PAGAN 9JA:



this is why I HATE CHRISTIANITY!

you people are so filled with false pride and ego.

[size=32pt]YOU ARE SO STEEPED IN MAN WORSHIP, THAT YOU THINK EVEN GOD LOOKS ONLY LIKE MAN![/size]


YOU DISGUST ME.
there are other creatures on this planet. we are all made equal. .

Calm down. You don't need to burn a gasket because your fellows are here to support you. Paul has a little information here for you evolutionists out there:

"Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 1:21-25)

^^^^^^
what the hell that is not information.

he is just taunting us!

PAGAN 9JA:
^^^^^^
what the hell that is not information.

he is just taunting us!

Did you say he was taunting you?

OLAADEGBU:

Did you say he was taunting you?

yes hes just being a sly fox.

OLAADEGBU:

This is what we are saying, when you accuse AiG of dissing Kent Hovind and you went on to post a link of another creationist website CMI as your evidence. Don't you see that you are the one making spurious claims?

More abysmal ignorance on your part - it is the Australian branch of AiG that has now tranformed itself into CMI - surely with your slavish belief of anything AiG, I'd have expected you to at least know something about the organisation you use as a proxy for using your own faculties?

Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind[68] after he had criticized[69] a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[70] In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[67] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[71]
The U.S. arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham, had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off from its parent group, now styling itself Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S. Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website retained the critical material.

Even though Jesus wasn't supposed to pay he had to fulfill all righteousness especially when the Sad-you-sees and Far-to-sees came pointing their accusing fingers forgetting that the remainer of their crooked fingers were pointing at their behinds.

Jesus paid - he did what was required, unlike your fraudulent and disgraced pseudo 'Dr' Hovind, a man who cannot comply with simple instructions and was fraudulently trying to evade taxes by paying people in cash. Again, without personal integrity, there is even less reason to trust his fraudulent and mendacious viewpoints, which include global warming being a communist conspiracy.

debosky:

Again, without personal integrity, there is even less reason to trust his fraudulent and mendacious viewpoints, which include global warming being a communist conspiracy.

Really ? He said that ?

debosky:

More abysmal ignorance on your part - it is the Australian branch of AiG that has now tranformed itself into CMI - surely with your slavish belief of anything AiG, I'd have expected you to at least know something about the organisation you use as a proxy for using your own faculties?

That they were once AiG does not translate that they are still part of AiG. CMI is different from AiG and what part of that don't you understand? Anything creationists to you is AiG since you are now trying to make a case that they are one and the same to save your behind.

debosky:

Jesus paid - he did what was required, unlike your fraudulent and disgraced pseudo 'Dr' Hovind, a man who cannot comply with simple instructions and was fraudulently trying to evade taxes by paying people in cash. Again, without personal integrity, there is even less reason to trust his fraudulent and mendacious viewpoints, which include global warming being a communist conspiracy.

Rabbis or religious leaders are not required to pay tax even in this day and age. The fact that Jesus chose to pay it does not mean that He had to pay. Kent Hovind's organisation, being a charity had a case not to pay "tax" whether he was right or wrong is for another thread. Daniel was conspired against by those who envied him and they convinced the king to sign an edict that will catch him concerning his faith, was he not justified in the end? What happened to his conspirators?

Big Daddy (Continued).

Big Daddy (Concluded).

jayriginal:

Really ? He said that ?

He's said worse things. . . . apart from not paying his own taxes or deducting tax from his employees.

PAGAN 9JA:


yes hes just being a sly fox.

No, Paul is the one telling you the truth. The fox you should watch out for and be wary of is the one hiding behing the rock seeking the gullible ones to devour. All those who fall into the trap of the theory of evolution, theist evolution or atheist evolution, even the gap theories have swallowed the lies of the fox hook, line and sinker.

Evidence of the missing link?

PAGAN 9JA:
^^^^^^^^^^^


[size=32pt]Olaadegbu you are a typical christian sly fraud!!!!![/size]

in your evolution diagram you have only shown those discoveries that went wrong, because it suits your purpose and it was easy for you. you completely SKIPPED all the true discoveries to suit your vile purpose. THIS IS SCIENCE MAN. IT IS DONE BY TRIAL AND ERROR! SOME MISTAKE DO HAPPEN!

are you saying these are also fake deformed humans :


Homo Erectus

and there is more. .

All evolutionists' claim for the missing links have been refuted by real scientists that are creationists.

Back to the topic on hand.

I Love Lucy?
by William A. Hoesch, M.S.


Lucy, to TV audiences of the 1950s and 1960s, was a spunky red-headed actress. To our more educated schoolchildren today, however, "Lucy" means something quite different. She is the celebrated fossil that appears in textbooks as a hairy, semi-naked, upright-walking ape striding boldly across a treeless African landscape. Her jaw is set and she leaves behind her a set of trailing footprints. As the unquestioned icon of human evolution, her fame is comparable to that of the former actress. Why is it that all public school children have heard of this fossil? Let us consider Lucy and her species, Australopithicus afarensis.

The human evolution story usually begins with the more primitive australopithocines (literally, "southern apes" that transition into the genus Homo (or human), through either Homo habilis or Homo erectus, depending on who you talk to. Homo habilis is a mixed taxon of both human and ape remains, and has fallen into disrepute. As for Homo erectus, a great many suggest this category be subsumed into Homo sapiens. Thus "Lucy" and the afarensis fossils occupy a critical place in the human evolution story, squarely between that of the truly apish australopithocines and humans.

Lucy's skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974. The creature would have stood 3.5 feet tall, about the height of a chimpanzee. Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy possessed very long fingers with a decided curve to them, like modern apes possess for tree-swinging activities. From other A. afarensis finds, it is believed Lucy possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder joint enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile. And so you ask, what makes Lucy such a great missing link? Angles of bones in the (reconstructed) hip joint and knee joint suggest that Lucy spent part of her time walking upright. That is as strong as the evidence gets that she was related to humans. Virtually no anatomists will support Johanson's claim that Lucy was a habitual upright walker, yet this is what most textbooks boast.

There is one more piece of evidence that has been used to argue that Lucy was an upright walker: the Laotoli footprints. In strata comparable in age to those from which Lucy came are a set of very well defined fossil footprints. Remarkably, anatomists are unanimously agreed that the footprints are indistinguishable from those made by modern man on a beach. Rather than admit this as evidence that man and Lucy lived side-by-side in the past, it is claimed that an ape like Lucy must have made the footprints because "we all know" that man hadn't evolved yet. This, despite the fact that it is almost inconceivable that an austro-lopithocine foot could have done it! It is only by circular reasoning that this can be admitted as evidence for human evolution yet this is exactly what is being done in our public schools today.

If you want to know why Lucy is hailed the greatest of missing links it is because she is the best the evolutionist can come up with! There can be no other explanation. It is a credit to an educational establishment that banks on the ignorance of taxpayers that Lucy remains a "missing link."


For more . . . .

Evolution refuted.

The Designed Creation
August 7, 2014

"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" (Psalm 94:8-9)

The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but brute-like foolishness. If an automobile presupposes an automaker, and a clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and complex eyes and ears of living creatures require an eye-maker and an ear-maker! “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them” (Proverbs 20:12).

The most basic of all scientific laws—the law of cause and effect (no effect greater than its cause)—becomes utmost nonsense if the cosmos is the product of chaos and the universe evolved by chance. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

Every creature, from the single-cell amoebae to the amazing human body, bears the impress of intricate planning and construction. The notion that such complex structures could evolve by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the audacity of human rebellion and the absurdity of humanistic reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no real scientific evidence whatever for “vertical” evolution from one kind to a higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact that the leaders of intellectualism believe it, and the only reason they believe it is their frantic desire to escape God. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

The ear did not “evolve”; it was planted. The eye did not “happen by chance”; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say with the psalmist, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:14). HMM

For more . . . .

But there are transitional forms. . .

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

What do you have to say to that?

debosky:

But there are transitional forms. . .

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.

What do you have to say to that?

Give me one example of your so called transitional form and let's put it to the test.

What qualifies you as able to put transitional forms to the test?

Are you a biologist/zoologist or possess any skills (other than copy paste) to make an assessment?

debosky:

What qualifies you as able to put transitional forms to the test?

Are you a biologist/zoologist or possess any skills (other than copy paste) to make an assessment?

No. Are you?

No, but I didn't make the claim that transitional forms do not exist.

On what basis have you made that claim?

debosky:

No, but I didn't make the claim that transitional forms do not exist.

On what basis have you made that claim?

On what basis are you questioning that claim?

On the basis of the renowned University of California Berkeley - a renowned school with extensive discoveries in scientific endeavour stretching back to 1868. I have posted their view on the matter. What credibility does your assertion possess?

debosky:

On the basis of the renowned University of California Berkeley - a renowned school with extensive discoveries in scientific endeavour stretching back to 1868. I have posted their view on the matter. What credibility does your assertion possess?

And they discovered that neo darwinism is scientific?

Stay focused - are you more credible than UC Berkley on the subject of transitional forms?

debosky:

Stay focused - are you more credible than UC Berkley on the subject of transitional forms?

You should be the one to stay focussed, because If I rememeber clearly Darwin's Day is the topic of this thread not the UC Berkley. The quote below reminds you of what we are talking about. Any authority that is not subject to the Word of God should be discarded.

OLAADEGBU:

Darwin's Day

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1)

Thousands of clergy have signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science." On the Sunday closest to Charles Darwin's birthday, these "pastors" eulogize him and endorse evolutionary science as compatible with the Bible. Here are five reasons why this idea is grossly wrong.

• The Bible has absolutely no hint of ages of evolutionary development. Forcing the "days" of Genesis 1 to mean "ages" can be done, but there is no support for that idea in the rest of Scripture (Psalm 33:6-9, 148:5-6; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 4:11; etc.).

• Evolution is not observed at all today. Empirical science is based on observation and verification. Nothing (from bacteria to people) is "evolving" into a "higher order." Period.

• Fossil data does not show any transitional forms. If evolution occurred prior to recorded history, it can only be documented by the fossils embedded in the water-deposited rocks of earth. Those "missing links" are still missing.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods. God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection. He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior. He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11). And He cannot lie!

• God's stated purpose for creating excludes evolution. The creation reveals the Creator (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1-4), gives authority to the message of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14, Colossians 1:16-18.), and is the foundation for the gospel and for worship (Revelation 14:6-7). Creating is what God does at the moment of the new birth (Ephesians 2:8-10). HMM III

For more . . . .

Your post on 'Darwin's day' includes an assertion about transitional forms. How am I losing focus if I am referring to one of the assertions about Darwin's day?

If your assertion is baseless, by inference your 'Darwin's day' begins to lose credibility and value.

So answer the question - what is the basis/credibility of your 'Darwin's day' claim about transitional forms compared to that of UC Berkeley?

debosky:

Your post on 'Darwin's day' includes an assertion about transitional forms. How am I losing focus if I am referring to one of the assertions about Darwin's day?

If your assertion is baseless, by inference your 'Darwin's day' begins to lose credibility and value.

So answer the question - what is the basis/credibility of your 'Darwin's day' claim about transitional forms compared to that of UC Berkeley?

Real science confirmed by biblical creation accounts in the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:
Real science confirmed by biblical creation accounts in the Bible.

Who conducted this 'real science'? What credibility do they have? Are they peer-reviewed? Last I checked, there is no verse in the bible saying 'fossil data shows no transitional forms' so that statement must come from your alleged 'real science'.

debosky:

Who conducted this 'real science'? What credibility do they have? Are they peer-reviewed? Last I checked, there is no verse in the bible saying 'fossil data shows no transitional forms' so that statement must come from your alleged 'real science'.

Real science confirms what the Bible says. What you have is the words of mere fallible men whose pseudo science is peer reviewed by scientists that are evolutionists.

Your circular reasoning as to the age of the fossils can only be determined by the age of the rocks they are found in and when asked about the age of the rocks your professors say they can be determined by the age of the fossils. If that is not circular reasoning then I don't know what it is.

OLAADEGBU:
Real science confirms what the Bible says. What you have is the words of mere fallible men whose pseudo science is peer reviewed by scientists that are evolutionists.

In other words no peer-reviewed articles from your real science?

Your circular reasoning as to the age of the fossils can only be determined by the age of the rocks they are found in and when asked about the age of the rocks your professors say they can be determined by the age of the fossils. If that is not circular reasoning then I don't know what it is.

Just admit you are unable to understand the difference between relative and absolute dating methods (which isn't the subject of this discussion anyway). Some reading material for you - http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

So to recap - your 'real science' isn't peer reviewed. Is it considered credible?

debosky:

In other words no peer-reviewed articles from your real science?



Just admit you are unable to understand the difference between relative and absolute dating methods (which isn't the subject of this discussion anyway). Some reading material for you - http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044

So to recap - your 'real science' isn't peer reviewed. Is it considered credible?

Peer-reviewed by who? Atheist evolutionists?

OLAADEGBU:

Peer-reviewed by who? Atheist evolutionists?

Peer-reviewed by other scientists. Or can 'real science' only be conducted in isolation without room for critique?