in science. That is one of the ways I "test" for psychological projection; if I can reverse it and it makes more sense reversed then it was probably projection.
Slightly off the subject, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

Yeah ,Dunning -Kruger. I think it generally applies to viewers of Fox news.

[Dogen]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowflake.

Fractal, quarks, mars.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> The link can be gotten through Google.

This is a lie.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>A snowflake does not conform to the wiki definition of complexity as posted on this thread. If you have a different definition of complexity, I'd like to hear it.

That is not true. Wiki gave a number of definitions of complexity. A snowflake is more complex than you are. After all, you don't have the snow part.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>You're telling me that DNA is not complex? Are you telling me that a computer code is not complex?

That is correct.

And since 'complex' is a relative term there is nothing you can do about it.

[Dogen]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
I am actually educated in science. I practice it every day. I have daily accountability and peer review in every decision I make, unlike those who are engaged in the evolution debacle. I can tell you that evolution bears no semblance to science. All of its fundamental premises are founded on unprovable metaphysical suppositions.
No, I'm not familiar with Dunning-Kruger effect.

No, you are clearly not aware of evolutionary medicine and other related fields which are saving lives.

I bet you get a shot every year based on evolution.

You are the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. That would pretty much leave you out of knowing what it is. Sort of like the way someone who is profoundly retard does not know what profoundly retarded mean.

[Drew Smith]

Dogen wrote:

They would be surprised to learn this.

Believe it or not, Charles finally got one right. British does not mean English. For instance, the Welsh are British, but they aren't English. And those folks up in Scotland are British, but they aren't English either.

(I have a very good friend who works in London but who was born in Scotland. She's fine if you call her British, but don't dare call her English.)

Let's just chalk this one up to the "A broken clock is right eventually."

[Drew Smith]

Basque isn't an Indo-European language.

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I looked into that a while ago.
They are no different from their surrounding neighbours, same origins, just a bit more isolated. Also the language is a variation on the local dialects. And they have minimal neanderthal alleles. About the same as the rest of Europe. So nothing special.
Indo-european language is a fiction. Apparently all can be tracked back to the Anatolian region.(Pontic-Caspian if need be)

I think you're confusing language with genetics. While the Basque people may be no different than their neighbors in terms of DNA, their language shows no relationship to Indo-European languages.(Other examples of languages that aren't related to Indo-European languages are Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian.)

The Basque language is in no way a "variation on the local dialects" of nearby languages. They aren't mutually comprehensible at all.

[Drew Smith]

Most likely, in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, where all Indo-European languages began.

Charles Idemi wrote:

English started in England

Nope, it started long before that.

[Drew Smith]

No, most quotes are in the original writings of the people who wrote them.
Where is your quote from Albright? Google can't locate it and it's not in Wikipedia, so where is it?
Could you be lying about it? Yup, that's what happened.
<quoted text>
Prove it.

Charles Idemi wrote:

You have proved nothing either.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly proved that you are unable to produce any quotes written by Albright in which he claimed to be an atheist.

Your turn. Prove that I am a liar.

[Drew Smith]

Nope. There is no single "Standard English" in the world. There are many.
Since you are such an enormous fan of Wikipedia, perhaps you'll enjoy this: "Standard English (often shortened to S.E. within linguistic circles) refers to whatever form of the English language is accepted as a national norm in an Anglophone country...In the United States it is generally associated with the 'General American' accent, and in Australia with General Australian.".
Care to admit your error now?
<quoted text>
First, are you admitting your error? Let's start with that before we move on to a new topic.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> You don't know the meaning of error.

Are you admitting your error or not? Let's establish that before we move on.

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

Among all the religions, christianity stands out.

How so?

[Drew Smith]

Yup, I challenge it, since it's a non-functioning link.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> The link can be gotten through Google.

It doesn't matter how you *get* the link. As has been pointed out to you by me and others, the link *does not* function.

So you provide links that don't work.

You're a fraud.

[MAAT]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't kiss and tell!
I've been tempted to have a cheek swab tested to find out for sure where we stand, but I'm fairly confident that the results would end up on some government database somewhere. I really don't want to help them in their invasions of privacy. I'm not really sure what we'd be inheriting from any Asian ancestors anyway.
My uncle on my mother's side had one of those tests done. I didn't see an impressive breakdown on the report. The one thing I did see which wasn't too big of a surprise, was some Basque inheritance in her family. That's fairly common in the entirety of England and Ireland.
Generally, I have a hunch that there are at least 3 or four separate non-Caucasian genes in my father's generation. It's all intuition though. The family name is Scottish and nobody has traced the family tree back far enough to see. If they were Melungeon though, that could take quite a few generations to trace.

i was looking for a short-cut, since i'm looking in vain for an answer eitherway.
It might still be too early.
The study on Denizovan genes has been released not that long ago.
And the melungeons are also a recent result. ;)
Not giving it to the government. So, how do you feel sharing that they are amongst the 40 that gave their DNA?
You're not exactly shy.
I foun some more on the Basque:
Isolated populations as treasure troves in genetic epidemiology: the case of the Basques

Paolo Garagnani et al.(2009) in European Journal of Human Genetics 17: 1490-1494.

The Basques living on the western border between Spain and France are a unique population. "Basques" often comes up as a match in people's DNA Fingerprint results, often because (as is widely believed, at least) a people resembling Basques helped repopulate the British Isles after the last Ice Age. But Basques are not an isolate. This article proves they blend gradually into their closest neighboring populations in Spain and France so they are not a candidate population, as say the Finns are, for the study of disease associations. "Basques do not show the genetic properties expected in population isolates," according to the authors. On the contrary, as many previous studies suggest, the Basques have so much diversity among themselves they were probably the source of population diffusions in prehistory, not a backwater trap for inbreeding.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

Most likely, in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, where all Indo-European languages began.
<quoted text>
Basque isn't an Indo-European language.

Going by that analogy, English, are never spoken as a first language in any European nation except the UK.

[MAAT]

Drew Smith wrote:

Basque isn't an Indo-European language.
<quoted text>
I think you're confusing language with genetics. While the Basque people may be no different than their neighbors in terms of DNA, their language shows no relationship to Indo-European languages.(Other examples of languages that aren't related to Indo-European languages are Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian.)
The Basque language is in no way a "variation on the local dialects" of nearby languages. They aren't mutually comprehensible at all.

i realise that this was bound to become confusing.
Basques predate the earliest IE farmers from the pontiac-caspian region by about 3000-4000 years.
Later languages like f.i. Akkadian are associated with proper IE, or 'modern'.

So linguists formed a Kurgan hypothesis, as origin for the language.
Other linguists call this nonsense, as well as the Anatolian hypothesis.

So what i'm left with it Basques related to Altai Turks, that by way of Turkey and the czekoslovakian turf entered europe. To settle round 8000-7000 BC.
There language probably predates IE.
Altai i associate immediately with Denizovan genes, and that get's us to the Sumerians. Their are indeed attempts to relate the languages.

As far as i know IE is based on some supposition that Sanskrit is very old. Well it is not, and in effect derived from another Indian dialect.
Semitic languages would have more of a chance.

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah! OK. Indo-european as a category of language, not location. These are the kind of things that Charles completely misses. I've no problem with the correction. Charles is a bit punchy.

Among all the indo european languages, tell me, the nation, that takes English as a first language, apart from the UK?