Evolution vs. Creation

[Drew Smith]

You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Whether you like it or not. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes, finally pitched their tents in England

Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.

Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.

We're *still* waiting.

[Drew Smith]

Charles seems to think that speakers of *modern* German can understand Old English.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Ofcourse, i said that. That ofcourse, is true.

No, it's false. You've provided no evidence to support its being true.

[Charles Idemi]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> You qualities vividly outlined. That is generous of you.

Typographical error:
From the first word, it is, " YOUR " and not, " YOU " .

[MazHere]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.
This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.
Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.
Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.
Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.
Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.
http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.
Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.
I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.
Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.
Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.

What I like best is listening to posters that think language is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

[Charles Idemi]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh are you? You never come across as though you are aware of anything except your god book and accusing christians of child murder.

You can generalise that, and see how foolish you may sound and look.
Christians are well educated in all disciplines.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't provide any evidence. The fact that Old English was closer grammatically to German and Icelandic than to Modern English is not evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English.
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.

This is what we call, " hasty conclusion or generalisation ", or simply, " fallacy".
You are wrong, modern German speakers, do have an idea on old English than modern English. Many people do know this.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.
Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.

From your premise, you are saying that, old English is similar to modern English. Try that fallacy elsewhere. You are wrong.
Germans can understand old English earsier than Modern English.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

You're engaged in a red herring. The issue wasn't whether Old English was Germanic (or even whether it was "more Germanic" than any other particular language), but whether or not modern Germans could understand Old English.
Provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.
Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.

The Saxons, Jutes and Angles, are all English people. When they were in Germany and Frisian, Denmark, etc. They were not regarded as the English, until they finally get to England.
This is also true of the US. The whites historically, are purely of English, Spanish, German, other European and Asian extraction.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

Charles seems to think that speakers of *modern* German can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
No, it's false. You've provided no evidence to support its being true.

Are you refuting what wikipaedia said?
Or, are you trying to change their statement to suit your aim?

[thewordofme]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.

So MazHere, tell me where you got your degree in genomic sciences, biology, or related subjects.

[Dogen]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
What I like best is listening to posters that think language is at the heart of the evolution/creation debate.

The weird chick who don't know no science be here talking to herself, yea.

[Dogen]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.
This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.
Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.
Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.
Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.
Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.
http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.
Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.
I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.
Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.
Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.

I refuted this junk yesterday.

[KittenKoder]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.

No, but his understand, education, and comprehension are vastly superior to yours.

[Dogen]

I fish wrote:

<quoted text>
How was that 'Generation' described??? It was a rebellious one... what else???

It was described as THIS generation.

[Dogen]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
What MazHere is using is called supporting ones opinion with twoddle from your own evolutionary researchers.
Does everyone notice that this evoretard appears to think his opinion outweighs my ability to support my castration of TOE and highlight its many warts.
Sorry champ. You need to mature to the point where you understand what supporting ones opinion actually looks like.

Yea, MazHere is just another creotard posting crap from creationist web sites. It is clear she does not understand a thing she is talking about. Might as well just ignore her.

[Drew Smith]

You didn't provide any evidence. The fact that Old English was closer grammatically to German and Icelandic than to Modern English is not evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English.
Where is your evidence that modern Germans can understand Old English? We're still waiting.

Charles Idemi wrote:

This is what we call, " hasty conclusion or generalisation ", or simply, " fallacy".

No, that is what we call "an accurate assessment of your fallacious argument".

Charles Idemi wrote:

You are wrong, modern German speakers, do have an idea on old English than modern English. Many people do know this.

So we've gone from "Modern Germans understand Old English" to "Modern Germans have an idea on Old English". I do love to watch you backpedal when you get caught in a lie.

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

From your premise, you are saying that, old English is similar to modern English.

Really? When exactly did I say that? Please identify the posting.

[Drew Smith]

Whether you like it or not, the Angles and Saxons spoke the same language on their boats that they spoke right after they got off their boats.
Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.

Charles Idemi wrote:

The Saxons, Jutes and Angles, are all English people. When they were in Germany and Frisian, Denmark, etc. They were not regarded as the English, until they finally get to England.

Gee, maybe that has something to do with the idea that "English people" means "people from England".(It doesn't say whether or not such people speak the English language.)

But now, you're trying to avoid your error, which I'll point out again: Now, provide the evidence to support your claim that modern Germans can understand Old English.
We're *still* waiting.

[Drew Smith]

Charles seems to think that speakers of *modern* German can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
No, it's false. You've provided no evidence to support its being true.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Are you refuting what wikipaedia said?

Wikipedia (learn to spell it and capitalize it correctly, Charles) doesn't say that modern Germans can understand Old English.

Why do you lie about this?

[Aura Mytha]

jujubean wrote:

What day did God create the Dinosaur ?

Must have been after a three day drinking binge ?
heheheh