In reference to http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens , it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species.


------------------
Homo erectus AND THE ABORIGINES

The Turkana Boy skeleton shown at the side is the best preserved example of Homo erectus that has so far been discovered. The interesting thing is that there is no major difference between this 1.6 million-year-old-fossil and people of our day. The Australian aboriginal skeleton above particularly resembles Turkana Boy. This situation reveals once again that Homo erectus was a genuine human race, with no "primitive" features.
------------------

KAG , it seems you are contradicting the discoverers of your evolutionary evidences

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199

So it simply shows that you basis for the so called evolution of man , exists only in the brain of evolutionists, like you
------------------
Again
The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

here are the related pictures, for how evolution has bitten the dust

KAG

, the best evidence that you can still think of are "subjective evidences that are based on the interpretation of the evolutionist" they are not based on the independent non-evolutionist views, science has contradicted those evidences you are peddling about .

KAG , at least admit to me in secret even if you can't do it in public,

Those hole riddled evidences that you are talking about about are just mere "MANTRA" and Bull****

It this thread getting anywhere at all. There seems to be a lot of copy/paste of very technical material. Can the originator summarise the evidence so far and put it in the main body of the post? Otherwise, this might run and run with any real results.

That would be much appreciated.

Thankx

Although i have already given you answer to why you believe in speciation as evidence for evolution is a mere fallacy let me now come to this question and answer level, to explain further:

Definitions of SPECIATION on the Web:
Evolutionary process involving the formation of a new species. (See SPECIES, EVOLUTION, NATURAL SELECTION, PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM) (MP)
www.eubios.info/biodict.htm

The evolutionary differentiation of a pre-existing species into one or more distinct species.
www.biobasics.gc.ca/english/View.asp

formation of new species through natural selection; occurs when selective force is intense; accounts for diversity of living things on planet today.
www.estuaries.gov/glossary.html

Description: Separation of one population into two or more reproductively isolated, independent evolutionary units. Source: Specialized encyclopedia and dictionaries
ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/library/glossarylist_en.cfm

Speciation is the process of forming two new species from a common ancestor species. Speciation is the central process of macroevolution, the evolution of novel forms.
www.whatislife.com/glossary/s.htm

The evolutionary development of new species, usually as one population separates into two different populations no longer capable of interbreeding.
biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/z999.htm

The development of one or more species from an existing species.
www.fao.org/docrep/003/X3910E/X3910E22.htm

the evolutionary process of differentiation, in which a population of organisms becomes two or more different species
www.csa.com/discoveryguides/lang/gloss.php

This is the evolution of multiple species from a single founding (ancestral) species. Closely related forms are usually defined as species if there is some form of reproductive isolation. ,
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm

the process by which one or more populations of a species become genetically different enough to form a new species. This process often requires populations to be isolated for a long period of time.
www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/S.html

The processes through which different populations or groups of organisms become reproductively isolated from each other to form different species. These can arise from genetic changes, ecological or environmental differences, or physical or behavioral isolation, or any combination thereof.
butterfly.ucdavis.edu/glossary

The processes by which a single species splits into two or more species
www.amonline.net.au/evolutionary_biology/glossary.htm

the evolutionary process that gives rise to a new species
coris.noaa.gov/glossary/glossary_l_z.html

Advantages of sexual reproduction; What is a species? How species form; speciation is the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution; speciation is a continuous process in which reproductive isolation occurs in various ways
www.life.uiuc.edu/ib/150/FinalStudyGuideS07.doc

A group of organisms that are able to interbreed all belong to the same species. It follows then that organisms that are unable to interbreed belong to separate species.
www.fisicx.com/quickreference/science/glossary.html

Evolution of reproductive isolation within an ancestral species, resulting in two or more descendant species.
evolution.unibe.ch/teaching/GlossarE.htm

The development of new species as a result of evolutionary processes.
www.genpromag.com/Glossary.aspx

The form or "species" taken by a metal. Metals such as copper can appear in numerous forms in the Chesapeake Bay, some far more toxic than others.
www.mdsg.umd.edu/goto.php

the process by which new species arise. The process by which discontinuities between populations occur due to the development of mechanisms creating the reproductive isolation of one population from the other.
www.runet.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG303/humnglos.html

the process of species formation.
www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/rt_biostrat/cbs28.htm

formation of new species.
www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/classes/bio406/glossary.html

the evolution of a biological species
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. ,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Speciation is a process that occurs naturally in evolution and is modeled explicitly in some genetic algorithms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation (genetic algorithm)

What can we glean from the above definitions and explanations:

1. There is an assumption that there must be an original species

2. There is not indication of a time line of how and when this variation in between species arises,

3. There is no indication that "another kind" of animal could possibly arise from speciation,

4. Speciation is just used to explaing the noted differences between animals of the same kind.

-------------
So what does this do for evolution

1. Nothing

2. Still it does not answer or prove the evolutionary problem of where the first animal came from, (well unless evolutionist want to say the speciation of rocks or primordial soup formed the first animal). This because the speciation simply assumes that an original animal had to have existed in the first place.
This then brings us back to the square one problem of evolution not being able to give a tenable answer for the origin of life,

BY the way KAG which evolved first was it the "Prey" or was it the 'Predator"
,

3. It does not show how one kind of animal might have evolved from another kind of animal, e.g. How does a Cow evolve into a Whale, for goodness sake (another dumb idea by evolutionist)

4. Even members of the same human family can exhibit speciation under the right conditions, does that now imply that they evolved from each other, NA, absolutely not!

-------------------
Allopatric speciation (Due to difference in geographical location) e.g. Subtle differences betwen the blackman of trophical africa and the blackman of cold america

Peripatric speciation (Due to isolation of small peripheral populations e.g. The London Underground mosquito is a variant of the mosquito Culex pipiens which entered in the London Underground in the nineteenth century. Evidence for its speciation include genetic divergence, behavioral differences, and difficulty in mating.)

Parapatric speciation (Due to overlapping zones of divergin population e.g. The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.)

Sympatric speciation (Due to species diverging while inhabiting the same location e.g. Wheat)
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Although I must confess that I don't have an inert understanding of everything they are talking about , something is very clear, and let me explain that thing to you in simple english:

it is basically saying that variations within animals of the same kind can occur in certain circumstances and situations such as the environment in which they are or as a result of genetic failure.
Nowhere does it say nor can you find evidence that a new genetic information was somehow added to the already available genetic information in the animal.

The activeness, dormancy or outright failure of already available genetic information , is what you are trying very hard to deceptively peddle as evidence for biological evolution, HABA,

What Speciation does not say is that there is an "increase in genetic information" nor does it say that another different animal arises from speciation (a big and misleading word for variation) within a kind of animal.


The Wheat still gives a wheat,
The Mosquito still gives a mosquito
The Blackman still gives birth to a black (sometimes albino)
The Laurus Gulls still gives birth to a Laurus Gull


The subtle or pronounced differences between does not mean that the animals have suddenly evolved into another animal.

Once again KAG here is a classic example of how you are trying to use the observable and repeatable phenomena of "intra species variation" (sometimes called microevolution) as the evidence/explanation for the possibility of the unprovable and bogus ideas of macro evolution, cosmic evolution and geological evolution.

KAG Nice try , your blunt hammer still doesn't cut the ice, SHARPEN IT MORE!

If give birth to two sets of identical twins and then take one set of twins each to the North Pole and the Sahara Desert to live, then you leave them to procreate for 100 years, off course there is bound to be observable differences yet the genetic material which came from you has not increased, instead part of has either failed or become dormant or active hence the different characteristics being exhibited by the 100years offsprings of the sets of twins in either the North Pole or the Sahara Desert.

KAG plaese try HARDER NEXT TIME

Why is Toumai Man a problem for Evolutionist

Toumai Man Offers Evolutionists No Hope

By Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.

This discovery is just “the tip of [the] iceberg—one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution.”1 Science writer John Whitfield typifies the reaction of paleontologists as they learned about an astounding fossil discovery recently reported in Nature.2

An international team of paleontologists led by French scientist Michel Brunet recovered and characterized a remarkably complete hominid skull, with partial jawbone and teeth, from the Sahel region of Chad. The find dates about 7 million years in age.3 The team assigned these specimens to a new genus, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and nicknamed it Toumai, which means “hope of life” in the local language.

Ironically, Toumai man’s discovery sinks the “hope of life” in evolutionary explanations for man’s origin. Instead of providing fresh support, Toumai man contradicts several key predictions that stem from the human evolutionary paradigm: (1) evolution from a shared ancestor 5 to 6 million years ago, (2) emergence of two evolutionary branches (apes and hominids) from a single species, and (3) bipedalism as the gradual result from an evolutionary driving force.
Age Problem

Human evolution is thought to have occurred only in eastern and southern Africa. Based on genetic differences and similarities, evolutionary biologists place the divergence time of the great apes and hominids from a shared ancestor at about 5 to 6 million years ago.4 Toumai man, at 7 million years, appears in the fossil record at least 1 million years prior to the predicted date. And yet Toumai man’s anatomy appears as advanced as hominids such as Homo habilus, dated at 2 million years old. The australopithecines, such as “Lucy,” (3.3 million years old) possess features more primitive than Toumai man’s—meaning that this group of hominids, long regarded as the transitional intermediates in humanity’s ancestry, now seem to represent an evolutionary side-branch and dead end.
Family Problem

Toumai man did not live alone. The Toumai fossil is only the tip of the iceberg that represents many more likely to be found in central Africa. In addition, paleontologists have recovered hominid remains dated at 5.8 million (Ardipithecus ramidus) and 6 million years (Orrorin tugenesis) from eastern and southern Africa. Instead of a single species that gave birth to two evolutionary branches (the apes and hominids), they believe a plethora of hominids existed 6 to 7 million years ago. Thus, the hominid fossil record is not a family “tree” but a “lawn.” One paleontologist likens the structure of the hominid fossil record to the Cambrian Explosion.5 In other words, when hominids first occur in the fossil record, they make an explosive, not a gradual, appearance.
Foot Problem

Skull features indicate that Toumai man possessed the ability to walk upright, as did Orrorin tugenesis and Ardipithecus ramidus. This ability, considered a defining trait for humanity, appeared suddenly and coincidentally with the hominids’ first appearance. Toumai man lived in an ecological gallery that included woodlands, open savannas, and a lake front.6 But, the evolutionary model maintains that bipedalism arose gradually when hominids were forced from a forest environment into an open savanna.7 Thus, bipedalism apparently emerged in the absence of an evolutionary driving force.

Each fossil discovery reveals more of the iceberg that capsizes the case for human evolution. Toumai man’s discovery renders much of what appears in textbooks incorrect. At the same time, the explosive diversity and sudden emergence of bipedalism that occurs with hominids’ first appearance in the fossil record serve as hallmarks of God’s creative work.8
References:
John Whitfield, “Oldest Member of Human Family Found,” Nature Science Update, http://www.nature.com/nsu/020708/020708-12.html
Bernard Wood, “Hominid Revelations from Chad,” Nature 418 (2002): 133-35; Ann Gibbons, “First Member of Human Family Uncovered,” Science 297 (2002): 171-72.
Michel Brunet et al., “A New Hominid From the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa,” Nature 418 (2002): 145-51.
Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 1998), 192.
Wood, 133-35.
Patrick Vignaud et al., “Geology and Paleontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla Hominid Locality, Chad,” Nature 418 (2002): 152-55.
Lewin, 219-29.
Fazale R. Rana, “The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism,” Facts for Faith 7(Q4 2001), 33-41.


--------------------------

Chimpanzee and Evolutionary Problems

First Chimpanzee Fossils Cause Problems for Evolution

by Fazale (Fuz) R. Rana, Ph.D.

Where were you on September 1, 2005? Perhaps you missed the announcement of a scientific breakthrough: the influential journal Nature published the completed sequence of the chimpanzee genome.1

This remarkable achievement received abundant publicity because it paved the way for biologists to conduct detailed genetic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees.2

Unfortunately, the fanfare surrounding the chimpanzee genome overshadowed a more significant discovery. In the same issue, Nature published a report describing the first-ever chimpanzee fossils. This long-awaited scientific advance barely received notice because of the fascination with the chimpanzee genome. News of the two discoveries produced different reactions among scientists. Evolutionary biologists declared the chimpanzee genome as evidence for human evolution, but some paleoanthropologists were left wondering how humans and chimps could have evolved, based on where the chimpanzee fossils were found.

According to the evolutionary paradigm, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. About 5 million years ago, this ancestral primate spawned two evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimpanzees. Anthropologists consider the physical, geographical separation of hominids and proto-chimpanzees to be the "driving force" for the evolution of humans and chimpanzees. They postulate that the formation of the Rift Valley isolated the hominids in East Africa (a hot, dry savannah) from chimpanzees in Central and West Africa (with warm, wet jungles). The geographical isolation of hominids and chimps, presumably, sent these two lineages along different evolutionary trajectories.

Evolutionary biologists think that fossil hominids like "Lucy," Homo erectus, and Neanderthals document the emergence of humans.4 Yet, until recently paleoanthropologists had no corresponding fossils for the chimpanzee lineage.

Surprisingly, the first chimpanzee fossils were discovered not in West or Central Africa, but in East Africa, near Lake Baringo, Kenya. These fossils, consisting of three teeth, dated to 500,000 years in age--meaning that chimpanzees coexisted alongside hominids. The Rift Valley provided no geographical rift for separate evolutionary histories, and therefore foils a key prediction of the human evolutionary paradigm.

Sally McBrearty, one of the paleoanthropologists who uncovered the chimpanzee fossils, noted, "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."5

If the discovery blows apart a "simplistic idea," maybe it's time for a simple (and testable) idea--the RTB creation model for human origins.
References
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, "Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome," Nature 437 (2005): 69-87.
See Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005) for a discussion of human-chimpanzee genetic comparisons from a creation perspective.
Sally McBrearty and Nina G. Jablonski, "First Fossil Chimpanzee," Nature 437 (2005): 105-08.
See Who Was Adam? for a treatment on how the hominid fossil record creates problems for human evolution.
Michael Hopkin, "First Chimp Fossil Unearthed," news@nature.com (August 31, 2005), http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/pf/050829-10_pf.html, accessed November 30, 2005.

[

SysUser:

The following is a good refutal for your nonsense about Turkana boy, and co.

It's not even a half-decent rebuttal.

KAG , maybe you would soon find KAG man , to back up your falling claims.

According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .

The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197

The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
THE 10.000 YEAR-OLD HOMO ERECTUS

These two skulls, discovered on October 10, 1967, in the Kow Swamp in Victoria, Australia, were named Kow Swamp I and Kow Swamp V.
Alan Thorne and Philip Macumber, who discovered the skulls, interpreted them both as Homo sapiens skulls, whereas they actually contained many features reminiscent of Homo erectus . The only reason they were treated as Homo sapiens was the fact that they were calculated to be 10.000 years old. Evolutionist did not wish to accept the fact that Homo erectus , which they considered a "primitive" species and which lived 500.000 years before modern man, was a human race which lived 10.000 years ago.


Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time.199

[snipped at the leakey quotemine]

Copy/paste v.s. copy/paste: Mine doesn't contain any quote mines, and relies on evidence:


The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse 1983; Morris and Parker 1982; Taylor 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Many creationists traditionally considered both to be apes, but Lubenow (1992) considers both human, and that is becoming the accepted opinion in creationist circles. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity.

A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests, although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are degenerate humans:

"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974).

Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused by disease.

There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.

Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER 3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not mentioning ER 3733).

Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull. In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, , ". Bowden's description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is.

One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered, cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. In a later assessment (1995) Gish says that the size and shape of the braincase and a few characteristics of the body were the only differences from a modern human. Menton (1988) similarly states that WT 15000 was classified as H. erectus only because of its age.

That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man braincases, than it is to modern humans. It is strikingly similar to the Peking Man reconstruction made by Weidenreich, which even Gish agrees looks to be "intermediate between the Anthropoid Apes and Man".

The skeletal differences are less obvious, but in combination they show a skeleton with small but significant differences from modern humans. The length of the neck and the neck-shaft angle in the femur are respectively "well over 3" and 5 standard deviations from the modern human norm (Brown et al. 1985). The boy was extraordinarily strong, and his spinal cord had less than half the cross-sectional area of ours (Walker and Shipman 1996). According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993). Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences.

Menton (1988) states that the Turkana Boy was like a modern human "except for certain details of the skull", and then adds that:

"He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton 1988)

Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that significantly changes its meaning:

"Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker 1985)

Are erectus and sapiens the same species?
Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984):

"In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]."

Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans).

Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species:

We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. , From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984)

In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue.

Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear.

Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens.

One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct, ".
New evidence
Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range. Although this ignored the huge difference in statistical distribution of brain size between the two species (see my brain sizes page for more details), and the clear anatomical differences (see here), it was, strictly speaking, true, in that an extremely small percentage of living humans did overlap the brain sizes of erectus. Now, however, even that slender rationale has disappeared.

More: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html

SysUser:

here is the link for the previous refutal of Turkana Boy, or Archie

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_05.html

Archie is achaeopteryx. Does your link explain what a human body is doing with what is essentially a chimp head?

No where in
KAG the rate at which you are spewing out "speculative nonsense" makes your commitment to scienctific discussion questionable, given that science itself has invalidated your so called evidences for evolution.

Well I am not suprised at your commitment to MANTRA

My challenge still stands:


" Falsify shared endoegenous retroviruses. If you're so sure that there's no scientific basis for the theory of evolution, it shouldn't be hard to do. Hark at it young aardvark."


By the way, I like that you've taken to spamming the thread even more than usual. What was it you said prevented you from explaining how plate tectonics disproves pangea? Bandwidth was it? Lol.

therationa:

It this thread getting anywhere at all.

Not really, no. It is kind of fun, though, cause I don't remember ever pwning another poster as much as the lame duck I'm "discussing" mostly with in this thread.

There seems to be a lot of copy/paste of very technical material.

Yeah, true. SysUser has mistaken copy/pasting for acquisition of knowledge.

Can the originator summarise the evidence so far and put it in the main body of the post? Otherwise, this might run and run with any real results.

That would be much appreciated.

Thankx

Evolution still remains unfalsified; SysUser fears accepting it means he has to give up Christianity so he's dragged in almost every scientific field he can think of; I've rebutted and refuted most of them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

SysUser:

KAG

, the best evidence that you can still think of are "subjective evidences that are based on the interpretation of the evolutionist" they are not based on the independent non-evolutionist views, science has contradicted those evidences you are peddling about .

Hey, then you shouldn't have any problems falsifying ervs as a viable evidence for evolution. Also, considering about 99% of biologists accept evolution, it really must be hard to find those independents that can only present quotemines and copy/pastes as their only evidence against evolution.

[/quote][quote author=SysUser link=topic=110730.msg1959645#msg1959645 date=1203089166]
KAG , at least admit to me in secret even if you can't do it in public,

Those hole riddled evidences that you are talking about about are just mere "MANTRA" and Bull****

Which obviously explains why you haven't been able to explain why archaeopteryx, which you claim is just a bird, has dinosaurean traits too. Or why you haven't touched my challenege.

Sounds like birds of the same feather (or is that birds of the same scales) are flocking together

--------------------

Not really, no. It is kind of fun, though, cause I don't remember ever pwning another poster as much as the lame duck I'm "discussing" mostly with in this thread.

And that would be me , right , haaaaaaaaaa!


----------------------------------

Yeah, true. SysUser has mistaken copy/pasting for acquisition of knowledge

another word of wisdom (make that wisdroll) from the mouth of his geniusness,

YES I DO PASTE AND COPY and infact if it were possible, I might have CUT AND PASTED , WHY , cus its very useful.

CUS ITS THERE ON MY SYSTEM TO BE USED, hmm, the holy and hypocritical , royal geniusness KAG is speaking once again and hanging unto straws once amunitions for direct vitriol, insults and vulgarity have start to run low.

Its funny that you've started to hang unto straws once again, I would advise that you leave some straws for[b] therationa[/b] to hang unto too, by trying not to use them all up.

---------------------------

Evolution still remains unfalsified; SysUser fears accepting it means he has to give up Christianity so he's dragged in almost every scientific field he can think of; I've rebutted and refuted most of them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Hmm, Wishful, thinking! of a man "currently" without hope of salvation (but hopefully soon gonna get hope), now wishing that a man with hope shuld join him in hopelessness[b], NAh, aint gonna happen[/b]

I ain't gonna look back , those that endure to the end shall be saved,

, Why should i go back to the vomit of evolution, I have been there I have already done that with atheism, evolution, science fiction, profanity, its nonsense and hopeless

---------------

Hey, then you shouldn't have any problems falsifying ervs as a viable evidence for evolution. Also, considering about 99% of biologists accept evolution, it really must be hard to find those independents that can only present quotemines and copy/pastes as their only evidence against evolution.

sorry Mate, scientific facts are not about popularity contest , a million KAGs can believe the nonsenses they want to believe for a millions years, still it ain't gonna change the truth that Evolution is a "very good fairytale for adults", and brainwashing scheme for the "speciated" KAGs of this world,

-----------

Which obviously explains why you haven't been able to explain why archaeopteryx, which you claim is just a bird, has dinosaurean traits too. Or why you haven't touched my challenege.

You outright denial and feign ignorance is stating to sound legendary (probably dwarfed only by Olabowale's), cus I have not only touched your so called challenges (plus or minus reference links), I HAVE PRACTICALLY BLOWN THEM TO PIECES,

SysUser:

Although i have already given you answer to why you believe in speciation as evidence for evolution is a mere fallacy let me now come to this question and answer level, to explain further:

What you claimed was that speciation is just variation within a "Kind" and when pressed for a definition of a "Kind", you vaguely implied that everything in existence is one "Kind". Further requests for clarification were not honoured.

What can we glean from the above definitions and explanations:

1. There is an assumption that there must be an original species

2. There is not indication of a time line of how and when this variation in between species arises,

3. There is no indication that "another kind" of animal could possibly arise from speciation,

4. Speciation is just used to explaing the noted differences between animals of the same kind.

To the first, technically yes. The second is irrellevant. Third, what do you mean by "kind"? If it means what you gave it as earlier, then speciation does happen and evolution occurs especially by your definition.

-------------
So what does this do for evolution

1. Nothing

2. Still it does not answer or prove the evolutionary problem of where the first animal came from, (well unless evolutionist want to say the speciation of rocks or primordial soup formed the first animal). This because the speciation simply assumes that an original animal had to have existed in the first place.
This then brings us back to the square one problem of evolution not being able to give a tenable answer for the origin of life,

First, the theory of evolution does not seek to address the origin of life - those are theories in abiogenesis. Those theories within abiogenesis do give viable options on how life may have originated naturalistically. The RNA world hypothesis is perhaps one of the best known is probably at the forefront of abiogenesis research. Sydney Fox's protocells are also a wonderful example of how life can arise from naturalistic non-living things.

Second, no the theory of evolution absolutely doesn't say speciation of animals arose from a primodial soup - that would be Creationists. No, the early cellular life forms would have been "simple" and probably unicellular in their make up


Third, it's strange that despite all those links about speciation, you didn't bother to read at least a couple to understand to what speciation refers.

BY the way KAG which evolved first was it the "Prey" or was it the 'Predator"
,

No idea.

3. It does not show how one kind of animal might have evolved from another kind of animal, e.g. How does a Cow evolve into a Whale, for goodness sake (another dumb idea by evolutionist)

Only ignorant Creationists posit that a cow evolved into a whale. Most textbooks and links dealing with evolution do explain how speciation works and how new species arise.

4. Even members of the same human family can exhibit speciation under the right conditions, does that now imply that they evolved from each other, NA, absolutely not!

Another strawman.

-------------------
Allopatric speciation (Due to difference in geographical location) e.g. Subtle differences betwen the blackman of trophical africa and the blackman of cold america

Um, no. Poor understanding on your part. If the genetic variance between two populations becomes great due to isolation, then speciation may have occured. Evolution isn't indivdual.

Peripatric speciation (Due to isolation of small peripheral populations e.g. The London Underground mosquito is a variant of the mosquito Culex pipiens which entered in the London Underground in the nineteenth century. Evidence for its speciation include genetic divergence, behavioral differences, and difficulty in mating.)

Parapatric speciation (Due to overlapping zones of divergin population e.g. The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.)

Sympatric speciation (Due to species diverging while inhabiting the same location e.g. Wheat)
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Yep.

Although I must confess that I don't have an inert understanding of everything they are talking about ,

That much is clear. I also doubt "inert understanding" is the phrase you're looking for - I could be mistaken.

something is very clear, and let me explain that thing to you in simple english:

it is basically saying that variations within animals of the same kind can occur in certain circumstances and situations such as the environment in which they are or as a result of genetic failure.
Nowhere does it say nor can you find evidence that a new genetic information was somehow added to the already available genetic information in the animal.

The activeness, dormancy or outright failure of already available genetic information , is what you are trying very hard to deceptively peddle as evidence for biological evolution, HABA,

What Speciation does not say is that there is an "increase in genetic information" nor does it say that another different animal arises from speciation (a big and misleading word for variation) within a kind of animal.

Two things. Actually, increase in genetic information is usually intrisincally linked with speciation. Secondly, don't be vague, what is a kind?

The Wheat still gives a wheat,
The Mosquito still gives a mosquito
The Blackman still gives birth to a black (sometimes albino)
The Laurus Gulls still gives birth to a Laurus Gull

Yes, exactly! For instance, humans are still hominids, are still primates are still Eutheria, are still mammals, are still vertebrates, are still chordates, are still eukaryotes.

The subtle or pronounced differences between does not mean that the animals have suddenly evolved into another animal.

It's often the genetic divergence.

Once again KAG here is a classic example of how you are trying to use the observable and repeatable phenomena of "intra species variation" (sometimes called microevolution) as the evidence/explanation for the possibility of the unprovable and bogus ideas of macro evolution, cosmic evolution and geological evolution.

No

KAG Nice try , your blunt hammer still doesn't cut the ice, SHARPEN IT MORE!

Misplaced metaphor?

If give birth to two sets of identical twins and then take one set of twins each to the North Pole and the Sahara Desert to live, then you leave them to procreate for 100 years, off course there is bound to be observable differences yet the genetic material which came from you has not increased, instead part of has either failed or become dormant or active hence the different characteristics being exhibited by the 100years offsprings of the sets of twins in either the North Pole or the Sahara Desert.

KAG plaese try HARDER NEXT TIME

Read the links on speciation again.

SysUser:

Not really, no. It is kind of fun, though, cause I don't remember ever pwning another poster as much as the lame duck I'm "discussing" mostly with in this thread.

-------------------
And that would be me , right , haaaaaaaaaa!

Yep, that would be you.

----------------------------------

another word of wisdom (make that wisdroll) from the mouth of his geniusness,

YES I DO PASTE AND COPY and infact if it were possible, I might have CUT AND PASTED , WHY , cus its very useful.

Useful? Dude, you don't know the contents of most of your copy/pastes and links, let alone understand the theories you're against.

CUS ITS THERE ON MY SYSTEM TO BE USED, hmm, the holy and hypocritical , royal geniusness KAG is speaking once again and hanging unto straws once amunitions for direct vitriol, insults and vulgarity have start to run low.

Its funny that you've started to hang unto straws once again, I would advise that you leave some straws for[b] therationa[/b] to hang unto too, by trying not to use them all up.

Hmm, considering the amount of things I've rebbutted, compared to the topics you've abandoned, those must be some straws.

---------------------------

Hmm, Wishful, thinking! of a man "currently" without hope of salvation (but hopefully soon going to get hope), now wishing that a man with hope shuld join him in hopelessness[b], NAh, aint going to happen[/b]

I ain't going to look back , those that endure to the end shall be saved,

LoL. Evolution is not a salvation issue. In fact, many (most?) Christians accept evolution.

, Why should i go back to the vomit of evolution, I have been there I have already done that with atheism, evolution, science fiction, profanity, its nonsense and hopeless

I wager you're lying.

---------------

sorry Mate, scientific facts are not about popularity contest , a million KAGs can believe the nonsenses they want to believe for a millions years, still it ain't going to change the truth that Evolution is a "very good fairytale for adults", and brainwashing scheme for the "speciated" KAGs of this world,

Fairytale? Then you shouldn't have any problems falsifying ERVs. Go for it.

-----------

You outright denial and feign ignorance is stating to sound legendary (probably dwarfed only by Olabowale's), cus I have not only touched your so called challenges (plus or minus reference links), I HAVE PRACTICALLY BLOWN THEM TO PIECES,

A cursory look back through this thread shows you're lying. Baby Jesus wouldn't be pleased.

What you claimed was that speciation is just variation within a "Kind" and when pressed for a definition of a "Kind", you vaguely implied that everything in existence is one "Kind". Further requests for clarification were not honoured.

nice of you to tender glaring falsehood:

1. I never said everything in existence was one kind, please show me where i said that

2. I have already giving a definition of a kind (although I have to admit I am not sure whether it was on this thread or another thread)

Nonetheless let me repeat: A kind of an animal is a category of animal distiguished by their common charateristics (e.g. physical , biological , behavioural etc)

Eg. Dog Kind, Chiwawa, Altsaian, African Breed, Greyhound, Bloodhound, Pit Bull

By the even when man tried to cross breed different kinds of animals , we were still left with animals showing characteristics from both, and not characteristics from a non-existent animal

E.g. Man Kind, slant eyed chinese, flat nosed african, long nosed european, black skinned african, ,

SysUser:

nice of you to tender glaring falsehood:

1. I never said everything in existence was one kind, please show me where i said that

"Answer to you question about a Kind:

A Kind of an animal is simply and animal the shares the same fundamental genetic information as the animal which gave birth to it or from which it was breed." (from here)

To which I responded with:

"Um, you couldn't be more vague if you tried. All currently living things share the same fundamental genetic information. To stress the point: all animals share the same fundamental genetic information. Could you perhaps be a bit more clearer. Also, are horses and donkeys the same kind? What about tigers and lions?" (here)

That was the last we saw of that. Till now that is.

2. I have already giving a definition of a kind (although I have to admit I am not sure whether it was on this thread or another thread)

Nonetheless let me repeat: A kind of an animal is a category of animal distiguished by their common charateristics (e.g. physical , biological , behavioural etc)

Eg. Dog Kind, Chiwawa, Altsaian, African Breed, Greyhound, Bloodhound, Pit Bull

Wait, so if I understand rightly, a horse and a donkey are the same "kind"; and so are a lion and tiger, right?

By the even when man tried to cross breed different kinds of animals , we were still left with animals showing characteristics from both, and not characteristics from a non-existent animal

E.g. Man Kind, slant eyed chinese, flat nosed african, long nosed european, black skinned african, ,

The theory of evolution has never posited that characteristics come from a non-existent animal. That's your strawman version.

LoL. Evolution is not a salvation issue. In fact, many (most?) Christians accept evolution.

And you as an Atheist or  Christian or former christian would know that right, come spare me the nonsense

Let me repeat and this time read my lips, scientific facts and biblical truth is not a popularity contest, so whether 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of Christians believe in evolution does and would never make it true, STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF[b] via the mob mentality[/b]


By the way who deceived you into thinking that every one who calls himself or herself a Christian is a Christian ,

Joh 10:14  I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Joh 10:27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

So don't deceive yourself into thinking couch individuals who falsly claim to be a Christian are actually Christians, Being a Christian is not a Title its a way of life and practical application of Biblical Believes in deeds and thoughts,

At least look how you turn out, , (Am assuming that you were born into a "so called Christian home" since your utterances at least don't sound jihadist in nature, my assumption could be wrong about your background though, )

KAG I woould really miss you,

I like that fact that you keep me company on the net , and at least help me with exercising my brain a little, otherwise it would atrophy and make me evolve into another specie of man ( sounds familiar )

Are you in manchester, maybe I could pop in into your place sometime like that , to share the good news of Christ with you, since most things in UK is either Alchohol, WAGs, women, porn, fat, etc

KAG,

Jesus Loves you , hence why He laid down His life for you since He knew that nothing you could do could pay for the sin,

Yet since the wages of sin is death thus every human must die, or otherwise via another Adam,

All the wages of sin would be paid in full,

So you can experience peace of mind and the loving grace of God,

All you have to do is accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, its free, completely free,

Confess your sins and repent from your wicked ways ,

and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour,

Ask for the Holy Spirit from God to guide you through the labyrinths of the rubbish of this world,

SysUser:

LoL. Evolution is not a salvation issue. In fact, many (most?) Christians accept evolution.

And you as an Atheist or Christian or former christian would know that right, come spare me the nonsense

Well, yes, frankly.

Let me repeat and this time read my lips, scientific facts and biblical truth is not a popularity contest, so whether 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of Christians believe in evolution does and would never make it true, STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF[b] via the mob mentality[/b]

You're right, they aren't popularity contest; however, they can help one gauge the prevailing ideology of people and in so doing, asses one's position. That many Christians don't find that accepting evolution hampers their faith and beliefs in God/Jesus and the Christian doctrine indicates a great deal. It also helps abolish the idea that the theory of evolution's purpose is something nefarious.

By the way who deceived you into thinking that every one who calls himself or herself a Christian is a Christian ,

No one, which is why I have my doubts about you.

So don't deceive yourself into thinking couch individuals who falsly claim to be a Christian are actually Christians, Being a Christian is not a Title its a way of life and practical application of Biblical Believes in deeds and thoughts,

Many of the Christians I know that accept evolution - not all, mind you, by their actions and characteristics, I accept their claims. I obviously don't know their inner thoughts, but if their fruits are anything to go by, then they are Christians.

At least look how you turn out, , (Am assuming that you were born into a "so called Christian home" since your utterances at least don't sound jihadist in nature, my assumption could be wrong about your background though, )

No, you're right. Whether I was ever a Christian, though, is up for debate.

SysUser:

KAG I woould really miss you,

I like that fact that you keep me company on the net , and at least help me with exercising my brain a little, otherwise it would atrophy and make me evolve into another specie of man ( sounds familiar )

Are you in manchester, maybe I could pop in into your place sometime like that , to share the good news of Christ with you, since most things in UK is either Alchohol, WAGs, women, porn, fat, etc

London.

That many Christians don't find that accepting evolution hampers their faith and beliefs in God/Jesus and the Christian doctrine indicates a great deal. It also helps abolish the idea that the theory of evolution's purpose is something nefarious.

A nice coating of .00001% poison with 99.99999% food,

please spare me the politically correct statement you just gave above, its either God or nothing, i am not interested in any compromise with you,

I am only interested in revealing the deceit inherent in evolution and how that has being contributing to the destruction of lifes, and eternity of individuals with Souls,

No one, which is why I have my doubts about you.

Exactly you have every right to doubt me as a Christian, simply because its a personal relationship with God, hence you are not expected to follow or copy whateever I do, you are expected to search the scriptures yourself.

---------------

I accept their claims. I obviously don't know their inner thoughts, but if their fruits are anything to go by, then they are Christians.

A religious statement there ever was one ,

By the way Which fruits might that be , the one that evolved or the one the was created, JUST KIDDING,

I am interested in knowing you criteria for good fruits and bad fruits,

Fruits are to be tested in accordance to the bible , people can bear fruits the looks like
fruits to an unbeliever but which themselves are actually poison to the body of Christ.


--------------
Good to hear that you are in London,

Funny enough you and I might still end up being close friends provided you accept , Christ, as of now your nothing more than an acquitance,

Even though a christian might be helpful, friendly and close with a non-christian yet, he/she must not be unevenly yoked with an unbeliever,


I came only pray that in this midst of arguments/discussion, that God would show you mercy to see the truth and understand the truth.

Simply because he's the one that calls us out of the kingdom of darkness into His marvellous light,

Much knowledge does not and would never amount to understanding, hence we may have knowledge of God yet not understand God, we may have knowledge of the word and yet not be saved, we may have eloquent speech skills and yet be depressed and miserable in our souls due to the lack of the presence of the peace the God brings,

KAG, I can only pray that one day you and I would still be brethren in Christ

SysUser:

A nice coating of .00001% poison with 99.99999% food,

I blame heliocentricity too.

please spare me the politically correct statement you just gave above, its either God or nothing, i am not interested in any compromise with you,

I wasn't asking you for a compromise; just pointing out the obvious: acceptance of the theory of evolution does not preclude belief in the Christian God nor the doctrine of salvation inherent in the belief.

I am only interested in revealing the deceit inherent in evolution and how that has being contributing to the destruction of lifes, and eternity of individuals with Souls,

Good luck with that. Let me know when you find something.

Exactly you have every right to doubt me as a Christian, simply because its a personal relationship with God, hence you are not expected to follow or copy whateever I do, you are expected to search the scriptures yourself.

Somebody mentioned "by their fruits you shall know them" earlier, and thinking about it now, I don't think they were talking about homosexuals.

---------------

A religious statement there ever was one ,

I agree. It sometimes becomes necessary to acknowledge, in a sense, the theology of fundamentalist belief in Christianity. My natural view is that anyone that believes in Jesus is a Christian. Several pockets disagree with that and point to fruits as a determination.

By the way Which fruits might that be , the one that evolved or the one the was created, JUST KIDDING,

I am interested in knowing you criteria for good fruits and bad fruits,

I refer to Paul's letter to the Galatians:

Gal 5:

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Fruits are to be tested in accordance to the bible , people can bear fruits the looks like
fruits to an unbeliever but which themselves are actually poison to the body of Christ.

Yes. However, I have to accept their acknowledgement of their belief in Jesus and couple it with their actions.

--------------
Good to hear that you are in London,

Funny enough you and I might still end up being close friends provided you accept , Christ, as of now your nothing more than an acquitance,

Even though a christian might be helpful, friendly and close with a non-christian yet, he/she must not be unevenly yoked with an unbeliever,


I came only pray that in this midst of arguments/discussion, that God would show you mercy to see the truth and understand the truth.

Simply because he's the one that calls us out of the kingdom of darkness into His marvellous light,

Much knowledge does not and would never amount to understanding, hence we may have knowledge of God yet not understand God, we may have knowledge of the word and yet not be saved, we may have eloquent speech skills and yet be depressed and miserable in our souls due to the lack of the presence of the peace the God brings,

KAG, I can only pray that one day you and I would still be brethren in Christ

I'm sceptical of that.

I'm sceptical of that.

you've every rigth to be, nonetheless , i still hope angels in heaven would one day rejoice over you

Yes. However, I have to accept their acknowledgement of their belief in Jesus and couple it with their actions.

Yep, KAG

Now isn't it nice for you and I to have a good converstion without the name calling,

And a foolish man will
open his mouth SO Wide
and say "there is no God"

God is "awamaridi"
thats is the yoruba form

but in Lingua france it means
"undiscoverable"

go and ask about those who
wanted to discover God.
they came back to naught.

we cant discover God.
but, we seek his face and He
shall reveal himself!!!

seek 4 him and u wil find him.

we can't discover God.
but, we seek his face and He
shall reveal himself!!!

seek 4 him and u wil find him.

in what ways or form have u found God

bawomolo:

in what ways or form have u found God

Have you considered the ways that the Bible specifically prescribes?

Have you considered the ways that the Bible specifically prescribes

i prefer to listen to personal testimonies.

bawomolo:

i prefer to listen to personal testimonies.

No worries about those testimonies; but I doubt if anyone as a Christian could sustain the argument that they found 'God' in other ways than as the Bible invites them to do so.

Stop and think one moment. The name God is not really in the bible. If this is not an English book written by Englishmen, it’s not there; it was added.Remember,your are reading an english version [/b]of your bible.
Did the [b]english language was created before your god?,or your god was there before the existence of the english language?Stop and think one moment.
You will also find that God, whether you have a big G, or little g, is not being used in the singular tense, as Eloh or A'llah. The beings spoken of in the bible and K'oran originaly are the Eloheem, the plural of Eloh.

Horus:

Stop and think one moment. The name God is not really in the bible.

Ever heard of the word 'translation'?

stimulus:

Ever heard of the word 'translation'?

This is why I said [b]ENGLISH VERSION[/B].
Ever heard of learning how to read a post? 

Wow, there was some debate here. How come I missed it all?