SysUser:

Please give me an example of a date done with geologic column and how it was confirmed by independent methods, how many radiometric methods were used in those independent methods and how many different dates were obtained in those independent methods.

See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#theoret and here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#specific. The various dating methods usually agree.

Well notice my use of english word "some", when i said "Some of the current or past methods which use this means are given as:", the emphasis here is the word "some".
Meaning that I am not a "Mr Know all"

That's fair enough. I was pointing out, though, that there are many radiometric dating methods and they all act as independent lines of evidence.

All that is needed to contaminate a test specimen containing Carbon 14 or any other radioactive element is to find it in an environment in which carbon 14 is present.

Um, that wasn't what I asked. This was my question: "how exactly would contamination affect the half-life of an element?"

How are you evolutionist sure that outside radioactive elements from the environment in which the sample was found has not a way into the specimen after it died and before you found it.

That would be because individual elements can be detected and therefore separated or taken into account. Specific radioactive elements act in certain ways, several can't be taken in after death.

The answer is that : you simply cannot be sure , you simply have to assume that there was no similar radioactive elements from outside.

No.

Wait maybe by a means of magic , the specimen was the only one containing that particular radioactive element within a 100km radius of the fossil site, COME ONE THIS IS NOT FANTASY , THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SCIENCE , ABEG!

, interesting that just a few lines ago you were asking me , who a radioactive sample could have been contaminated, yet here you are , you are using the excuse of contamination as the reason why radioactive dating did not work for that particular mammoth.

First, that wasn't what I asked. Second, yes one mammoth was contaminated - the presence of glycerin made that clear. Third, I notice you've chosen to disregard the fact that you presented misinformation.

Thus my question is this:

1. Are you ever going to be sure that there is never going to be contamination in a shape or form

To different specimen? No. There are, however, a great number that haven't been contaminated.

2. How then can you justify that previous tests have not also being either contaminated or dogmatic accepted by evolutions because it tallies with expected evolutionary dates of millions of year.

The lack of any evidence suggesting contamination that affects results. The support of other radiometric dating methods.

3. As any radiometric dating method (apart from carbon dating) ever giving any dates less than 10000 years for a test sample whose age is known 100% certain to have been less than 10000 years.

I have no idea.

There is no issue of grosss misunderstanding here, it ain't good to try and twist the issue, the fundamental issue here is that whether or not you publicly accept it or not, Pangea was used by evolution as an explanation for the distribution of organism over different places,

So are boats, wind, etc. That doesn't mean those things are a part of the theory of evolution. They are examples of things that can be given as specifics that can effect or affect the mechanism of evolution.

So what I am basically trying to point out is simple for everyone to see: that the nonsense speculative concept of the evolutionary distribution of organisms and formation of continents via continental drifts have been shown to be mere "Hot Air" via the ridicule and exposure of the inherent rubbish in the concept of Pangea.

So, what's your explanation for both the distribution of animals, and the similarities species in different continents (that were thought to be once joined) share? This ought to be good.

As usual, the KAG way is to , kill the messenger if he doesn't like the message,

Temper Temper bro, are we already back to derogatory words again,

Again, not angry just point out the obvious. You're clearly clueless.

If you read the area "Those links show the initial idea and how (as usual) evolution is gradually dumping the unprovable idea of Pangea for other newer ideas (which are likewise unprovable).

Where? could you quote the specific portions that are being used to "dump the unprovable idea of Pangea", please.

In the process of checking those weblinks you might come across issues like "Plate Tectonics (idea started about 30 years ago)", "Continental Drift", "Magnetism", "Paleomagnetism", "Fossil Similarities" "Rock Similarities"" carefully and the corresponding links, you will notice that I did not generalise that the words ("Plate Tectonics (idea started about 30 years ago)", "Continental Drift", "Magnetism", "Paleomagnetism", "Fossil Similarities" "Rock Similarities"" where either in support of pangea or not, I simply told people that they would come across those words,

That was awfully nice of you then. Do you know what those terms mean?

By the way Plate Tectonics does not support the idea of Pangea, even though Continental Drift supports the idea of pangea,

You either don't know what plate tectonics means, or you don't know what pangea means. Or even possibly both.


Here, let me buy you a clue:

"Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason" is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s." (Clue

So Mr. Genius, you can do well to see the context of the phrase or statement before scattering "vitriol" as usual.

What phrase?

Its obvious you are really trying hard to restrict evolution to biological evolution alone ,

I'm not trying that hard, because with your learning and understanding difficulties, it would just make the long process of responding to you that much longer. I will point out again that when the term evolution is used, it is meant in reference to biological entities.

even though "the term" and "complete concept of evolution" is deeply rooted and revealed, in cosmis evolution, biological evolution, geological evolution etc,

No.

TRY AS YOU MAY TO PULL THE WOOL OVER PEOPLE EYES, UNFORTUNATELY I SHOULD INFORM YOU THAT PEOPLE AIN'T READY TO BE SPOON FED ABOUT WHAT IS EVOLUTION AND WHAT IS NOT EVOLUTION.

THE VERY CONCEPT AND IDEA OF EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, COSMIC EVOLUTION, GEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AMIGO PLEASE TRY AGAIN.

For some reason you seem to be mistaking the appropriation of terms with, perhaps, reluctance or inability to discuss the issues raised by your numerous links and cop/paste. I don't know why you find it hard to understand that biology is different from geology, chemistry and physics.

Evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a important subject in biology. It doesn't seek to explain things in geology or other unrelated sciences. Plate tectonics and the makings of the geologic column fall under geology, another scientific field in its own right. It has no need to explain the Universe any more than someone studying Laplace transforms needs to explain why the Universe exists for them to be able to do calculations. In the same vein as the others, Cosmology and the different branches of physics are different sciences from those already mentioned.

Surely, that's simple enough for even you to understand. That people on a message board are willing to accomodate your conflations and inability to stick to a subject shouldn't be mistaken for affirmation that the sciences are just one blob designed "to keep you true and faithful Christians (ha ha) from getting to heaven or where ever.

The pull the wool over their eyes trick again, abi, na,

It is clearly seen that biological is being related and intertwined into the concept of geological evolution. Yet KAG it seems that in your infinite Geniusness, you want us to believe otherwise,

Actually, no. Putting developments within their geologic dates is not the same thing as teaching geology. Just to make the point by way of analogy, your suggestion is akin to someone claiming that because Pythagoras lived in 520 BC or Attila the Hun in 439 AD, they were both influenced by Jesus and that talking about them means you're automatically teaching the ways Christians and they were in fact Christians. Surely, you realise how asinine that is.

KAG aba, wayo wayo,

KAG WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, JUST LIKE THE WALL OF JERICHO, THE WALL OF IGNORANCE, DECEPTION AND INDOCTRINATION VIA EVOLUTION IS BOUND TO COME DOWN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER,

You're mistaking Evolution for Young Earth Creationism.

It is writing that devil knows that he has but a little time, hence he's going about kill stealing and destroying, via deception and other means .

Evolution is a deception with no scientific backing no matter the propaganda

Posted here and here


"Actually there are several independent lines of enquiry that support the theory of evolution. These include:

- Shared endogeneous retroviral insertions between species, including humans and other apes

- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

- The fossils of transitional animals, e.g. Archaeopteryx and other dinosaur-bird transitionals.

- observed speciation both in anature and in labs. e.g Hybridisation peonies resultng in speciation

Also discovered an unanswered question:

What curse is causing animals to go extinct?

To add to this still unanswered one:

What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?

*Bolded so you don't miss them again.

Again, not angry just point out the obvious. You're clearly clueless.

Surely, you realise how asinine that is.

I'm not trying that hard, because with your learning and understanding difficulties, it would just make the long process of responding to you that much longer. I will point out again that when the term evolution is used, it is meant in reference to biological entities.

That was awfully nice of you then. Do you know what those terms mean?

The usual KAG, its nice to hear your rant!, hmmm here goes the Genius personality of KAG again!, maybe you should ask me next about
whether I know about your obstinance, even in the face of blunt truth.

[quote]You either don't know what plate tectonics means, or you don't know what pangea means. Or even possibly both.

Here, let me buy you a clue:

"Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason" is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s."

Well Mr Genius, i do know what plate tectonics is and I do know what Continental Drift is, and it is rather deceitful of you to try and misinform the readers into believing that Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics are one and them same concept.

No they are not,

If they were then Plate Tectonics ought not to be occurring on both Mars and Moon, in contrast to the concept of Continental Drift.

KAG and fellow readers , "They are as similar as saying that because a Motorcycle is a moving machine and a Motor Car is also a moving machine, then they are similar."

By the way readers Plate Tectonics is one of the most obvious contradictions to Pangea, and, Continental Drift is one of the most obvious supporters of the Pangea concept. So KAG since you have smartly tried to pull the wool over people's eyes into believing that plate tectonics and continental drift are similar maybe you can then explain why one contradicts the concept of pangea and the other supports the concept of pangea.

KAG please find out more about Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics , you will easily see that they are simply "contradictory" and not similar in any way.

Nice try KAG , sorry it doesn't cut it,

Evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a important subject in biology

Naaaaa, aaa KAG, sorry to bust your atheistic bubble!

Evolution is not a subject of biology, (Your notion that it is, makes your Mr Genius position rather sad, )

There is Biological Evolution (the one you wonderfully think is the only one, )

There is Geologic Evolution,

There is cosmic evolution,

, blah blah blah,

"Actually there are several independent lines of enquiry that support the theory of evolution. These include:

- Shared endogeneous retroviral insertions between species, including humans and other apes

- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of

chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and

humans.

- The fossils of transitional animals, e.g. Archaeopteryx and other dinosaur-bird transitionals.

- observed speciation both in anature and in labs. e.g Hybridisation peonies resultng in speciation

Also discovered an unanswered question:

The usual MANTRA , with no repeatable or viable evidence,

hmm, do you mean the dinosaur-bird transitionals that do not have any evidence,

By the way KAg how and when was there an increase in the genetic information of the dinosaurs that made it possible for them to evolve into birds like evolution says, (Mind you there is no evidence of Increase in genetic information, although we see evidence of bad mutations, )

Yet the same amount of DNA "alphabets still either "remains the same or decreases", yet the genetic information must increase for your evolutionary fairytale,

KAG STOP SPREADING LIES AND DECEITS, THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, AND THERE WOULD NEVER BE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST,

Maybe if evolutionist saw a dead bone of a "chiwawa" they might have theorirised that Dogs evolved from it, since it looks slightly less than a dog.

THE RAIN OF SPECULATIONS, WHEN SHALL IT END.

Let me guess you dogmatic believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional dinosaur because it has claws on its wings,

So to bust your bubble again, Archaeopteryx, is not a dino-bird, it is just a bird. KAPISH!
My brother the way Archaeopteryx is a Full-Blown Bird simply because:

1. , The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable,
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html)


2. , The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… , ( Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 280-81)

3. , Furthermore, J. Richard Hinchliffe, from the Institute of Biological Sciences of the University of Wales, studied the anatomies of birds and their alleged reptilian ancestors by using modern isotopic techniques and discovered that the three forelimb digits in dinosaurs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV. This poses a big problem for the supporters of the Archaeopteryx-dinosaur link.131 Hinchliffe published his studies and observations in Science
in 1997, where he wrote: Doubts about homology between theropods and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis. These include the following:

(i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs.

(ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii) The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.

As Hinchliffe notes, the "temporal paradox" is one of the facts that deal the fatal blow to the evolutionist allegations about Archaeopteryx. In his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells remarks that Archaeopteryx has been turned into an "icon" of the theory of evolution, whereas evidence clearly shows that this creature is not the primitive ancestor of birds. According to Wells, one of the indications of this is that theropod dinosaurs-the alleged ancestors of Archaeopteryx-are actually younger than Archaeopteryx: "Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later, "
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html)


According to your "faith" and "believe" that Archaeopteryx is a dino-bird then the following modern birds (with no reptile charateristics) should also be dino-birds:

a. touraco
b. hoatzin

(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html)

Come on KAG you can do better than , just believing a lie, hook, Line and Sinker, Please do a little research about your "believe" and "faith" in the "Icons" and "Stars" of Evolution,

ANOTHER EVOLUTION EVIDENCE BITES THE DUST,

[/quote]

SysUser:

The usual KAG, its nice to hear your rant!, hmmm here goes the Genius personality of KAG again!, maybe you should ask me next about
whether I know about your obstinance, even in the face of blunt truth.

We can discuss that after you post some "blunt truth"^TM By the way, I haven't ranted in this thread yet. Trust me, when I go on a rant, you'll know.

Well Mr Genius, i do know what plate tectonics is and I do know what Continental Drift is, and it is rather deceitful of you to try and misinform the readers into believing that Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics are one and them same concept.

It's still painfully apparent that you as yet don't know what plate tectonics means. I also didn't try to misinform anyone, nor did I say continental drift and plate tectonics (or the individual theories described each) are one and the same. What I did post, however, was this:

"Plate tectonics (from Greek τέκτων, tektōn "builder" or "mason" is a theory of geology that has been developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions of the Earth's lithosphere. The theory encompassed and superseded the older theory of continental drift from the first half of the 20th century and the concept of seafloor spreading developed during the 1960s." (see source in previous post).

I bought you a clue; you misused it. Not surprising, to say the least.

No they are not,

If they were then Plate Tectonics ought not to be occurring on both Mars and Moon, in contrast to the concept of Continental Drift.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. By the way, which moon? The Earth's major moon?

KAG and fellow readers , "They are as similar as saying that because a Motorcycle is a moving machine and a Motor Car is also a moving machine, then they are similar."

By the way readers Plate Tectonics is one of the most obvious contradictions to Pangea, and, Continental Drift is one of the most obvious supporters of the Pangea concept. So KAG since you have smartly tried to pull the wool over people's eyes into believing that plate tectonics and continental drift are similar maybe you can then explain why one contradicts the concept of pangea and the other supports the concept of pangea.

Except Plate Tectonics actually support the Pangea conception.

[size=14pt]Look, maybe you should explain how plate tectonics "is one of the most obvious contradictions to Pangea."[/size]

I've chosen to enlarge and bold the request, because you seem to have a penchant for missing questions and requests.

KAG please find out more about Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics , you will easily see that they are simply "contradictory" and not similar in any way.

I have; I don't see the exact contradiction you mean.

Evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a important subject in biology

Nice try KAG , sorry it doesn't cut it,

Naaaaa, aaa KAG, sorry to bust your atheistic bubble!

Evolution is not a subject of biology, (Your notion that it is, makes your Mr Genius position rather sad, )

There is Biological Evolution (the one you wonderfully think is the only one, )

There is Geologic Evolution,

There is cosmic evolution,

, blah blah blah,

Look again at what I wrote. I wasn't referring to the English term "evolution" (which can be simply defined as change, and hence be applied to any concept that undergoes that), I was referring to evolution, as in the theory of evolution. That is a major aspect of Biology. It shouldn't be mistaken and conflated with every other thing that can have evolution attached to it.

The usual MANTRA , with no repeatable or viable evidence,

The hell? What then do you call the presence of shared endogenous retroviruses? What then do you make of chromosome 2, observed speciation and the other examples I gave?

hmm, do you mean the dinosaur-bird transitionals that do not have any evidence,

I gave just one example; there are several.

By the way KAg how and when was there an increase in the genetic information of the dinosaurs that made it possible for them to evolve into birds like evolution says, (Mind you there is no evidence of Increase in genetic information, although we see evidence of bad mutations, )

Change in their allele frequencies made it possible. I gave two examples of increase in genetic information in about two different previous posts. I'll give them again:

- Nylon oligamer degradation by Bacteria;
- Apo-AI to Apo-AIM in humans.

That's also not counting the examples of speciation.

Yet the same amount of DNA "alphabets still either "remains the same or decreases", yet the genetic information must increase for your evolutionary fairytale,

I responded to a similar claim made by you in this post: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.128.html#msg1931092

I'll give the snippet again:

"I also calculated a rough estimate based on the paper DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22 and arrived at a 168000 mutation difference in coding DNA between humans and chimps.

Could these mutations account for the difference? Sure, especially given that the 64000 mutations is only based on strictly beneficial mutations and lower end time frame of 5 million years. This doesn't take into account fixation of neutral or even possibly deleterious mutations which could account for many more differences between humans and chimps. Plus, the 64000 mutations is based on a relatively conservative estimate of both beneficial mutation rates and effective mutation rates in humans. Conceivably, there could numbers of beneficial mutations that are magnitudes higher.

So are mutations a problem for evolution? Based on limited and conservative data, the answer is no." (link in original post)

KAG STOP SPREADING LIES AND DECEITS, THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, AND THERE WOULD NEVER BE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST,

Actually, there are a relatively good number of transitional fossils. Turkana boy: always a good example.

Maybe if evolutionist saw a dead bone of a "chiwawa" they might have theorirised that Dogs evolved from it, since it looks slightly less than a dog.

No.

THE RAIN OF SPECULATIONS, WHEN SHALL IT END.

I've been wondering when you'll stop. Maybe if you bothered to learn what it is you're arguing against, you'll stop the Hovindisms and speculations.

Let me guess you dogmatic believe that Archaeopteryx is a transitional dinosaur because it has claws on its wings,

No. I accept that it's a transitional because in addition to proto-bird features, it also had:

- No bill
- socketed teeth
- Nostrils far forward on the snout
- Free, not fused, trunk vertebrae
- abdominal ribs
- Downward facing shoulder joints
- A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
- A long tail with free vertebrae
- Solid bones
- A skull that bears sutures.

So to bust your bubble again, Archaeopteryx, is not a dino-bird, it is just a bird. KAPISH!
My brother the way Archaeopteryx is a Full-Blown Bird simply because:

[snip]

Then maybe you can explain how a "true" bird with absolutely no dinosauran traits has these:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.

Heck, I'd be surprised if you could tell me what differentiates a dinosaur from a bird.

According to your "faith" and "believe" that Archaeopteryx is a dino-bird then the following modern birds (with no reptile charateristics) should also be dino-birds:

a. touraco
b. hoatzin

(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html)

Why? How would you distinguish a dinosaur from a bird?

Come on KAG you can do better than , just believing a lie, hook, Line and Sinker, Please do a little research about your "believe" and "faith" in the "Icons" and "Stars" of Evolution,

ANOTHER EVOLUTION EVIDENCE BITES THE DUST,

Problem is: I did do my very extensive research. I know what I'm talking about, and I know why I accept the theory of evolution as the best and most parsimonious explanation for the origin of species and further developments. In contrast, you haven't done any research; you mistake extensive copy/pasting with the acquisition of knowledge; and hope that burying a subject with links and copy/pastes will be mistaken for debate. Heck, at just about nine pages, you still know surprisingly little on the subjects that have come up in this thread.


By the way, I notice that yet again, you missed the questions. I can't explain how that seems to happen so often. Here let's try again, with one other pertinent question you missed (making three):

[size=14pt]

So, what's your explanation for both the distribution of animals, and the similarities species in different continents (that were thought to be once joined) share? This ought to be good.

What curse is causing animals to go extinct?

What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?[/size]


I wonder what will happen this time.

*bolded again, and this time size increased for your extra comfort.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. By the way, which moon? The Earth's major moon?

mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.
It is also shows up in the relatively less crater parts of mars and the older but more cratered parts of mars.

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

Please note that the person who started this thread cannot explain to us where he and ALL those in his genealogy (maternal and paternal) came from.

SysUser:

mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Technically, yes. Cruithne

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.

Very surprised, especially considering that "the Moon has a thick, solid lithosphere (unlike the Earth), and therefore has no plate tectonics" (sauced)

Did you say you are an engineering graduate, again? First class was it?

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

Who would have thunk it, he missed the questions again. Oh dear, maybe next time?

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. By the way, which moon? The Earth's major moon?

mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.
It is also shows up in the relatively less crater parts of mars and the older but more cratered parts of mars.

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

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

Except Plate Tectonics actually support the Pangea conception.

The usual KAG, typical misinformation

Okay let me break it down for you, in plain statements.

Pangea is a stupid idea (without) proof about a "Super Continent" and movements of those super continents from one location to another, as examplified by the word Continental Drift , notice the english word "Drift", that is the continents are moving, e.g. Pangea and Continental Drift says, India was part of Africa and then broke off from Africa "Drifted" towards Asia where somehow then "superglued itself" to Asia,

The non scientific reader would say why did the continents move, how, where they floating or something.

Yes according to other things related to Pangea, the continents were supposed to be floating hence why "drifting" was possible.

Please,


Plate Tectonics
---------------
However according to the "concept" of Plate tectonics, that is complete "bulloony" and utter nonsense. Plate Tectonics is about the surface of the earth being divided up into plates which then move against each other (Due to expansion of the Earth) and they do not move because they are floating on anything. The tectonic plates are not floating on anything.



By the way contrary to another of your misinformation, Plate Tectonics is not (and I repeat) a old theory that encompasses continental drift, on the contrary, plate tectonics is a relatively new theory (about 30 years ago) that contradicts the continental drift theory of formation of the continents.

By the way, I want to believe that the deep "sutures" showing the location of were the Tectonic plates meet were only recently discovered, so maybe you can then once again brainwash me into believing that those ones have already existed for a long time like the idea of continental drift.

Come KAG you can do better than that, at least give me something that is so scientifically complicated that only a Genius like you could be able to understand and explain it,

Mr. KAG, aba when are you going to stop intentional misinformation and propaganda.

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

By the way less I deviate, the bottomline here is that parts of evolution was based on the Pangea "rubbish", continental drift "rubbish".
As such that fact Plate Tectonics contradicts those rubbish ideas shows that those parts of evolution that were based on Pangea are likewise just mere speculations that have "gone with the wind".

So Mr. KAG, can you now still show me

come one stop deceiving yourself.


Speciation is nothing more than variation within a kind, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Just like you have a Black Man , Indian, Caucassian , Asian, Ekimos, they all share certain similarities and subtle differences as humans. YET THEY ARE ALL STILL HUMANS

What evolution has decided to "deceitfully call" nothing more than variation, which is normal and nothing fantastic.

Now KAG, assuming you have brothers or sisters or parents, are there not subtle differences and obvious similarities between you , your siblings and parents. Does that mean that you are a new species of their family, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

SPECIATION IS variation and nothing more,

Tiger Woods has a lot of mixed blood within his system, (infact he combines I think at least two different races of man into him), yet he is still not another type of animal , Tiger Woods is still HUMAN, (though much better at Golf)

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

Two black parents can still give birth to albino child (who is still human and having genetic information of a human being) but with characteristics and gen obtained from the prominence of a "bad gene".

KAG stop all this tales by moonlight of evidences of evolution, your evolution are about as water tight as a wooden basket in the river. Its bound to sink.

SysUser:

mR. kaG, does the earth have a minor moon,

Yes, the Earth's moon and mars, (suprised abi, ) Well do you research properly and well maybe you would realise that Plate Tectonics, (which you think you know), also shows up in the shaping of the features of the near side of the moon relative to the far side of the moon.
It is also shows up in the relatively less crater parts of mars and the older but more cratered parts of mars.

tHE NET IS THERE FOR YOU TO FIND OUT SINCE ITS OBVIOUS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE YET TO DO SO,

See above.

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

The usual KAG, typical misinformation

Okay let me break it down for you, in plain statements.

Pangea is a stupid idea (without) proof about a "Super Continent" and movements of those super continents from one location to another, as examplified by the word Continental Drift , notice the english word "Drift", that is the continents are moving, e.g. Pangea and Continental Drift says, India was part of Africa and then broke off from Africa "Drifted" towards Asia where somehow then "superglued itself" to Asia,

Actually, there are several lines of evidence, including, but not limited to the distribution of fauna and flora.

The non scientific reader would say why did the continents move, how, where they floating or something.

Yes according to other things related to Pangea, the continents were supposed to be floating hence why "drifting" was possible. Please,

Actually, no, continental drift wasn't a referrence to "floating"; the proposal also wasn't that continental separation was caused by floating.

Plate Tectonics
---------------
However according to the "concept" of Plate tectonics, that is complete "bulloony" and utter nonsense.

Your strawman is, yes. Actual continental drift? Not quite.

Plate Tectonics is about the surface of the earth being divided up into plates which then move against each other (Due to expansion of the Earth) and they do not move because they are floating on anything. The tectonic plates are not floating on anything.

LoL. Anybody else want to take this? The idiocy is getting too funny.

By the way contrary to another of your misinformation, Plate Tectonics is not (and I repeat) a old theory that encompasses continental drift, on the contrary, plate tectonics is a relatively new theory (about 30 years ago) that contradicts the continental drift theory of formation of the continents.

LoL, I didn't say it was an old theory. In fact, that that I posted that it encompassed and superceded the older theory of continental drift, should have given you some clue. Once again, plate tectonics supports the formation of continents.

Wait, I'm dying to ask another question that will be ignored. Are you proposing that all the continents were created just like that in their current states, by your God?

By the way, I want to believe that the deep "sutures" showing the location of were the Tectonic plates meet were only recently discovered, so maybe you can then once again brainwash me into believing that those ones have already existed for a long time like the idea of continental drift.

Come KAG you can do better than that, at least give me something that is so scientifically complicated that only a Genius like you could be able to understand and explain it,

Why? You haven't been able to understand even the simplest of concepts (some of which you presented by way of copy/paste) yet.

Mr. KAG, aba when are you going to stop intentional misinformation and propaganda.

Mu

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

By the way less I deviate, the bottomline here is that parts of evolution was based on the Pangea "rubbish", continental drift "rubbish".
As such that fact Plate Tectonics contradicts those rubbish ideas shows that those parts of evolution that were based on Pangea are likewise just mere speculations that have "gone with the wind".

No.

About your Nylon Degrading Bacteria,

Your example about Nylon Degrading Bacteria, is not an example of an evolutionary development of new genetic information, rather it is an evidence of a designed organism which is well designed enough to  be able to adapt to different environment, toxins or food sources.

First and foremost the simply english explanation for it , is that the bacteria was using already present genetic information for adaption. It did not evolve "new genetic information" from nothing to make that adaptation. As such its adaption is something of an "intelligent design" robust control mechanism to ensure it survives via adaption, and not that it evolves into another kind of bacteria. IT IS STILL A BACTERIA THAT HAS SIMPLY ADAPTED TO THE PRESENCE OF A KIND OF FOOD OR TOXIN.
NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS,

By the way after digesting the nylon, the bacteria was still a bacteria, it did not become a fish which then became a reptile which then became a man.

Even we humans have a differentiation in the kinds of resistance to certain different diseases or environment, does that mean we are then , evolving into different humans, i don't think so.

So people eat excess sugar yet they do not develop medical problem while othes eat a little sugar and then develop medical problem , simply because their bodies adapted and the other peoples body could not adapt to the presence of sugar.

"STOP BELIEVING THAT SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT HAPPEN NOW WOULD SOMEHOW MAGICALLY HAVE OCCURED IN THE PAST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT IT"

Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale story for atheists,
Please below is an excerpt from a more scientific explanation for the degradation of nylon by a bacteria, it was obtained from this linkd that you can check yourself, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

In 1975, Japanese scientists discovered bacteria that could live on the waste products of nylon manufacture as their only source of carbon and nitrogen.1 Two species, Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87, were identified that degrade nylon compounds.

Much research has flowed from this discovery to elucidate the mechanism for the apparently novel ability of these bacteria.2 Three enzymes are involved in Flavobacterium K172: F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII, and two in Pseudomonas NK87: P-EI and P-EII. None of these have been found to have any catalytic activity towards naturally occurring amide compounds, suggesting that the enzymes are completely new, not just modified existing enzymes. Indeed no homology has been found with known enzymes. The genes for these enzymes are located on plasmids:3 plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and on two plasmids, pNAD2 and pNAD6, in Pseudomonas.

Apologists for materialism latched onto these findings as an example of evolution of new information by random mutations and natural selection, for example, Thwaites in 1985.4 Thwaites’ claims have been repeated by many, without updating or critical evaluation, since.

Is the evidence consistent with random mutations generating the new genes?
Thwaites claimed that the new enzyme arose through a frame shift mutation. He based this on a research paper published the previous year where this was suggested.5 If this were the case, the production of an enzyme would indeed be a fortuitous result, attributable to ‘pure chance’. However, there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance.6

Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.

Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.

Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.

The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.8

P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids).

The chromosome of P. aeruginosa has 6.3 million base pairs, which makes it one of the largest bacterial genomes sequenced. Being a large genome means that only a relatively low mutation rate can be tolerated within the actual chromosome, otherwise error catastrophe would result. There is no way that normal mutations in the chromosome could generate a new enzyme in nine days and hypermutation of the chromosome itself would result in non-viable bacteria. Plasmids seem to be adaptive elements designed to make bacteria capable of adaptation to new situations while maintaining the integrity of the main chromosome.

Stasis in bacteria
P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872.10 It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—stasis rules, not progressive evolution. This alone should cast doubt on the evolutionary paradigm. Flavobacterium was first named in 1889 and it likewise still has the same characteristics as originally described.

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism. This mechanism might be analogous to the way that vertebrates rapidly generate novel effective antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation, which does not lend credibility to the grand scheme of neo-Darwinian evolution.11 Further research will, I expect, show that there is a sophisticated, irreducibly complex, molecular system involved in plasmid-based adaptation—the evidence strongly suggests that such a system exists. This system will once again, as the black box becomes illuminated, speak of intelligent creation, not chance. Understanding this adaptation system could well lead to a breakthrough in disease control, because specific inhibitors of the adaptation machinery could protect antibiotics from the development of plasmid-based resistance in the target pathogenic microbes.

SysUser:

come one stop deceiving yourself.


Speciation is nothing more than variation within a kind,

Which brings us back to the question you've managed to miss on goodness knows how many occassions:



What exactly is a kind? Like I asked another poster, are horses and donkeys the same kind? Why? What about a lion and tiger? What are the kinds within the insect and plant world and what distinctions are used?

it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

What, if not evolution, does speciation have to do with then?

Just like you have a Black Man , Indian, Caucassian , Asian, Ekimos, they all share certain similarities and subtle differences as humans. YET THEY ARE ALL STILL HUMANS

Yes, they are all the same species. Speciation is a different concept.

What evolution has decided to "deceitfully call" nothing more than variation, which is normal and nothing fantastic.

Now KAG, assuming you have brothers or sisters or parents, are there not subtle differences and obvious similarities between you , your siblings and parents. Does that mean that you are a new species of their family, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Oh gosh! Yet another thing that you unsurprisingly don't understand. LoL. No, we'd still be the same species.

SPECIATION IS variation and nothing more,

Well, that's different. So you're saying speciation does occur, but you'd prefer it to be under your specific terminology?

[snip]

I wonder what St. Augustine would have had to say to you.

I am posting this for the third time ->


If we assume that God came from somewhere (call it point X) and settled at the point He is now, then we must also ask:

- Where was He before He came to point X?
- And where was He before that?
, and on, and on, and on.

SysUser:

About your Nylon Degrading Bacteria,

Your example about Nylon Degrading Bacteria, is not an example of an evolutionary development of new genetic information, rather it is an evidence of a designed organism which is well designed enough to be able to adapt to different environment, toxins or food sources.

Designed by whom?

First and foremost the simply english explanation for it , is that the bacteria was using already present genetic information for adaption. It did not evolve "new genetic information" from nothing to make that adaptation.

Not quite. The bacteria wasn't using already present genetic information, the rise of new information was what helped it achieve the feat of degrading nylon. What do mean by "it did not evolve 'new genetic information' from nothing"?

As such its adaption is something of an "intelligent design" robust control mechanism to ensure it survives via adaption, and not that it evolves into another kind of bacteria.

But it has essentially become a new type of bacteria. Where did you get the implication of intelligent design?

IT IS STILL A BACTERIA THAT HAS SIMPLY ADAPTED TO THE PRESENCE OF A KIND OF FOOD OR TOXIN.
NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS,

Of course it's still a bacteria; an adapted one at that. No one has said otherwise.

By the way after digesting the nylon, the bacteria was still a bacteria, it did not become a fish which then became a reptile which then became a man.

That's not evolution.

Even we humans have a differentiation in the kinds of resistance to certain different diseases or environment, does that mean we are then , evolving into different humans, i don't think so.

So people eat excess sugar yet they do not develop medical problem while othes eat a little sugar and then develop medical problem , simply because their bodies adapted and the other peoples body could not adapt to the presence of sugar.

"STOP BELIEVING THAT SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT HAPPEN NOW WOULD SOMEHOW MAGICALLY HAVE OCCURED IN THE PAST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK ABOUT IT"

What, exactly, does not and cannot happen now?

Evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale story for atheists,

Which is exactly why the number of theists that accept evolution far outnumber the atheists. Like, whatever.

Please below is an excerpt from a more scientific explanation for the degradation of nylon by a bacteria, it was obtained from this linkd that you can check yourself, http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

It's not scientific.

Wait, I'm dying to ask another question that will be ignored. Are you proposing that all the continents were created just like that in their current states, by your God?

-----
Yes the Earth was created, you were created you did not evolve, your previous generations did not evolve they were created via Adam ,

It is true that the present shape and form of the continents may not be as they had been during creation. That's because "The Earth was cursed, hence a lot of catastrophic events and shaping could have taking place after the fall of man":

notice were God cursed the ground,

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

-----------

Actually I don't think the way the earth is now was the way it was immediately after creation, as a matter of fact there was water below and water about the earth , as made obvious by this bible verses""



Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;


Notice that water that "jets out of the ground" as a fountain , would still come back down as if it were rain , due to the effect of gravity.

By the way , KAG , were do you think the waters that are underground , when people and oil companies drill into the ground come from, it was not created that way in the first place.
-------------

The following bible verse shows the information about what I believe was a geological event on the earth ,

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Why? You haven't been able to understand even the simplest of concepts (some of which you presented by way of copy/paste) yet.

Mr Genius , Yes, I used Copy and Paste,

I would still copy and paste, mind you, You JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRUTH, whether or not it was "copy and pasted" or "cut and pasted"

Mr. Genius ,, I can see that you knowledge and understanding of your non existent evidences in evolution are obviously legendary

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

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.

Designed by whom?

By God

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

Why? You haven't been able to understand even the simplest of concepts (some of which you presented by way of copy/paste) yet.

Mr Genius , Yes, I used Copy and Paste,

I would still copy and paste, mind you, You JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRUTH, whether or not it was "copy and pasted" or "cut and pasted"

Mr. Genius ,, I can see that you knowledge and understanding of your non existent evidences in evolution are obviously legendary

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

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.

-----------------
That's not evolution.

Actually that is evolution, implied by you and many others like you.

--------------
What, exactly, does not and cannot happen now?

Evolution of an animal (which somehow cannot be observed) is yet believed to have happened "millions of millions of years ago"

Variation as a proof for evolution,

Evidences for evolution,

So how is your non-existent dino-bird transitionals, "Archaeoptrix" or it it "Haotzin"

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

Evolutions says polystrata fossils "could be" roots that kept growing through layers in millions and millions of years , come on get me a break


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

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

It's not scientific.

Did you mean , its not evolutionary,

My friend its certainly very scientific, check it again

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

and an additional link for you

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/PDF_notice.asp?pdf=/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_proteins.pdf

Stasis in bacteria
P. aeruginosa was first named by Schroeter in 1872.10 It still has the same features that identify it as such. So, in spite of being so ubiquitous, so prolific and so rapidly adaptable, this bacterium has not evolved into a different type of bacterium. Note that the number of bacterial generations possible in over 130 years is huge—equivalent to tens of millions of years of human generations, encompassing the origin of the putative common ancestor of ape and man, according to the evolutionary story, indeed perhaps even all primates. And yet the bacterium shows no evidence of directional change—stasis rules, not progressive evolution.

Some of these bacterias should have become human don't you think, at the rate of their evolution

SysUser:

-----
Yes the Earth was created, you were created you did not evolve, your previous generations did not evolve they were created via Adam ,

Evidence?

It is true that the present shape and form of the continents may not be as they had been during creation. That's because "The Earth was cursed, hence a lot of catastrophic events and shaping could have taking place after the fall of man":

notice were God cursed the ground,

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

-----------

So, what kind of changes took place? That is, what extent of change was caused by the curse?

Actually I don't think the way the earth is now was the way it was immediately after creation, as a matter of fact there was water below and water about the earth , as made obvious by this bible verses""



Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;


Notice that water that "jets out of the ground" as a fountain , would still come back down as if it were rain , due to the effect of gravity.

Having killed everyone in the ark due to the amount of force and pressure inherent within it.

By the way , KAG , were do you think the waters that are underground , when people and oil companies drill into the ground come from, it was not created that way in the first place.
-------------

Groundwater? Water reservoirs, rain, etc.

The following bible verse shows the information about what I believe was a geological event on the earth ,

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

How was the Earth divided? If the continents were all created separate like you implied, what earth, then, needed to be divided?

correction

By the way , KAG , were do you think the waters that are underground , when people and oil companies drill into the ground come from, it was not created that way in the first place

By the way , KAG , where do you think the waters that are underground , when people and oil companies drill into the ground, come from, it was created that way in the first place

Evidence?

The robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation.

The creation itself shows evidence of the creator,

That you exist without being visited by "reptile" relatives is evidence,


The splendid design of the mitochondria, shows the existence of a creator,

A Jumbo Jet was not created by tornadoes millions of years ago,

SysUser:

Mr Genius , Yes, I used Copy and Paste,

Really?

I would still copy and paste, mind you, You JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRUTH, whether or not it was "copy and pasted" or "cut and pasted"

You've missed the point. The point isn't merely that you copy/paste and spam with links: it's that it's not just apparent that you have no idea what those things say or mean, but that you also seem to think burying a thread with spam is the equivalent of a discussion or debate.

Mr. Genius ,, I can see that you knowledge and understanding of your non existent evidences in evolution are obviously legendary

Non-existent? Okay, I'll make things easier for you. I'll give just one evidence for you to falsify. Shared endoegenous retroviruses between humans and apes.
-------------

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.
By God

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?

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

[quote]By the way after digesting the nylon, the bacteria was still a bacteria, it did not become a fish which then became a reptile which then became a man.

That's not evolution.

Actually that is evolution, implied by you and many others like you.[/quote]

This explains a lot. You clearly still don't know a thing about evolution. I'd love to explain but it would be difficult to know where to start with you, based on your other posts in this thread.

--------------
What, exactly, does not and cannot happen now?

Evolution of an animal (which somehow cannot be observed) is yet believed to have happened "millions of millions of years ago"

Except, it does still occur and has been observed.

Variation as a proof for evolution,

I'm not sure of what you mean here.

Evidences for evolution,

I've given several.

So how is your non-existent dino-bird transitionals, "Archaeoptrix" or it it "Haotzin"

Archaeopteryx is an existent transitional. Care to dispute it? Respond to my rebuttal of your asinine utterances here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.256.html#msg1949992

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

Evolutions says polystrata fossils "could be" roots that kept growing through layers in millions and millions of years , come on get me a break

It doesn't.

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

It's not scientific.

Did you mean , its not evolutionary,

No.

My friend its certainly very scientific, check it again

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

and an additional link for you

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/PDF_notice.asp?pdf=/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_proteins.pdf

It's aig. Go figure.

By the way, I'm glad to see that the problem that stopped you from seeing questions has lessened somewhat.

So, what kind of changes took place? That is, what extent of change was caused by the curse?

The existence of arid lands and more specially gradual increase in the size of deserts relative to farmable and livable land.

KAG , The Sahara desert is the biggest desert in the world , yet it evolution were true, the world should be covered by deserts now at the rate of desert encroachment and desert related wind.

So, what kind of changes took place? That is, what extent of change was caused by the curse?

The existence of arid lands and more especially the gradual increase in the size of deserts relative to farmable and livable land, is enough evidence to the nonsense of evolution. The whole earth ought to be a big desert now,

KAG , The Sahara desert is the biggest desert in the world , yet it evolution were true, the world should be covered by deserts now at the rate of desert encroachment and desert related wind.

KAg ,

The size of the largest coral reef defies the time scale of origin of life being put forward by evolution,

kindly explain,

SysUser:

The robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation.

The creation itself shows evidence of the creator,

Could you perhaps be a little more specific? How can you tell there's a robust design - especially one that points to a removed creator. What "creation" shows evidence of a creator? The millions of extinct organisms? The incidence of things like Harlequin babies? Or nasty viruses and bacteria that maim and destroy?

That you exist without being visited by "reptile" relatives is evidence,

Um, what?

The splendid design of the mitochondria, shows the existence of a creator,

A Jumbo Jet was not created by tornadoes millions of years ago,

No, the mitochondria, like the many other genetic features, show signs of evolution with selection.

SysUser:

The existence of arid lands and more specially gradual increase in the size of deserts relative to farmable and livable land.

I see. Couldn't those have just as well be caused by natural processes that have nothing to do with a Biblical text? After all, that would be the most parsimonious conclusion.

KAG , The Sahara desert is the biggest desert in the world , yet it evolution were true, the world should be covered by deserts now at the rate of desert encroachment and desert related wind.

Where do you get this nonsense from? Seriously!

So, any response to the other questions, or has your little problem returned?

SysUser:

KAg ,

The size of the largest coral reef defies the time scale of origin of life being put forward by evolution,

kindly explain,

Be more specific.

So how is your non-existent dino-bird transitionals, "Archaeoptrix" or it it "Haotzin"

Archaeopteryx is an existent transitional. Care to dispute it? Respond to my rebuttal of your asinine utterances here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.256.html#msg1949992

first of all, i keep forgettnig the spelling of Archaeopteryx, as such why i wrote Archaeoptrix,

--------------
Archaeopteryx is dead and buried so its not an existent transitional ,

Secondly it has asymetric feathers in contrast to to symetric feathers in non flight birds,

It has claws on its wings, just like  a present day bird "Haotzin" which also has claws in similar places, (The Haotzin has no reptile charateristic)

So basically Archaeopteryx is basically an extinct kind of bird and not an extinct kind of dinosaur-bird, it was a full blown bird, not a bird with dinosaur feathers,

So can you give me more reptile characteristics of the Archaeopteryx (apart from the wrong interpreted presence of a claw ) that makes you believe and have faith that it is a dinosaur bird

So STOP DEceIving yourself KAG,

Could you perhaps be a little more specific? How can you tell there's a robust design - especially one that points to a removed creator. What "creation" shows evidence of a creator? The millions of extinct organisms? The incidence of things like Harlequin babies? Or nasty viruses and bacteria that maim and destroy?

The word "Robust" means the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems

An organism's Robust design means a design so good that despite years of DNA copying to offspring, there as being little variations and errors in the the copy process,

A robust design that allows man to adapt to different evironment,

A robust design that allows bacteria's to adapt to the presence of poison,

"Stop deceiving yourself to Stupor", The mitochondria cannot simply be a product of random chances, even related biologists understand that, yet someone KAG thinks , the powerhouse of the cell is a work of chance, Hey, !!!!!!!!!!, Wonders of the dogma of KAG, shall never end , unless God permits!

SysUser:

Archaeopteryx is an existent transitional. Care to dispute it? Respond to my rebuttal of your asinine utterances here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.256.html#msg1949992

first of all, i keep forgettnig the spelling of Archaeopteryx, as such why i wrote Archaeoptrix,

I don't care about the spelling.

--------------
Archaeopteryx is dead and buried so its not an existent transitional ,

It's existent in the sense that we have it as a viable example of a dinosaur-bird transitional. I wasn't very clear earlier.

Secondly it has asymetric feathers in contrast to to symetric feathers in non flight birds,

It has claws on its wings, just like a present day bird "Haotzin" which also has claws in similar places, (The Haotzin has no reptile charateristic)

So basically Archaeopteryx is basically an extinct kind of bird and not an extinct kind of dinosaur-bird, it was a full blown bird, not a bird with dinosaur feathers,

So can you give me more reptile characteristics of the Archaeopteryx (apart from the wrong interpreted presence of a claw ) that makes you believe and have faith that it is a dinosaur bird

There's a reason I gave a link (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.256.html#msg1949992) to the post where I addressed the issue. In any case here are the main dinosaurian features again:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.


Also, that you decided to mention other birds prompted me to set a challenge:

What do you think differentiates dinosaurs from birds?

So STOP DEceIving yourself KAG,

It's been nine pages. It should be apparent who's deceiving themselves. I'll give you a hint, it's the person that's incapable of answering most of the questions asked and has to skip continuously from topic to topic and from one scientific field to another, without much joy.

SysUser:

The word "Robust" means the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems

But many organisms do not "function properly" in the presence of unforseen problems. In fact, unforseen problems have been what caused the several mass extinctions in the Earth's history. How, then, is that an indication of robustness? Are those instances example of another creator/series of creators getting in on the act?

An organism's Robust design means a design so good that despite years of DNA copying to offspring, there as being little variations and errors in the the copy process,

There are many variations and errors in the copying process, though. You yourself mentioned bad mutations previously. What, if not examples of "bad" errors, are they?

A robust design that allows man to adapt to different evironment,

A robust design that allows bacteria's to adapt to the presence of poison,

It's more parsimonious to see that they are incidents of evolution.

"Stop deceiving yourself to Stupor", The mitochondria cannot simply be a product of random chances, even related biologists understand that, yet someone KAG thinks , the powerhouse of the cell is a work of chance, Hey, !!!!!!!!!!, Wonders of the dogma of KAG, shall never end , unless God permits!

Could you show me where I mention random chances or even chance? Thanks in advance.

Okay I admit, I guessed there , the Sahara desert was not the world's largest desert. Antartica is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Nonetheless, the Sahara desert , is the world's largest, solid ground desert if one discounts the ice sheet of antartica as land.

It is said (http://ipsnews.net/riomas10/2608_8.shtml) that the sahara desert is encroaching by moving southwards at a rate of 0.6 km yearly. This means the by the millions of years of evolutions , the whole of "africa" should have been a desert by now, it would take just approximately a mere "426,658 years " for the sahara desert to reach a place as far away as the circumference of the earth"

Earth's circumference = 2 * Pi * R

R= 6400km

lets say Pi = 4 (pi is actual less than 4)

then circumference of the earth is in the around range of 260000Km+

Even the following links give far worse rates of encroachment of the sahara desert, meaning the whole africa would be covered in less number of years if they were to be used as means of calculation.

According to (http://books.mcgraw-hill.com/EST10/site/deserts_article.php) its encroaching at the rate of 3.7 mi (6 km) per year

According to another person here, mere 50 years is what it takes for 75% of nigeria's land to become desert, makes you think where those millions of years were hiding before (http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200801241513348)

Yet that is non existent, Evolution my A**


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

v

There's a reason I gave a link (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-110730.256.html#msg1949992) to the post where I addressed the issue. In any case here are the main dinosaurian features again:

1. The lack of a bill
2. The presence of socketed teeth
3. Nostrils far forward on the snout
4. The vertebrae of the trunk are free, not fused
5. The presence of abdominal ribs
6. The ribs do not articulate with the sternum
7. A shoulder joint that faces downward
8. A mobile wrist, unfused digits and claws
9. A long tail with free vertebrae
10. Solid bones
11 A skull that bears sutures.


Also, that you decided to mention other birds prompted me to set a challenge:

What do you think differentiates dinosaurs from birds?

, form of the scales and feathers, breathing system, density of bones, streamline shape,

Oya KAG Well lecture me on your own differences btw Reptiles and Birds that you know,

SysUser:

Okay I admit, I guessed there , the Sahara desert was not the world's largest desert. Antartica is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Nonetheless, the Sahara desert , is the world's largest, solid ground desert if one discounts the ice sheet of antartica as land.

Yet that is non existent, Evolution my A**


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

Sometimes I wonder about you, then I just look back through the thread and stop wondering. You do realise that the area that is now Sahara desert once had a different climate and different features, right?

Here's an overview of the area's timeline. You'll notice that its features included greenery, etc.

, form of the scales and feathers, breathing system, density of bones, streamline shape,

Could you be a little more specific? Which applies to which?

Oya KAG Well lecture me on your own differences between Reptiles and Birds that you know,

I'm interested in what you know about dinosaurs and birds.

But many organisms do not "function properly" in the presence of unforseen problems. In fact, unforseen problems have been what caused the several mass extinctions in the Earth's history. How, then, is that an indication of robustness? Are those instances example of another creator/series of creators getting in on the act?

Nope they are not instances of creators, God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth and all that is in them therein, God created you even though you have currently turned in opposition to Him.


"Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. "

"1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. "

Na, Death came by Man, an extinctions of the some of the creation (man, animals and plants) came as a result of man's sin.

The whole creation was messed up (hence less than 100% robustness) as a result of the sin of one man,

Mr. KAG open your eyes there are answers to each and every question you have in the bible, "only if you would keep being an enemy of His Word"

Sometimes I wonder about you, then I just look back through the thread and stop wondering. You do realise that the area that is now Sahara desert once had a different climate and different features, right?

Here's an overview of the area's timeline. You'll notice that its features included greenery, etc.

Off course you must wonder about me, for not swallowing your death pill of evolution.

By way mr KAg i am not asking you whether or not there was lush vegetation or not , (don't try to misdirect the discussion). I am simply telling you that even if the sahara desert was the looking of the primorially thick amazon forest, the rate of desertification simply contradicts the time line offer by evolution.

More sahara deserts would have appear and disappear in the same location if the timeline of evolution were to be true,

The fact that the encroachment rate and current size of the sahara desert does not tally with evolutionary timeline simply shows another evidence against the fallacy of evolution.

KAG maybe you should ask Seun to come and help you out here

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

There are many variations and errors in the copying process, though. You yourself mentioned bad mutations previously. What, if not examples of "bad" errors, are they?

Here you go,

A cow with five legs, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:5-Legged_Cow.jpg


http://oddanimals.com/deformedanimals.html



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

It's more parsimonious to see that they are incidents of evolution.

come on get down your beast of a religion, maybe you can say that White is the new black then,

KAG , you and "Hot Air", na wa o, !!

KAG , your frontal deception makes it obvious that you simply choose to believe there is no God despite evidence that there cannot be a design without a designer. The designs, (You and I included) show evidence of the designer,

God power as the creator is clearly seen in the creation:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: