Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59541 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.
Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.
Again, this is a dishonest answer from you.
Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, more than the modern English. This was clearly stated on the presented site, that you are disregarding.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59542 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly didn't identify any in your previous posting. You simply claimed that they existed.
<quoted text>
I didn't see any peer-reviewed scientific research papers listed on that page. All I say were claims made by a "Meta Research" publication. And that website and the publication itself appear to be the production of this individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
The same guy who claimed that the Martian "face" was unnatural (later shown to be an artifact of angle and shadow).
You really need to produce some actual peer-reviewed research to identify problems with the Big Bang theory. Not just some particular crackpot's position on it.
<quoted text>
I'll take your answer to mean "nobody", and you were merely engaged in a straw man argument.
Let us know when you have actual argument and not merely childish insults.
Denial is not a good look. Anyone that suggests that big bang theory has no concerns has already demonstrated the level of their true scientific base.

Look at you quacking about my straw men. Either these idiots know what they are saying or they do not.

This is what you are hiding your head i the sand over.

University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.

No shadows, no big bang. Is that too scientific for you? Perhaps you can quote Womans Day.

"The various theories that exist on the early universe are, therefore, experimental and have not been empirically verified. The direct measurement of gravitational waves would enable us to look back to the first billionth of the first second after the Big Bang and thereby obtain completely new insights into the universe."

http://www.mpg.de/4333311/background

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Words from man himself....... If you disagree you should go give Hawkins a mouth full.

And the big one that everyone should know is this, Hawkins knows his physics break down at the singularity. Of course that is not a problem for these scientific types with an assumption to sell off as science. A stuff up at the base is easily hand waved away, just as long as all the research chooks in the chook pen are happy.

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#59543 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you are wrong. What do we mean by closely related?
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.
You are a senseless FREAKSHOW....wanting to be heard.........your views are decisive and corrupt. You are a scummy person trying to be like all of us....you never will be, as you spew garbage...sadly...daily.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59544 Nov 17, 2012
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Then you are wrong.
Until you provide an actual quote from the site that says that Germans can understand Old English, then I am correct, and you are still wrong.
Charles Idemi wrote:
What do we mean by closely related?
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59545 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, more than the modern English. This was clearly stated on the presented site
No, that's not what the site said. It said nothing about Old English being "closely related to German and Icelandic". It said that the *grammar* of Old English was much closer to that of German and Icelandic.

It still does not say that modern speakers of either German or Icelandic would be able to understand Old English. The changes in both vocabulary and pronunciation would be the problem.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59546 Nov 17, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Denial is not a good look.
You mean, like your denial of the fact that your only source was a crackpot who had to publish his own material because it didn't pass scientific muster?
MazHere wrote:
University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily is a popular website. Got any actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles? No, I didn't think so.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59547 Nov 17, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the debate here is not whether your god exists or not, it is about how life got to its present form on the Earth.
It seems you believe the Genesis myths. You should know that Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are only bedtime stories. Their falseness does not mean that your god does not exist.
Do you mean like over 150 years of human knucklewalking ancestry was evidence that turned to myth on the back of one single fossil find? Or would you like to discuss the multitude of common ancestors that have never surfaced when you discuss myths? How about the myth of 1% difference between the chimp and human, or the revolving door of human ancestors? How about the myth of single celled LUCA, the story of a tree stumped by HGT?

Archaeologists have uncovered what appears to be the foundation of the Tower of Babel within the ancient city ruins of Babylon. The base is square, 91 metres along each side, with earthen embankments.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_shaye...

As for Adam and Eve...

You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years and probably on the low side of that range to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...

We all know that one can find some research to support just about anything one wants. We can also find heaps of woffle to challenge any other. You can also likely find some research to support whatever you wish to support. Isn't theoretical science great????

Algorithmic population size, mutation rates and many other values are unknown insertion values tweaked to support any status quo. Indeed even biased evolutionary research points to a single male and female common ancestor. Indeed the dates for mteve and Yadam are based on assumptive algorithms with assumptive and unknown insertion values. Evolutionary researchers assume the above dates relate to extra cohorts and assume that advanced culture also coincidently appeared at around the same time.

Do you suppose Darwin proposed TOE as a process orchestrated by God?

Is it not so, that the majority of evolutionists need a naturalistic interpretation of any data that does not evoke the hand of any God?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59548 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, like your denial of the fact that your only source was a crackpot who had to publish his own material because it didn't pass scientific muster?
<quoted text>
ScienceDaily is a popular website. Got any actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles? No, I didn't think so.
Quack quack, have you told Hawkins he is an idiot yet??????

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59549 Nov 17, 2012
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a senseless FREAKSHOW....wanting to be heard.........your views are decisive and corrupt. You are a scummy person trying to be like all of us....you never will be, as you spew garbage...sadly...daily.
Get behind.
This is reality that no one can ever deny including a freak like you.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59550 Nov 17, 2012
You mean, like your denial of the fact that your only source was a crackpot who had to publish his own material because it didn't pass scientific muster?
<quoted text>
ScienceDaily is a popular website. Got any actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles? No, I didn't think so.
MazHere wrote:
Quack quack, have you told Hawkins he is an idiot yet??????
Still no peer-reviewed scientific research article that identifies any of those 10 items you provided.

I expect we'll be waiting a long time for such an article to be produced by you.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59551 Nov 17, 2012
MazHere wrote:
How about the myth of single celled LUCA, the story of a tree stumped by HGT?
Stumped? Don't think so:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.h...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59552 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
<quoted text>
Until you provide an actual quote from the site that says that Germans can understand Old English, then I am correct, and you are still wrong.
<quoted text>
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.
You are still not getting the point. This is not the issue of claiming any rights, but the issue of understanding. Old English is not the same as modern English, but it is closely related to German and Icelandic. What does that mean to you?
You are wrong.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59553 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
<quoted text>
Until you provide an actual quote from the site that says that Germans can understand Old English, then I am correct, and you are still wrong.
<quoted text>
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.
Liar!
This is not true, the article mentioned old English having a relationship between low German and old frisian. Further down, it also went further to explain that, its relationship is also closer to German and Icelandic. This is a fact that you can not shy away from. You lose.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59554 Nov 17, 2012
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a senseless FREAKSHOW....wanting to be heard.........your views are decisive and corrupt. You are a scummy person trying to be like all of us....you never will be, as you spew garbage...sadly...daily.
Again, from it shows you really don't have any thing tangible to offer, other than to insult. If you have evidence, bring it up. Untill then, get behind.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59555 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what the site said. It said nothing about Old English being "closely related to German and Icelandic". It said that the *grammar* of Old English was much closer to that of German and Icelandic.
It still does not say that modern speakers of either German or Icelandic would be able to understand Old English. The changes in both vocabulary and pronunciation would be the problem.
Ofcourse, you are now on track. If it says that, the grammar between old English and German are similar, it means that the Germans understand the language better than the modern English.
The above statement, was also mentioned on the presented sites.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59556 Nov 17, 2012
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Liar!
The liar would be you, since you're the one claiming that Germans can understand Old English, despite the fact that you have yet to provide a single source that supports that claim.
Charles Idemi wrote:
This is not true, the article mentioned old English having a relationship between low German and old frisian.
Yes, their *relationship* is that they are descended from a common language. Just as French and Romanian are descended from a common language. But there's no evidence that French speakers can understand Romanian or vice versa.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Further down, it also went further to explain that, its relationship is also closer to German and Icelandic.
No, it says that it has *features* that are closer, such as its grammar.

Where in there does it say that Germans can understand Old English?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#59557 Nov 17, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
If it says that, the grammar between old English and German are similar, it means that the Germans understand the language better than the modern English.
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#59558 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Stumped? Don't think so:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.h...
Your links says nothing to refute the fact that single celled LUCA was killed by HGT. You evos are now looking for some organelle!

Strange how you pick one example out of a plethora that support my point? or desperate? How about over 150 years of human knuckle walking ancestry that was shoved at creationists, ad nauseum, that now resides in the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past?

This is from your link...."As a result, the tree of life does not stem from a single trunk but from a reticulated collection of stems". That, is what has changed!

Abstract
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT; also known as lateral gene transfer) has had an important role in eukaryotic genome evolution, but its importance is often overshadowed by the greater prevalence and our more advanced understanding of gene transfer in prokaryotes. Recurrent endosymbioses and the generally poor sampling of most nuclear genes from diverse lineages have also complicated the search for transferred genes. Nevertheless, the number of well-supported cases of transfer from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, many with significant functional implications, is now expanding rapidly. Major recent trends include the important role of HGT in adaptation to certain specialized niches and the highly variable impact of HGT in different lineages.(2008)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18591983

What is suggest is any interpretation of the data I present could not be worse than the 150 years of instability and change you have to offer. Atheist and theist based TOE remains a philosophy just like any other faith.

In the end, it does not matter to me 'how' God created. Supporting creationism and the possibility that a God may possibly be able to do something we or I don't understand just means that I am not egocentric.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#59559 Nov 17, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
Archaeologists have uncovered what appears to be the foundation of the Tower of Babel within the ancient city ruins of Babylon. The base is square, 91 metres along each side, with earthen embankments.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_shaye...
As for Adam and Eve...
You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years and probably on the low side of that range to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...
The Tower of Babel is just a mythical story. We know for a fact that humans were spread all over the earth in the time period associated it...had been for many many thousands of years. I really doubt that they were grunting at each other.

Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existe. We know that Homo-sapiens were roaming the plains of Africa around 200,000 years ago. Archaeologists have been saying for decades that Humans were descendants of the earlier Homo species that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, such as: Homo heidelbergensis, Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, etc., etc.

Just last year we found out with DNA science that most people on earth carry a small amount of Neanderthal genes/blood, linking humans to Homo species, all of which are extinct now. This year we found out that some peoples in the South Sea Islands are related to another species that was just found a few years ago...Homo-Denosova. The link is made...humans are in the line of the great apes.

The creation of Adam and Eve is nothing more than a Hebrew foundational myth. Big implications for the Christian Dogma.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59560 Nov 17, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.
Now, between old English and modern English, which of them is more closer to German?
Answer this questions sincerely.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min -Lea- 25,912
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min Crazy Beautiful 152,808
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 10 min Princess Hey 436
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 24 min whatimeisit 7,778
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 52 min whatimeisit 6,911
New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 55 min whatimeisit 449
w0rds - - a ~ 2 ~ z (Jan '13) 1 hr Independent1 1,225
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 2 hr Xstain Mullah Decree 12
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,764
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 4 hr toad4754 3,015
More from around the web