Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Subduction Zone]

Because 5 breeds is all that’s been produced from them. Shall we now discuss fantasy instead of facts????

Yes, I am sure you all prefer what if’s and maybes instead of cold hard facts. Most evolutionists rely on that for their entire belief system.

Amazing logical fail. If a person has had five kids it does not mean that he can't have any more. And no, you do not understand how you failed. You ignored the two questions that I asked you that should have made your error clear even to you. Why did you ignore them? We can get to your fantasies once you answer those questions.

 

[Milton Platt]

1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week. God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

2) Using the various Biblical genealogies and documented lifetimes, it appears the earth is about 6000 - 7000 years old.

3) There is no error-free way to date the age of ancient items such as rocks, etc.. Various radiometric dating methods ALWAYS include multiple NON-provable steady-state assumptions in the calculations. This is why volcanic debris has been dated as millions of years old when it actually formed on a known date of an eruption - and submitted to the lab by the witness of the eruption to PROVE the erroneous nature of the calculations.

4) The same erroneous steady-state type assumptions to date stalactites have us believe they can be over 100,000 years old when we see them hanging from cave ceilings. However, stalactites over 7 feet long have grown under the Lincoln Memorial which was built in 1922.

5) Comets have a life span of up to 30 thousand years (max) by getting smaller as they lose mass in their 'tail' as they travel thru space. This contradicts the idea that comets started life along with the rest of the universe 14 billion years ago. So noticing the error, atheist scientists now claim new comets fly out of the Oort cloud. However, nobody has ever observed a comet originate in the Oort cloud, nor from any other area of the universe for that matter. No scientist has ever seen a new comet form anywhere.

6) The 12th Century Prohm Temple in Cambodia has a Stegosaurus carved into the pillar. Did they do this because they saw one? The other animals carved into the pillar are modern animals so there is no reason to believe they didn't see the Stegosaurus. Skeptics say the head in the carving is too big to be a Stegosaurus. You be the judge:
View attachment 26405

7) There are various dino / human mud-footprint overlaps - are they genuine or hoaxes? Here are a few:
See Creationist site: genesispark.com

Delk Print:View attachment 26407

Feminine Print:View attachment 26408

8) There are numerous modern man made objects which have been found encased in rock, thus proving rocks cannot be millions of years old: hammer with wooden handle, screw, spark plug, electrical plug, vase, etc.

9) The Nampa Figurine: In 1889 a clay doll was brought up by a well drill from a depth of 320 feet. The figurine was found under several different strata including fifteen feet of lava basalt. According to standard evolutionary thinking, the stratum at this depth is about 2 million years old.
View attachment 26409

10) Preserved T-Rex soft tissue bone marrow was discovered when a T-Rex bone was accidentally dropped and broken open. The dark soft tissue material was scooped out and re-hydrated using a mild acid solution to plump it up. When put under a microscope, much to the surprise of evolutionist researchers, they saw FLEXIBLE blood vessels and Red Blood Cells! Here are some article and quotes:

"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience." (2005, 307:1952).

“There is still so much about ancient soft tissues that we do not understand. Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?” Mary H. Schweitzer, “Blood from Stone,” Scientific American, Vol. 303, December 2010, p. 69.

When Schweitzer reported her discovery to Horner, he replied, “Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.” Schweitzer replied, “Jack, its your dinosaur.” [See Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Penguin Group, 2009), pp. 80–81.

“‘I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are,’ said Schweitzer, lead author of the paper. ‘I was pretty shocked.’” Evelyn Boswell, “Montana T. Rex Yields Next Big Discovery in Dinosaur Paleontology,” Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005, p. 1.

“Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels...” Mary H. Schweitzer et al., “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex,” Science, Vol. 307, 25 March 2005, p. 1952.

“‘I got goose bumps,’ recalls [Mary] Schweitzer. ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Virginia Morell, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, Vol. 261, 9 July 1993, p. 160.

11) In addition, there have been numerous similar findings since then:

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning. The researchers presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

12) Debunking Skeptics: Skeptics have tried to debunk the preserved dino tissue by saying that iron acted as a preservative. However, iron is always found in blood and bone marrow and has never been shown to preserve blood. Just try to bury a cow, dig it up 10 years later and see how flexible the blood vessels are, right? There will be NO MORE COW after 10 years.

Wishing evidence will go away is not debunking it. Google it - tons of articles today on preserved dino soft tissue. Preserved flexible blood vessels and blood cells out of a T-rex bone will not simply go away just because ATHEISTS wish it would go away.

They have pictures of microscope shots SHOWING the vessels and red blood cells. It is definitely PRESERVED SOFT TISSUE AND BLOOD CELLS from a T-Rex. Thoroughly genuine find, not to mention other similar finds from a Hadrosaur. Too many secular sources on the net to deny its reality at this point. Pathetic to even try. Nothing is 'debunked' from an unwillingness to see the evidence. You cannot wish it to go away - the proof is staring at you.

Thank You Lord for showing us Your Word is true, and may You work in the hearts and minds of those in rebellion, that some may be saved, in Jesus Name!

You must be able to get all evidence we have to the contrary to agree with your hypothesis. Let us know when you manage that.

 

[gnostic]

1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week. God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

You do realise how unbelievable all that sound?

You would have take that belief as a matter of faith or even personal, not factual evidences.

There are no evidences that you can transform dust into a living fully grown man.

And as to the stars that you can see in the sky, you would only less than 3000 stars in one night, in your locality, but there are under 9100 stars in total that can be seen without a telescope. They ranged from 4.2 light years away with Proxima Centauri, while the most distant star we could see without a telescope is V762 Cas (located in the Cassiopeia constellation) about 16,300 light years away. We can see the blurry Andromeda Galaxy (2 million light years away) and Triangulum Galaxy (about 3 million light years), but without telescope, they would appeared as a fuzzy clouds, and would think they were nebulae, not galaxies.

Without telescope, there is no way for Adam or anyone else to see stars 1 million light years away, let alone stars that are billions of light years away.

You, ftacky, don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Amazing logical fail. If a person has had five kids it does not mean that he can't have any more. And no, you do not understand how you failed. You ignored the two questions that I asked you that should have made your error clear even to you. Why did you ignore them? We can get to your fantasies once you answer those questions.

Your questions were the logical fail, which you didn’t even realize.

The reason we have so many dog breeds is because man interfered.

So if man had not interfered, then there would only be just a few breeds over hundreds of thousands of years as natural disasters, famine, etc brought others together.

So the time involved simply falsified your classifications of fossils as separate species, when in reality they are exactly the same as dogs, merely subspecies or breeds. Produced over longer time due to natural events instead of the shorter time with man interfering.

So if man had not interfered, instead of 300 breeds, you would only see 5 or 6 variations as we see in the fossil record. Destroying your belief in greater variation and matching what we see in the fossil record.

Your questions were initially ignored because one would think with just a bit of logical thought, you could figure out for yourself that what we see in the fossil record is exactly what we see with dogs. The variation in dogs just accelerated due to man’s interference instead of the slow process of natural disasters, famine, geological changes, etc bringing them together.

But logical thinking is not an evolutionist strongpoint..... it takes them away from their realm of fantasy into actual reality. Something you all like to avoid....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your questions were the logical fail, which you didn’t even realize.

The reason we have so many dog breeds is because man interfered.

So if man had not interfered, then there would only be just a few breeds over hundreds of thousands of years as natural disasters, famine, etc brought others together.

So the time involved simply falsified your classifications of fossils as separate species, when in reality they are exactly the same as dogs, merely subspecies or breeds. Produced over longer time due to natural events instead of the shorter time with man interfering.

So if man had not interfered, instead of 300 breeds, you would only see 5 or 6 variations as we see in the fossil record. Destroying your belief in greater variation and matching what we see in the fossil record.

Your questions were initially ignored because one would think with just a bit of logical thought, you could figure out for yourself that what we see in the fossil record is exactly what we see with dogs. The variation in dogs just accelerated due to man’s interference instead of the slow process of natural disasters, famine, geological changes, etc bringing them together.

But logical thinking is not an evolutionist strongpoint..... it takes them away from their realm of fantasy into actual reality. Something you all like to avoid....

Of course one of the reasons is that because man interfered. We can force changes much more rapidly than occur naturally. The problem is that time is still a factor. "Poodles" have been a breed for a very short time and we have had not had time for new variations to appear in the genome for new breeds to form. Poodles have only been here for a few centuries and attempts to make new breeds are even shorter. Evolution is a slow process and you are trying to refute it because you cannot find a fast version of it. That, like many of your other arguments, is a strawman.

But then like all creationists you cannot afford to understand evolution. If you did you would have something stronger than endless strawmen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course one of the reasons is that because man interfered. We can force changes much more rapidly than occur naturally. The problem is that time is still a factor. "Poodles" have been a breed for a very short time and we have had not had time for new variations to appear in the genome for new breeds to form. Poodles have only been here for a few centuries and attempts to make new breeds are even shorter. Evolution is a slow process and you are trying to refute it because you cannot find a fast version of it. That, like many of your other arguments, is a strawman.

But then like all creationists you cannot afford to understand evolution. If you did you would have something stronger than endless strawmen.

No time? We have produced over 300 variations while by nature alone only 5 or 6 would have been produced. Poodles are so far down the line that had man not interfered, they would never have existed. Yet their possibility would already have existed in the ancestor stock.

Which still destroys your evolutionary beliefs, as dogs have shown you that what man has done in a few thousand years, is the same as nature would take for millions.

And in the end one only gets breeds within the species or subspecies. Dogs are your claimed evolution over millions of years accelerated into a few thousand. And the results not once match your claims.

But evolutionists like to pretend in their own mind that the offspring would not be the same if a natural disaster brought two together instead of man doing it.

Dogs falsify evolution which is why evolutionists hate dog breeds. They show their belief of change over millions of years is false, since man has done in a few thousands what would naturally take those millions of years.

I understand your false beliefs of evolution quite well. It’s you that can’t face up to the reality that dogs are millions of years compressed into a few thousand and the reality falsified evolution......

The only straw man is yours, as in dogs you are seeing your claimed millions of years.....

 

[Polymath257]

No time? We have produced over 300 variations while by nature alone only 5 or 6 would have been produced. Poodles are so far down the line that had man not interfered, they would never have existed. Yet their possibility would already have existed in the ancestor stock.

What, exactly, do you mean by that? Do you think the 'poodle genes' were in the original stock? If so, please give evidence for this.

Otherwise, those genes came about *after* that original population, which means there was an *increase* in diversity.

Which still destroys your evolutionary beliefs, as dogs have shown you that what man has done in a few thousand years, is the same as nature would take for millions.

Yes, human selective breeding is a larger selection pressure than a slowly changing natural environment. So?

The question is whether diversity has increased or not. The evidence is that it has. Dramatically.

And in the end one only gets breeds within the species or subspecies. Dogs are your claimed evolution over millions of years accelerated into a few thousand. And the results not once match your claims.

Yes, just like those speaking English can only talk to others speaking English. But the language itself changes a lot over time. Species do also. That is evolution.

But evolutionists like to pretend in their own mind that the offspring would not be the same if a natural disaster brought two together instead of man doing it.

Huh? What 'evolutionist' has said this?

Dogs falsify evolution which is why evolutionists hate dog breeds. They show their belief of change over millions of years is false, since man has done in a few thousands what would naturally take those millions of years.

I fail to see how that is a falsification. In fact, Darwin was very interested in *human* selection as an analog of the much slower *natural* selection.

I understand your false beliefs of evolution quite well. It’s you that can’t face up to the reality that dogs are millions of years compressed into a few thousand and the reality falsified evolution......

The only straw man is yours, as in dogs you are seeing your claimed millions of years.....

Hardly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No time? We have produced over 300 variations while by nature alone only 5 or 6 would have been produced. Poodles are so far down the line that had man not interfered, they would never have existed. Yet their possibility would already have existed in the ancestor stock.

Which still destroys your evolutionary beliefs, as dogs have shown you that what man has done in a few thousand years, is the same as nature would take for millions.

And in the end one only gets breeds within the species or subspecies. Dogs are your claimed evolution over millions of years accelerated into a few thousand. And the results not once match your claims.

But evolutionists like to pretend in their own mind that the offspring would not be the same if a natural disaster brought two together instead of man doing it.

Dogs falsify evolution which is why evolutionists hate dog breeds. They show their belief of change over millions of years is false, since man has done in a few thousands what would naturally take those millions of years.

I understand your false beliefs of evolution quite well. It’s you that can’t face up to the reality that dogs are millions of years compressed into a few thousand and the reality falsified evolution......

The only straw man is yours, as in dogs you are seeing your claimed millions of years.....

You just took on a huge burden of proof. For anyone to take your claims seriously you need to show that not only all of the genes in poodles can be found in the wolf genome, you need to show that all genes for all dogs are in the wolf genome. I seriously doubt if you can do that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No time? We have produced over 300 variations while by nature alone only 5 or 6 would have been produced. Poodles are so far down the line that had man not interfered, they would never have existed. Yet their possibility would already have existed in the ancestor stock.

Which still destroys your evolutionary beliefs, as dogs have shown you that what man has done in a few thousand years, is the same as nature would take for millions.

And in the end one only gets breeds within the species or subspecies. Dogs are your claimed evolution over millions of years accelerated into a few thousand. And the results not once match your claims.

But evolutionists like to pretend in their own mind that the offspring would not be the same if a natural disaster brought two together instead of man doing it.

Dogs falsify evolution which is why evolutionists hate dog breeds. They show their belief of change over millions of years is false, since man has done in a few thousands what would naturally take those millions of years.

I understand your false beliefs of evolution quite well. It’s you that can’t face up to the reality that dogs are millions of years compressed into a few thousand and the reality falsified evolution......

The only straw man is yours, as in dogs you are seeing your claimed millions of years.....

Dog breeding falsifies evolution?

Now I am sure you have no idea what you are talking about, when it comes to evolution. Why? Because dog breeding would not work if evolution were not a fact of reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What, exactly, do you mean by that? Do you think the 'poodle genes' were in the original stock? If so, please give evidence for this.

Otherwise, those genes came about *after* that original population, which means there was an *increase* in diversity.

Don’t hide from reality. Don’t try to pretend you don’t understand that Poodles came about be breeding for specific traits. Traits that already existed and were simply bred for to increase those traits. Just like we currently breed for specific traits.

Typical evolutionist response, continually ignoring reality.

Yes, human selective breeding is a larger selection pressure than a slowly changing natural environment. So?

Ignoring reality again and refusing to follow that to the logical conclusion. You are seeing what would be hundreds of millions of years of your claimed evolution. And in the end we end up with merely different breeds in the same species.....

The question is whether diversity has increased or not. The evidence is that it has. Dramatically.

That depends if you define an increase as 300 breeds from one stock, or only the capability of 5 breeds from one stock, from the original stock.

Each variation past the original variation is less capable of producing new variations. Hence a decrease over time....

Yes, just like those speaking English can only talk to others speaking English. But the language itself changes a lot over time. Species do also. That is evolution.

And yet digs have shown you your beliefs are wrong, as the species has never changed, just the subspecies or breeds within that species.... Just as English will always be English regardless of the changes in dialects. Granted, you may choose to incorrectly call a subspecies a new species or a dialect a new language....

I fail to see how that is a falsification. In fact, Darwin was very interested in *human* selection as an analog of the much slower *natural* selection.

And dogs are still dogs and will never be anything but dogs......

Just as Darwin incorrectly classified finches based on the belief they were reproductively isolated.

Even though that’s been falsified by direct genetic data, they do t mind keeping the incorrect classifications....

 

[Polymath257]

Don’t hide from reality. Don’t try to pretend you don’t understand that Poodles came about be breeding for specific traits. Traits that already existed and were simply bred for to increase those traits. Just like we currently breed for specific traits.

So you think those traits existed in the ancestral line? Or do you understand that they *recently* appeared so we could select them?

Ignoring reality again and refusing to follow that to the logical conclusion. You are seeing what would be hundreds of millions of years of your claimed evolution. And in the end we end up with merely different breeds in the same species.....

I wouldn't say *hundreds of millions of years*. Probably closer to a few hundred *thousand*. But again, that in no way invalidates evolutionary theory. It supports it.

That depends if you define an increase as 300 breeds from one stock, or only the capability of 5 breeds from one stock, from the original stock.

Yes, at one point there was *one* stock. Now there are 300. How is that NOT an increase of diversity?

Each variation past the original variation is less capable of producing new variations. Hence a decrease over time....

But the actual variation in the genome didn't include poodle genes in the original stock. Those were produced by mutation later. After they were produced, we selected for them. That is an *increase* of diversity due to mutation.

And yet digs have shown you your beliefs are wrong, as the species has never changed, just the subspecies or breeds within that species.... Just as English will always be English regardless of the changes in dialects. Granted, you may choose to incorrectly call a subspecies a new species or a dialect a new language....

And Latin will always be Latin in spite of changes? Tell that to the French and Spanish.

Or, for that matter, try reading Old English in the original. It is NOT the same language. Yes, languages change over time and become new languages. Just like species change over time and become new species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just as English will always be English regardless of the changes in dialects. Granted, you may choose to incorrectly call a subspecies a new species or a dialect a new language....

Would you say that french, italian, spanish and portoguese are different languages?

Or are they merely "dialects" of Latin?

And dogs are still dogs and will never be anything but dogs......

Yep.
And humans are primates and will never be anything but primates.
They are also mammals and will stay mammals.
They are also tetrapods and will stay tetrapods.
They are also vertrebrates and will stay vertabrates
etc etc etc.

If a dog would produce a non-dog (either in a breeding program or in nature), then evolution theory will be falsified.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you think those traits existed in the ancestral line? Or do you understand that they *recently* appeared so we could select them?

We selected for them because they already existed as selectable traits. You just need understand and accept reality.

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

“New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction.”

It has nothing to do with new traits arising through mutations, but simply the combining of existing traits and backcrossing. As shown in actual real life versus fantasy.

I wouldn't say *hundreds of millions of years*. Probably closer to a few hundred *thousand*. But again, that in no way invalidates evolutionary theory. It supports it.

Show me any creature that has gone through 300 plus variations in a few hundred thousand years? That’s what I thought, it’s simply your denial acting up.

Falsified it as even after hundreds of millions of years, no new species is created.....

Yes, at one point there was *one* stock. Now there are 300. How is that NOT an increase of diversity?

That’s never what I said. Yes, there are more breeds, but each breed further from the original is less capable of producing variation. The poodle itself is less capable of producing new variations than was the original stock. That’s why 300 came from the original stock and 5 from Poodles.

But the actual variation in the genome didn't include poodle genes in the original stock. Those were produced by mutation later. After they were produced, we selected for them. That is an *increase* of diversity due to mutation.

No, they were produced by interbreeding and backcrossing. From the original stock. The Russian Silver Fox experiment would have told you this as well had you ever bothered to read it....

And Latin will always be Latin in spite of changes? Tell that to the French and Spanish.

Or, for that matter, try reading Old English in the original. It is NOT the same language. Yes, languages change over time and become new languages. Just like species change over time and become new species.

It is the same language, just a different dialect that people don’t understand anymore.

Hence Old “English”

But languages are a straw man since they are manmade inventions, not natural.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We selected for them because they already existed as selectable traits.

Obviously one can only select for traits that exist.
Selection is a filtering process after all, not something that happens a priori.

The point however is the traits weren't there before they were available for selection.

Show me any creature that has gone through 300 plus variations in a few hundred thousand years?

Do you realise that there is a differnce between natural selection and artificial selection?
The only reason that breeding results in that many variations, is because breeders have been breeding all those variations with the intent of sustaining them and creating new breeds.

That would not happen in nature.
In fact, many of the dog breeds today can't even reproduce naturally and require assistance. Such breeds would simply not evolve in nature, because nature only cares about survival and reproductive success...

While in articifical selection, reproductive succes has actually literally been sacrificed in quite some cases.
Plenty of dog breeds would literally not survive in the wild.

Falsified it as even after hundreds of millions of years, no new species is created.....

But we are the ones that are in denial, right...

It is the same language, just a different dialect that people don’t understand anymore.

So...
Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish... there aren't different languages?
Only "dialects" of Latin?

How about Dutch, German and English? Or they different languages?

But languages are a straw man since they are manmade inventions, not natural.....

Languages evolve according to pretty much the same type of principles as biological entities.
While there are some differences, primarily in "horizontal transfer" of "words" (like the word "computer" being imported into Japanese for example), the ground principle is the same...

You get your language from the previous generation. The variation your generation puts into it is then past on to the next generation. Some words will no longer be used and be "removed" from the language. Others will be introduced. Some pronounciation of words will change slightly. Etc.

And through this we get dialects in more geographically isolated places. As we approach other more geographically isolated places, the dialects will "blend over" into that of those places. And in this manner, language will gradually change over generations.

Languages can also go extinct, when there's nobody left to speak them.

It's a very good analogy.

Latin changed into French, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian according to the exact process in principle as the process that changed an ancestral primate into chimps, humans, gorilla's and oerang oetangs.

 

[gnostic]

Just as English will always be English regardless of the changes in dialects. Granted, you may choose to incorrectly call a subspecies a new species or a dialect a new language....

Sorry, but you really don’t understand the history of English languages or that of the history of England and Britain.

Before there was even the English language, people spoke different dialects “Briton” and “Latin” depending on the region, with Briton being Celtic, before two Germanic tribes from what is now Denmark Jutland and north-east Germany, the Angles and the Saxons, invaded and settled in Britain.

These invasions in Britain, pushed the britons, north (eg Scotland), and west (eg Wales and Cornwall), and different Germanic dialects, eventually mingle into what we called Anglo Saxon English or Old English. I don’t know about Anglo language, but Saxon is Old Low German.

During the Middle Ages, the Vikings have settled in some parts of Britain, which is why there are some loanwords from Scandinavian Danish Norse and Norwegian Norse.

That was followed by arrival of the Normans in the mid-11th century, a French dialect that has Old French with again some Danish Norse dialect. The Normans were descendants of the Vikings who forced the French king to let them settled in what we called Normandy. Norman is is a dialect of Old French.

The adoption of Norman in the centuries that followed, saw that English and Norman nobles speaking French, replaced Old English.

Eventually, the mixing of Old English and Norman French saw the Anglo-Norman dialect, which inevitably led to introduction Middle English by mid-13th century.

And during the whole time, Latin was written language among those who were literate, throughout the Middle Ages, used by like the nobles and the clergy.

The English language didn’t just appear out of nothing. People who listened to Old English being used today, wouldn’t understand it, unless they are philologists.

Some words of the English language originated from the Celts, the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans and the French. This where the English language evolved from.

 

[tas8831]

duplicate

 

[tas8831]

Shall we now discuss fantasy instead of facts????

Yes, I am sure you all prefer what if’s and maybes instead of cold hard facts..

Cold hard facts... cold hard facts...

Such as "So you all keep claiming yet can’t seem to produce any facts that actually refute my claims." followed by you ignoring the facts I presented to prove my claim accurate?


Or maybe ""genomes are compared side by side, loci by loci, not by matching by algorithms." followed by just ignoring the refutation?

Yup... You're a paragon of intellectual and scientific and Christian virtue, intellect, and humility.

 

[tas8831]

What, exactly, do you mean by that? Do you think the 'poodle genes' were in the original stock? If so, please give evidence for this.

Get in line, bro.

Been asking him for evidence on this and another forum for about 3 years and all I get are insults and the re-posting of already debunked claims. I have even, on more than 1 occasion, provided him with human genome browser links and information. Still, nothing...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Which still destroys your evolutionary beliefs, as dogs have shown you that what man has done in a few thousand years, is the same as nature would take for millions.

That's false. You can't speed up genetic divergence. That still takes time. You need to show us two dog breeds that differ by 4% in the same way chimps and humans differ at the DNA level. Until you do so you really don't have a case.

 

[tas8831]

Cold hard facts... cold hard facts...

Such as "So you all keep claiming yet can’t seem to produce any facts that actually refute my claims." followed by you ignoring the facts I presented to prove my claim accurate?


Or maybe ""genomes are compared side by side, loci by loci, not by matching by algorithms." followed by just ignoring the refutation?

Yup... You're a paragon of intellectual and scientific and Christian virtue, intellect, and humility.

Where did the local creationist expert on all science get off to?