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.

i can go as far as about 5 generations thx to oral history, my people settle in an osun town after migrating from osogbo. the thread is about the nature of God and not the nature of bawomolo


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

u are right, either God is the beginning(it's ur job to explain why) or time is infinite and matter arise from nowhere without the input of an interventionist God. u have no justification for ur assumptions about the origin of god.


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

there are many christians that believe in evolution. even the catholic church has come to terms with it. why are u in denial bro.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

the sahara was once a vegetation until the earth shift and the desert was faced closer to the sun. silica like rocks found in the sahara desert is proof that the earth is more than 6000 yrs old.

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.

the current encroachment rate has been enhanced by human and not natural factors. can u pls specifically state the timeline u are talking about. how does desertification strike down evolution??

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?

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.

Baseless rhetoric doesn't answer the question. For instance, how have you determined, exactly, that this one god is the creator of heaven and Earth?

"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,

Two things. So are you implying that there was no physical death on Earth until Adam of Genesis fame, sinned? That is, no plants or animals died till then? I'm asking on the off chance that you decide to answer.

Secondly, this post contradicts what you claimed earlier, wherein "the robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation," and The word '"Robust" mean[t] the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems'; because, it now seems that actually, when you said "robust", you didn't actually mean robust. That in itself raises other questions. However, I'll let you catch-up with the relatively few questions for the sake of clarity which I've asked. Maybe someday you'll get to them.

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"

The Bible has an answer to what SysUser thinks the differences between dinosaurs and birds are? That's news to me.

SysUser:

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

Death pill of evolution? Melodramatic much? No, I wonder about you because it's almost impossible to imagine how you manage to navigate through life with so little going on between your ears.

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.

Actually, it doesn't. There was a reason I mentioned the lushness of the greenry, etc., and change in climate. Och, I was supposed to post this link too:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204983,00.html

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.

Except, unsurprisingly, it does. Funny how the different science fields seem to do that.

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

Why? Does he have a "save posters from an idiot" foundation or something?

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

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

Um, okay? Yet another thing you've misunderstood. This must be some kind of a record.

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

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:

There's no evidence of that. Theer's a very good reason religions are built on faith.

By the way, have you figured out what differentiates birds and dinosaurs? Or should we just consign that one to yet another missed request/question? They are becoming overly rampart.

Death pill of evolution? Melodramatic much? No, I wonder about you because it's almost impossible to imagine how you manage to navigate through life with so little going on between your ears.

Why? Does he have a "save posters from an idiot" foundation or something?

KAG, true to type

?

,

its very simple and straigth forward no need to ask what, alternatively you can ask Seun

Except, unsurprisingly, it does. Funny how the different science fields seem to do that.

As usual again , mere speculation just to get out of jail, but no substance of evidence.

There's no evidence of that. Theer's a very good reason religions are built on faith.

By the way, have you figured out what differentiates birds and dinosaurs? Or should we just consign that one to yet another missed request/question? They are becoming overly rampart.

I have already answered you (e.g.form of the scales and feathers, breathing system, density of bones, streamline shape) , peruse the previous post, in case you are either not sure or haven't found an answer even to your own question, use the net to find additional differences which are obvious. By the way I also "threw the question back at you after giving my own answers", "What are the similarities and differences between Dinosaurs and Birds" apart from the fact that they were both created.

Let me guess you might say that because feathers and scales are made of the same material then they must have evolved from either of each other, "HOW SAD, " an evolutionist's set of believe brings pity from a Christian,

Baseless rhetoric doesn't answer the question. For instance, how have you determined, exactly, that this one god is the creator of heaven and Earth?

It is not a rhetoric , (stop mis-applying english), I think a quick online exposure to the details of what is meant by a "Robust Design", might help you understand why , you should stop deceiving yourself, claiming something is a rhetoric when its not.

The robust design of your body and the body of other organism and the adaptation of such organisms to unforseen events pressure, poison, food, injury, is enough evidence for itself.

Even the robustness of your mind makes it possible for you "Bluntly deny" biblical evidences and scientific evidences against Evolution , by mere using the self deluding logic of "speculative evidences of evolution". Evidences that are based not on repeatable and testable science but are based on the "taking the word of another individual or group individuals as having merit". When past evidences by the same evolution have been shown to either outright fraud or prejudiced misinterpretation of contrary evidence.f

Funny that Lucy did not have a complete leg , yet she was somehow giving a complete leg during via the imagination of some who thinks that is how the "Ape" ancestors of evolutionists are

, off course, KAG can also claim not to "see", the obvious design, even though he would readily be able to accept (believe) "the existence of non-existent evidences " for evolution

Two things. So are you implying that there was no physical death on Earth until Adam of Genesis fame, sinned? That is, no plants or animals died till then? I'm asking on the off chance that you decide to answer.

Secondly, this post contradicts what you claimed earlier, wherein "the robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation," and The word '"Robust" mean[t] the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems'; because, it now seems that actually, when you said "robust", you didn't actually mean robust. That in itself raises other questions. However, I'll let you catch-up with the relatively few questions for the sake of clarity which I've asked. Maybe someday you'll get to them.

How you can read what i wrote before that and still make those implications, beats me, well off course actually i shouldn't since an evolutionist is capable of producing an evidence out of nothing and still blame those who can't see the evidence as having less understanding, "Reminds me of a Nairaland Evolutionnist "


, KAG donn't worry , I pray that in the Name of Jesus Christ , you shall one day bow down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord despite your current, HOT AIR

Secondly, this post contradicts what you claimed earlier, wherein "the robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation," and The word '"Robust" mean[t] the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems'; because, it now seems that actually, when you said "robust", you didn't actually mean robust. That in itself raises other questions. However, I'll let you catch-up with the relatively few questions for the sake of clarity which I've asked. Maybe someday you'll get to them.

Your own statement contradicts your position, the mere statement that "something" has an "ability" to function properly in the presence of unforseen problems makes it obvious that it was designed to be able to do so , otherwise , it would have had to died, broken down and never to be heard from again.

For example: those bacteria that you quoted as evidence for evolution, unfortunately for you actually show evidences for creation, simply because those of them that already had the "inbuilt" design to withstand, the presence of poision, simply refused to died because their system was able to withstand such a problem of poison,
On the other hand, those bacteria that did not have the inbuilt mechanism to withstand the poison, simply died out, THEY DID NOT RESURRECT AGAIN TO DEVELOP OR EVOLE THE RESISTANCE TO THE POISON , AS SUCH SINCE THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD, THEY COULD NOT EVEN TELL THEIR OWN KIDS ABOUT THE POISON THAT KILLED THEM, INFACT EVEN THEIR OWN KIDS WOULD STILL DIE FROM THE POISON SIMPLY BECAUSE "LIKE FATHER LIKE SON", THE GENETIC INFORMATION OF THE PARENT IS IN THE CHILD, THUS SINCE THERE WAS NO DORMANT OR ACTIVE "INBUILT" ANTI-POISON MECHANISM IN THE PARENT BACTERIA THERE SIMPLY ALSO IS NO DORMANT OR ACTIVE "INBUILT" ANTI-POISON MECHANISM IN THE BACTERIA'S OFF SPRING.

tHE ONE THAT HAD THE DESIGN FUNCTIONED, THE ONES THAT DID NOT HAVE THE DESIGN SIMPLY DID OUT,

How you are able to somehow deceive yourself into thinking that "those bacterias that already died without having the poison adaptation" were then again the ones that became resistant to the poison, beats me, THE BACTERIAS WERE DIFFERENT SIMPLE.



HA, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAG na wa o

SysUser:

KAG, true to type

What type?
,

its very simple and straigth forward no need to ask what, alternatively you can ask Seun

It's far from straightforward. You claimed: "More sahara deserts would have appear and disappear in the same location if the timeline of evolution were to be true,"

Now that's obvious nonsense for two reasons. First, if deserts would have appeared and disappered in the same location, then that wouldn't there a problem for the geologic timescale, because one could just point out that there's an ungoing cyclical process there, and this point is the appearance stage.

Secondly, that statement indicates that, like the other subjects in this thread, you're grossly ignorant of desertification. Hence, my question mark. I was hoping you would at least try to make sense of the things you claimed.

Except, unsurprisingly, it does. Funny how the different science fields seem to do that.

As usual again , mere speculation just to get out of jail, but no substance of evidence.

The Sahara desert's timeline was one example. I gave a link for that. Other things and science fields that point to a great age include:

- Archeology: the historical findings of humanity stretch farther than the limited date fof Ussher's;

- Geology: Different forms of geologic timescales which include, but are not limited to: Varves and numerous dating methods

- Physics and heavenly bodies: If we limit the findings of physics to the Earth, thereby excluding astronomy and cosmology, we'll still find that the incidence of past meteoric strikes on the Earth still indicate an old Earth.

- Biology, genetics and paleontology: The direct result of genetics and the evolution of organisms also indicate an old Earth. Paleontological findings reinforce them.

have already answered you (e.g.form of the scales and feathers, breathing system, density of bones, streamline shape) , peruse the previous post,

And I asked you to be more specific. Which applies to which? For example, are you contending that a feature that all dinosaurs have is denser bones than avians? If so, then by your limited criteria, archeopteryx is then a dinosaur. Since that contradicts your earlier claim. I thought it best to offer you the opportunity to make clear what you mean.

In case you are either not sure or haven't found an answer even to your own question, use the net to find additional differences which are obvious.

Oh, I'm sure, which is why I could assert that Archeopteryx is a dinosaur-bird transitional. I don't need the net to tell me. What about you, can you say as much?

By the way I also "threw the question back at you after giving my own answers", "What are the similarities and differences between Dinosaurs and Birds" apart from the fact that they were both created.

Let me guess you might say that because feathers and scales are made of the same material then they must have evolved from either of each other, "HOW SAD, " an evolutionist's set of believe brings pity from a Christian,

No. Wait, so you acknowledge that feather and scales have similar characteristics?

[quote]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.

Baseless rhetoric doesn't answer the question. For instance, how have you determined, exactly, that this one god is the creator of heaven and Earth?

It is not a rhetoric , (stop mis-applying english),[/quote]


Actually, it was a classic example of baseless rhetoric. Seriously, do you actually understand any thing you vehemently oppose?

I think a quick online exposure to the details of what is meant by a "Robust Design", might help you understand why , you should stop deceiving yourself, claiming something is a rhetoric when its not.

The robust design of your body and the body of other organism and the adaptation of such organisms to unforseen events pressure, poison, food, injury, is enough evidence for itself.

So we are back to the concept of "robust design" again? Again, like I mentioned, the vast majority of the organisms that have existed were - and practically all still are - incapable of adapting to unforseen events. Mass extinctions have been as a result of unforseen events. That in itself falsifies your conception of "robustness". This is the part where you introduce a new conception, have it falsified, and then magically return to "robustness" again.

Even the robustness of your mind makes it possible for you "Bluntly deny" biblical evidences and scientific evidences against Evolution

I haven't seen any.

, by mere using the self deluding logic of "speculative evidences of evolution". Evidences that are based not on repeatable and testable science but are based on the "taking the word of another individual or group individuals as having merit".

I'll issue the challenge again. Let's forget about all the other lines of evidence I provided, and focus on one: Shared endogenous retroviruses. Why don't you show how it's not repeatable and testable evidence for evolution.

When past evidences by the same evolution have been shown to either outright fraud or prejudiced misinterpretation of contrary evidence.f

Jame's ossuary was a fraud; therefore, Christianity is false.

Funny that Lucy did not have a complete leg , yet she was somehow giving a complete leg during via the imagination of some who thinks that is how the "Ape" ancestors of evolutionists are

Funnier that Lucy had enough skeletal structure for a reconstruction, and funny she's not the only remains of australopithecus to have been found.

, off course, KAG can also claim not to "see", the obvious design, even though he would readily be able to accept (believe) "the existence of non-existent evidences " for evolution

The challenge still stands. Falsify shared ERVs.

Two things. So are you implying that there was no physical death on Earth until Adam of Genesis fame, sinned? That is, no plants or animals died till then? I'm asking on the off chance that you decide to answer.

Secondly, this post contradicts what you claimed earlier, wherein "the robust design inherent in organism, is evidence for creation," and The word '"Robust" mean[t] the ability to function properly even in the presence of unforseen problems'; because, it now seems that actually, when you said "robust", you didn't actually mean robust. That in itself raises other questions. However, I'll let you catch-up with the relatively few questions for the sake of clarity which I've asked. Maybe someday you'll get to them.

How you can read what i wrote before that and still make those implications, beats me, well off course actually i shouldn't since an evolutionist is capable of producing an evidence out of nothing and still blame those who can't see the evidence as having less understanding, "Reminds me of a Nairaland Evolutionnist "

That would be based on both these statements:

"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,"

, KAG donn't worry , I pray that in the Name of Jesus Christ , you shall one day bow down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord despite your current, HOT AIR

And if that doesn't happen, where do we go from there?

SysUser:

Your own statement contradicts your position, the mere statement that "something" has an "ability" to function properly in the presence of unforseen problems makes it obvious that it was designed to be able to do so , otherwise , it would have had to died, broken down and never to be heard from again.

No. I pointed out that the vast majority of species have gone extinct basically because of the inability to adapt to unforseen circumstances. That was what contradicted your earlier utterance. I think you've managed to mix up the premises.

For example: those bacteria that you quoted as evidence for evolution, unfortunately for you actually show evidences for creation, simply because those of them that already had the "inbuilt" design to withstand, the presence of poision, simply refused to died because their system was able to withstand such a problem of poison,
On the other hand, those bacteria that did not have the inbuilt mechanism to withstand the poison, simply died out, THEY DID NOT RESURRECT AGAIN TO DEVELOP OR EVOLE THE RESISTANCE TO THE POISON , AS SUCH SINCE THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD, THEY COULD NOT EVEN TELL THEIR OWN KIDS ABOUT THE POISON THAT KILLED THEM, INFACT EVEN THEIR OWN KIDS WOULD STILL DIE FROM THE POISON SIMPLY BECAUSE "LIKE FATHER LIKE SON", THE GENETIC INFORMATION OF THE PARENT IS IN THE CHILD, THUS SINCE THERE WAS NO DORMANT OR ACTIVE "INBUILT" ANTI-POISON MECHANISM IN THE PARENT BACTERIA THERE SIMPLY ALSO IS NO DORMANT OR ACTIVE "INBUILT" ANTI-POISON MECHANISM IN THE BACTERIA'S OFF SPRING.

What the hell are you on about? I haven't mentioned any bacteria in relation to poison designed to kill them. Dude get your head out of your ass and try again. It's clear that after, what? 10 pages? You still don't understand evolution.

tHE ONE THAT HAD THE DESIGN FUNCTIONED, THE ONES THAT DID NOT HAVE THE DESIGN SIMPLY DID OUT,

Hence, we arrive back at the problem of several gods. Why would one god just randomly give some organisms a design that functions to help them survive, but neglect giving others that? How is your idea falsifiable. And again, why isn't that an indication of several gods getting in the act of creation, whereby some competently gave their organisms the "DESIGN", and the incompetents didn't?

How you are able to somehow deceive yourself into thinking that "those bacterias that already died without having the poison adaptation" were then again the ones that became resistant to the poison, beats me, THE BACTERIAS WERE DIFFERENT SIMPLE.



HA, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAG na wa o

If only your god existed, she'd probably be the only one that can save you from the stupidness that ails you. Oh well.

THEORY KILLS. GOD IS NOT A PERSON/ OBJECT /MATTER TO HAVE COME FROM ANYWHERE.
GOD IS SPIRIT. SPIRIT IS NEITHER A MATTER NOR OBJECT. IT IS A MYSTERY BEYOND HUMAN
COMPREHENSION.
GOD IS THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING,THE ALPHA & THE OMEGA, THE ONE & THE ONLY.
WITHOUT GOD NOTHING WAS CREATED. (SPIRIT IS UNDEFINABLE). ALL THOSE THINGS THAT
HAPPENED WERE OCHESTRATED BY GOD.

THEORY KILLS. GOD IS NOT A PERSON/ OBJECT /MATTER TO HAVE COME FROM ANYWHERE.

claiming God didn't come from anywhere is theory in itself. seems ur theory blwos.

GOD IS SPIRIT. SPIRIT IS NEITHER A MATTER NOR OBJECT. IT IS A MYSTERY BEYOND HUMAN
COMPREHENSION.

how did u know god is a spirit if it's a mystery beyond human comprehension. u seem to know a lot about this God for it to be considered a mystery. calling God a spirit kind of contradicts the concept of trinity.

ALL THOSE THINGS THAT
HAPPENED WERE OCHESTRATED BY GOD.

and how do u know this??

No. Wait, so you acknowledge that feather and scales have similar characteristics?

Similar characteristics means nothing more than having a similar raw material or similar design, KAPISH!

, it does not mean they "evolved from each other", STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF,

Even evolutionist admit that their speculation of feathers and scales is more fiction than fact, aba KAG! , YOU MIGHT SOON DESTROY ALL THE AVAILABLE STRAWS AT THE RATE AT WHICH YOU ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO HANG UNTO ANY AVAILABLE STRAW


tHE relative "issue of being made from Keratin", only shows that they had similar raw material, and rather not that by some "miracle of chance" the same design mechanism and design material was repeated in another animal, via a random process of evolutionary bad mutations (since you can't even find any evidence of genetic information increase), that happened millions, millions, millions , of years ago.

So much for your "Random Thingy" of Evolution, the mathematical chance of life occuring by itself out of nothing via simple random chances is basically impossible, talkless of now having the same "design" and material repeated over and over again, in different animals.

It simply shows that the material for feathers and scales are good enough that they were repeated in dinosaurs, reptiles and feathers,


Even a blind man can see that there is no evidence or scientific deduction to proof that that now means either of them evolved from each other, it is said that even you contemporary in imaginative fantasies " evolutionary paleontologist Barbara Stahl" admits as much ", How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis, It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition, " (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350. (emphasis added))

", REPTILE SCALES

The scales that cover reptiles' bodies are totally different from bird feathers. Unlike feathers, scales do not extend under the skin, but are merely a hard layer on the surface of the animal's body. Genetically, biochemically and anatomically, scales bear no resemblance to feathers. This great difference between the two again shows that the scenario of evolution from reptiles to birds is unfounded , " (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_04.html)

[b]A. H. Brush, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut, accepts this reality, although he is himself an evolutionist: "Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different [in feathers and scales]."117 Moreover, Professor Brush examines the protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique among vertebrates."118

There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, Professor Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character distinguishing birds.119 Besides, in reptiles, no epidermal tissue has yet been detected that provides a starting point for bird feathers.120

Many fossils have so far been the subject of "feathered dinosaur" speculation, but detailed study has always disproved it. The prominent ornithologist Alan Feduccia writes the following in an article called "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers":

[i]Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama , as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are.[i] [/b] (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_04.html)

Well , the fantasy club of evolution still rolls on, as a result such an idea like other numerous "stupid" and "foolish" are coming out of the imagination of evolutionist and unfortunately they would still come out from their mind,

Now wonder evolution keeps giving such lies as the "Sinosauropteryx" being a feathered dinosaur, which was later given to be blatant lie,

KAG , true to your type, your blind faith without evidence is to be expected, since believing otherwise means that you suddenly become accountable to your creator (something which you simply don't want either due to fear or otherwise)

It is understandable that everthing would end up being hopeless once you start to admit the existence of your creator , as such your "sometimes vulgar" opposition to the evidence of His creation is understood in the context of you seeking to protect your world view and lifestyle,


Just like feathers and scales , the following are also made from Keratin:

1.Hair
2. Finger Nails
3. Fur
4. Fish Scales
5. Bird Feathers (epidermally derived and made of keratin according to courses.washington.edu/chordate/ 453photos/skin_photos/special_integument2.htm)

Well according to KAg an is theory of evolution by similarity in raw materials, then one should simply conlude that those animals have Hair, Finger Nails, Fur, Fish Scales etc must have evolved from each other since they have "things" on their body which are made from the same related raw material.

Come KAG, you can do better than that,


Keratin is simply a very good raw material (nothing more nothing less), KAG STOP TRYING TO DECEIVE YOURSELF INTO THINKING THAT 2 + 2 = 5.

Don't let your personal desires to eliminate God from the equation make you "swallow every speculative nonsense hook line and sinker",

By the way here is a little info for you during the process of rumination:

"Keratins are a family of fibrous structural proteins; tough and insoluble, they form the hard but nonmineralized structures found in reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals. They are rivaled as biological materials in toughness only by chitin."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keratin)

All this talk about Scales evolving from feathers or vice versa are just speculative desperation of evolutionist to desperately look for evidence since they have non,
-----------------

I haven't seen any.

Then open your eyes and mind wide, they are there!

Funnier that Lucy had enough skeletal structure for a reconstruction, and funny she's not the only remains of australopithecus to have been found.

hmm, another sidetracking by KAG,

Its likewise funny that toes were given to Lucy even though I would love you to prove to me that toes were found , and she was given a human posture even though the bones found give little or no deduction to having had a "human stance",

Funny to note that some of her "so called bones were found" very far apart, that the prove of the relationship between those bones are practically non existence except in the mind and imagination of an evolutionist.

KAG let me ask you a very simple question,

How is fossil skeleton reconstruction done,

Who is responsible for making the final decision on the reconstruction,

Is there only one possible reconstruction for a particular set of bones,

Why is it the certain fossils are taking off exhibitions due to errors found in their reconstruction,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the fossil skeleton tell the observer:
1 what the kind of skin was
2, what the kind of diet was
3, whether or not the fossil was sterile or not,
4. So can you please tell me , that you can prove that a fossil skeleton gave birth to an evolved animal or that it even gave birth at all

If people living today could be sterile , please kindly let me know how you came to so sure as to know that the dead animal whose skeleton evolution are "misinterpreting" could possibly not have being sterile talkless of it even giving birth to another "evolved animal"

By the way , , KAg was it Jumping Dinosaur that evolved into a bird or was it a falling dinosaur or at what stage did the dinosaur eggs start hatching to produce dinosaurs that could fly, "KAG believes they can fly,, KAg believes they can Fly, lyyyyyy "

I am interested to know how many iterations the dinosaurs went through before they started flying, then correlate that with supposedly contradictory evidence of the oldest bird via evolution, YOUR LOGIC PROCESS, MAKES ME LAUGH

A classic example Chicken and Egg problem, don't you think
------------------------

[quote]And if that doesn't happen, where do we go from there?

After Death then Judgement!,

No to Christ = Not being found in the book of life = Being recommended for Lake of Fire (Second Death)

[/quote]

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

I haven't seen any.

Then open your eyes and mind wide, they are there!

Funnier that Lucy had enough skeletal structure for a reconstruction, and funny she's not the only remains of australopithecus to have been found.

hmm, another sidetracking by KAG,

Its likewise funny that toes were given to Lucy even though I would love you to prove to me that toes were found , and she was given a human posture even though the bones found give little or no  deduction to having had a "human stance",

Funny to note that some of her "so called bones were found" very far apart, that the prove of the relationship between those bones are practically non existence except in the mind and imagination of an evolutionist.

KAG let me ask you a very simple question,

How is fossil skeleton reconstruction done,

Who is responsible for making the final decision on the reconstruction,

Is there only one possible reconstruction for a particular set of bones,

Why is it the certain fossils are taking off exhibitions due to errors found in their reconstruction,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the fossil skeleton tell the observer:
1 what the kind of skin was
2, what the kind of diet was
3, whether or not the fossil was sterile or not,
4. So can you please tell me , that you can prove that a fossil skeleton gave birth to an evolved animal or that it even gave birth at all

If people living today could be sterile , please kindly let me know how you came to so sure as to know that the dead animal whose skeleton evolution are "misinterpreting" could possibly not have being sterile talkless of it even giving birth to another "evolved animal"

By the way , , KAg was it Jumping Dinosaur that evolved into a bird or was it a falling dinosaur or at what stage did the dinosaur eggs start hatching to produce dinosaurs that could fly, "KAG believes they can fly,, KAg believes they can Fly, lyyyyyy "

I am interested to know how many iterations the dinosaurs went through before they started flying, then correlate that with supposedly contradictory evidence of the oldest bird via evolution, YOUR LOGIC PROCESS, MAKES ME LAUGH

A classic example Chicken and Egg problem, don't you think
------------------------

And if that doesn't happen, where do we go from there?

After Death then Judgement!,

No to Christ = Not being found in the book of life = Being recommended for Lake of Fire (Second Death)

Take the scenario of the Glass on the Table

You enter a room with a glass on the table
You ask whoever you see in the room

"who put this glass on the table"

The person could answer in two ways

"The glass just appeared!" or

"Someone brought the glass in"

PLease which one are you likely to believe
even if the person you asked dosnt know who brought it in?

Simple reasoning

Dont fry your brain over nothing

Accept God who is Alpha and Omega
Knowing where He came from will not add anything to you.
You will keep drowning in the sea of unbelief

SysUser:

Similar characteristics means nothing more than having a similar raw material or similar design, KAPISH!

, it does not mean they "evolved from each other", STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF,

Is your contention that the similarity between scales and feathers is due to a similar design by a similar designer?

Even evolutionist admit that their speculation of feathers and scales is more fiction than fact, aba KAG! , YOU MIGHT SOON DESTROY ALL THE AVAILABLE STRAWS AT THE RATE AT WHICH YOU ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO HANG UNTO ANY AVAILABLE STRAW

Except it isn't.

tHE relative "issue of being made from Keratin", only shows that they had similar raw material, and rather not that by some "miracle of chance" the same design mechanism and design material was repeated in another animal, via a random process of evolutionary bad mutations

Evolution isn't a "miracle of chance" There are plenty of occuring beneficial mutations within populations in species.

(since you can't even find any evidence of genetic information increase), that happened millions, millions, millions , of years ago.

I posted these here

Apo-AIM: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
Nylon degradation bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

I also provided this here on more than one occasion:

Here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15972001&postcount=31 Pete Harcoff, does an estimation of beneficial mutation rates and shows that the rate isn't a problem. That is applicable to the shared ancestry of humans and chimps.

"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."

So much for your "Random Thingy" of Evolution, the mathematical chance of life occuring by itself out of nothing via simple random chances is basically impossible, talkless of now having the same "design" and material repeated over and over again, in different animals.

Processes in Abiogenesis aren't chance either. Repetition in "design" occurs all the time. In this instance though, it wasn't a repetition bu a continuation of sorts.

It simply shows that the material for feathers and scales are good enough that they were repeated in dinosaurs, reptiles and feathers,

Yes, that's how evolution works.

Even a blind man can see that there is no evidence or scientific deduction to proof that that now means either of them evolved from each other,

[quote mine snipped]

You mean other than the fact that they are present in a unique combination in species within a nested heirarchy? So how do you explain the dinosaurs with feathers? Magic?

Now wonder evolution keeps giving such lies as the "Sinosauropteryx" being a feathered dinosaur, which was later given to be blatant lie,

Wait, what about Sinosauropteryx was "later given to be a blatant lie"? This ought to be good.

KAG , true to your type, your blind faith without evidence is to be expected, since believing otherwise means that you suddenly become accountable to your creator (something which you simply don't want either due to fear or otherwise)

Yeah, that's what it's got to be. It couldn't possibly because of the evidence I've seen. Oh no, it's got to be because I couldn't be a non-theist without it - oh wait, no it isn't I was already a non-theist before knowing anything about evolution. Doh!

By the way, 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.

It is understandable that everthing would end up being hopeless once you start to admit the existence of your creator , as such your "sometimes vulgar" opposition to the evidence of His creation is understood in the context of you seeking to protect your world view and lifestyle,

Stop deflecting and projecting. It's becoming unbecoming.

Just like feathers and scales , the following are also made from Keratin:

1.Hair
2. Finger Nails
3. Fur
4. Fish Scales
5. Bird Feathers (epidermally derived and made of keratin according to courses.washington.edu/chordate/ 453photos/skin_photos/special_integument2.htm)

Well according to KAg an is theory of evolution by similarity in raw materials, then one should simply conlude that those animals have Hair, Finger Nails, Fur, Fish Scales etc must have evolved from each other since they have "things" on their body which are made from the same related raw material.

Um, no, according to the theory of evoluton animals with those features share common ancestors.

[snip]

All this talk about Scales evolving from feathers or vice versa are just speculative desperation of evolutionist to desperately look for evidence since they have non,
-----------------

It's the reverse.

Then open your eyes and mind wide, they are there!

After Death then Judgement!,

No to Christ = Not being found in the book of life = Being recommended for Lake of Fire (Second Death)

Which would mean your prayer didn't work. I guess score one for the "does prayer work" thread.

SysUser:

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

Then open your eyes and mind wide, they are there!

hmm, another sidetracking by KAG,

How so? I addressed your claim head on. I know that concept is hard for you to come to terms with, but I don't duck and weave from pertinent questions. Incidentally, since you mentioned sidetracking, how many different topics have you started begun as soon as one gets an answer?

Its likewise funny that toes were given to Lucy even though I would love you to prove to me that toes were found ,

See picture of Lucy here: http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ See Jack run.

and she was given a human posture even though the bones found give little or no deduction to having had a "human stance",

No, she was given a bipedal posture because the bones did give that indication. Hint: look at the pelvic bone.

Funny to note that some of her "so called bones were found" very far apart, that the prove of the relationship between those bones are practically non existence except in the mind and imagination of an evolutionist.

What do you by they were found "very far apart"?

KAG let me ask you a very simple question,

How is fossil skeleton reconstruction done,

Who is responsible for making the final decision on the reconstruction,

Is there only one possible reconstruction for a particular set of bones,

Why is it the certain fossils are taking off exhibitions due to errors found in their reconstruction,

First, fossil reconstruction is done from the available skeletal remains and what can be gathered from them. So, for instance, the skull of a particular hominid can indicate, because of the shape of the portion the spine would have attached to, the type of ear properties it has, etc, what type of hominid stance it had. That, however, is usually cursory. Rebuilding usually requires the skeletal remains of more than one fossil from the same general background.

Second, paleontologists and their ilk do the reconstruction. Peer-review also helps in the process.

Third, yes, most bones only fit in particular ways. You can try fitting a skull to the ulna, but the rest of your peers will just brand you either a joker or a ignorant nut.

Finally, could you be more specific?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the fossil skeleton tell the observer:
1 what the kind of skin was
2, what the kind of diet was
3, whether or not the fossil was sterile or not,
4. So can you please tell me , that you can prove that a fossil skeleton gave birth to an evolved animal or that it even gave birth at all

First, it depends on what remains are found and where they are found.

Second, sometimes, yes.

Third, of course not.

Finally, most times, no. In a few cases, where the fossilised remains show the parent protecting the offspring, yes. Evolution isn't a generational game.

If people living today could be sterile , please kindly let me know how you came to so sure as to know that the dead animal whose skeleton evolution are "misinterpreting" could possibly not have being sterile talkless of it even giving birth to another "evolved animal"

Oh dear! Another gross misconception. It's irrelevant whether the fossilised animal was sterile or not. It still remains a model of what its species must have looked like.

By the way , , KAg was it Jumping Dinosaur that evolved into a bird or was it a falling dinosaur or at what stage did the dinosaur eggs start hatching to produce dinosaurs that could fly, "KAG believes they can fly,, KAg believes they can Fly, lyyyyyy "

Are you serious?

I am interested to know how many iterations the dinosaurs went through before they started flying, then correlate that with supposedly contradictory evidence of the oldest bird via evolution, YOUR LOGIC PROCESS, MAKES ME LAUGH

No, are you really serious? I'll make you a deal. You tell me, specifying which applies to which, what differentiates dinosaurs and birds, and I'll tell you.

A classic example Chicken and Egg problem, don't you think
------------------------

No.

After Death then Judgement!,

No to Christ = Not being found in the book of life = Being recommended for Lake of Fire (Second Death)

Yeah, I got that.

You enter a room with a glass on the table
You ask whoever you see in the room

"who put this glass on the table"

The person could answer in two ways

"The glass just appeared!" or

"Someone brought the glass in"

PLease which one are you likely to believe
even if the person you asked dosnt know who brought it in?

the problem with this analogy is that the glass can be seen, while God can't be seen. the glass isn't abstract.

The problem with you is understanding

The Glass is not God

The Glass represents the Created things

Having pelvic bone might be an indication of being bipedal, Yet it does not indicate the fossil was ever human or related to human, ape, gorilla, are also bipedal!

Your reply shows that u never knew that the bones called lucy's bones where not found in the same place but infact were found very far apart, as such even scientific community knows there is no proof the bones are for the same specimen! (Let me give you an assignment of finding that out!, )

Take time to update yourself about the fallacies of Pekking Man, Java Man, Lucy , even KAG Man etc , then you see why what I am telling you fact and why ur statements is mere spirited rants and

KAG , think outside the box, if you do, you will see that most of what you are touting about evolution is so full of holes, even a basket looks solid compared to it!.

Your faith in evolution as an atheist, is understandable since that is the only choice and way to go!

By the way, u say I should ignore what has been said in previous pages , well I would not ignore them not simply because they contain answer to your hot air evidences , I am not suprised that u refuse to acknowledge them (your high geniusness off course) since acknowledging them would amount to losing ground as an atheist.

KAG evolution is a pack of cards that have started falling apart, it would continue to fall apart with or without u.

Come back when u have a real fact to discuss!

Your statement sounds like u are looking for seal of approval and logical agreement for your journey into the neverland of evolution.

Yet u are putting up a facade of being against God based on a faulty logic and subjective theories yet those science itself shots them down for lack of merit, your reasons for that

Your mix up of the underlying difference between plate tectonics and pangea's continental drift, makes evident your seeming indifference to observable scientific facts that contradict evolution.

You vehemently and desperately try to limit discussions about evolution to just biological evolution, yet your high geniusness fails to see that cosmic evolution , geologic evolution and biological evolution are just pieces of the pack of cards of evolution which are thus linked together.

Yet u show a facade of not seeing why pangea, spontaneous generation , magnetic reversals , dino-bird , dating errors (which ever one), archaeopteyrx, are just one of the shaky foundations of evolution.

You yourself give speculative answers riddled with words similar to "can" "might" "could" ,"possible" in the bid to present an unprovable theory as evidence for evolution since no physical evidence is forthcoming, yet u take speculative statements to be immutable facts upon which creation is disproved.

Yet even contrary explanations to yours show that beign creation evidence is more logical from a scientific point of view to the "long long long time ago, " approach of evolution, Please!.

Its funny evolution happened then when we could not observe it , yet it does not occur now when we have engineering/scientific equipments to observe it,

SysUser:

Having pelvic bone might be an indication of being bipedal, Yet it does not indicate the fossil was ever human or related to human, ape, gorilla, are also bipedal!

First, glad to see that you now acept it was bipedal. No, that isn't just an indication that it's the remains of possible human related ancestor: the skull, and other hominid features serve as indication mostly.

Gorillas are not bipedal.

Your reply shows that u never knew that the bones called lucy's bones where not found in the same place but infact were found very far apart, as such even scientific community knows there is no proof the bones are for the same specimen! (Let me give you an assignment of finding that out!, )

Um, no, that wasn't what I asked. I asked "what do you by they were found "very far apart"? I know about the findings; I am curious to know what you consider "very far apart", though.

Take time to update yourself about the fallacies of Pekking Man, Java Man, Lucy ,

What is fallacious about them? I wont .hold my breath waiting for a cogent reply, though, considering that the one of the three that you've focused on, you still haven't made any inroads towards falsifying it.

even KAG Man etc ,

No fossilised remains of hominids bears that name.

then you see why what I am telling you fact and why your statements is mere spirited rants and

KAG , think outside the box, if you do, you will see that most of what you are touting about evolution is so full of holes, even a basket looks solid compared to it!.

Your faith in evolution as an atheist, is understandable since that is the only choice and way to go!

My challenge still stands. Falsify shared endoegenous retroviruses as evidence for evolution.

By the way, u say I should ignore what has been said in previous pages , well I would not ignore them not simply because they contain answer to your hot air evidences , I am not suprised that u refuse to acknowledge them (your high geniusness off course) since acknowledging them would amount to losing ground as an atheist.

No, you retard, I was giving you the best opportunity to show that evolution really has no scientific evidence. The point being, let's pretend there is only one evidence - erv's - and ignore the other ones I've both given and exist out there.

" 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."

KAG evolution is a pack of cards that have started falling apart, it would continue to fall apart with or without u.

LOL.

Come back when u have a real fact to discuss!

Double Lol. Did you look at a mirror just before you typed that?

SysUser:

Your statement sounds like u are looking for seal of approval and logical agreement for your journey into the neverland of evolution.

What statement would that be?

Yet u are putting up a facade of being against God based on a faulty logic and subjective theories yet those science itself shots them down for lack of merit, your reasons for that

?

Your mix up of the underlying difference between plate tectonics and pangea's continental drift, makes evident your seeming indifference to observable scientific facts that contradict evolution.

Ha ha ha. When and where exactly did I mix up the difference between plate tectonics and continental drift? Don't tell me that at this point you still don't understand plate tectonics, continental drift, and Pangea. Dude!

You vehemently and desperately try to limit discussions about evolution to just biological evolution, yet your high geniusness fails to see that cosmic evolution , geologic evolution and biological evolution are just pieces of the pack of cards of evolution which are thus linked together.

Lol. I really can't stop laughing. Seriously. Wait, I try to limit discussions to just biological evolution, but, yet, I've spent the entire thread discussing practically all the other theories you brought up? Wow, that's some avoidance. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, it would seem that you and your kind some how believe that appropriating the different theories to their field of study is synonymous with reluctance to discuss.

Look back through the thread, dum dum, and you'll find that I've touched on the majority of what you've brought up.

Yet u show a facade of not seeing why pangea, spontaneous generation , magnetic reversals , dino-bird , dating errors (which ever one), archaeopteyrx, are just one of the shaky foundations of evolution.

Then put up or shut up. After each successful rebuttal I and others provide, you simply skip on to a new topic. By the way, I'm not just still waiting for you to show why archaeopteryx, which you claim is "just a bird", has dinosaur features; I'm also waiting for what you think are the differences between dinosaurs and birds.

P.s. If you feel inclined to revisit any of the things you've mentioned previously, just do what you've always done: ignore all previous discussions (and I use discussion very loosely here) and answers, and just start a new "ah ha, you evolutionists can't explain this one" topic.

You yourself give speculative answers riddled with words similar to "can" "might" "could" ,"possible" in the bid to present an unprovable theory as evidence for evolution since no physical evidence is forthcoming, yet u take speculative statements to be immutable facts upon which creation is disproved.

No, in a bid to avoid dogmatism. No, you're free to falsify them at anytime of your choosing. That, if nothing else, shows I don't consider them to be immutable.

Yet even contrary explanations to yours show that beign creation evidence is more logical from a scientific point of view to the "long long long time ago, " approach of evolution, Please!.

No.

Its funny evolution happened then when we could not observe it , yet it does not occur now when we have engineering/scientific equipments to observe it,

Observed speciation, genetics, etc, say you're wrong. Try again, Terry.

You retard

young aardvark

Good to see you've not lost the touch for the profane, Did I strike a cord in your conscience or something! Haha!

By the way I have given you reasons and why explanation why you examples and evidences are as "close to dancing in the street naked" as possible!
Yet you choose to repeat the same mantra over and over again.

By the I don't agree that Lucy was bipedal, I am just assuming that "assuming the pelvic bone attributed to her was actually truthfully hers, then she might have been a bipedal ape, "
Go and do the assignment I gave you and find out how far apart lucy bones were and why there is contention that, about their being from the same organism.Then report back to me to grade you on your effort!

About pekking man, java man , lucy ,your statement shows you don't know enough about them to know that they have been discredited. This is made obvious in how your dogmatic knowledge about them and desperation to present any example makes you offer non existent proof of their viability .
Even individuals obviously smarter than you find lucy, pekking man, java man as embarrasment to the desperate but drowning world of evolution.
You blind faith and repetition of mostly answered question , only shows you out for who you are, a desperate atheist who is seeking every means to justify his faith by every possible means (outright deceit, feigned ignorance, vulgarity, dogmatic but non scientific evidences)

I agree that Gorilla's are not entirely bipedal that was a bad example on my path,

KAG, throw your toys out of prawn for all you like , your so called evidences still don't stand up to scientific and pragmatic scrutiny.

Even the scientific community knows that are Archaeopteryx was a bird and not a prehistoric reptile-bird.
Assymetric feather(like present flying birds), Wing Claw (like modern bird known as "Haotzin" are one of the features of this extinct bird.
So can you thus show me your reptilian features of Archaeopteryx that makes you go hmm!

It funny that after the amount of fossil bones found in existence the only transitionals found are those disproved by science or those shown as mere fraud of money makers. We should practically be tripping over transitional fossils, yet the best transitional evidences evolution and KAG can offer are those that exist only in the "could" "may" "might" world of their mind.

Discussing the fallacy of pangea and continental drift and why they were replaced by plate tectonics is probably going to a waste of bandwidth, since you are obviously as dogmatic as possible. Your utterances show that simply can't see how plate tectonics destroys pangea and thus destroys a few foundation of evolution (the distribution of organisms) as proposed by pangea.

Its also funny that the location of fossil bones do not match the predicted nonsense of geologic column,

As far as the bible is concered , what u see is what you get,

Death came by Adam

Evolution is not science and never would be , whether or not KAG agrees or not,

How sad you've spent so much time trying to pass yourself of as having a basic knowledge of what you believe in, yet your defense shows that you are not to thinking outside the box! , but instead you are regurgitating what you have been feed .
You resort to vitriol as a means of covering your behind, THAT IS UNDERSTAND! , cus you doing otherwise would be unatheistical of you.

Even Anthony Flew who I want to believe is smarter than your geniuosness, had to denounce atheism and accept that the evidence points to the existence of a creator.

Your faith as an evolutionist without the lack of evidence might even make a Christian blush at his/her own lack of required faith,

KAG STOP THE RANT

bawomol:
u are right, either God is the beginning(it's your job to explain why) or time is infinite and [b]matter arise from nowhere [/b]without the input of an interventionist God.

God is the uncaused Cause. God created matter out of nothing.

bawomol:
u have no justification for your assumptions about the origin of god.

There is no assumption about the origin of God. He has no origin. He is being itself.
Your low level science cannot understand this, in the same way it has not understood God's universe. Nor will it ever understand God's universe.

KAG your spirited but unscientific desperation to defend evolution by all possible means is now starting to start boring,

please change the flavour of your approach, you are starting to bore me to death with your excrutiating MANTRA

Here goes another evolutionary, HOT AIR

The creatures lived at a time when land bridges connected Africa to India and even Antarctica, which was then a temperate home to dinosaurs. But Africa later became isolated and its dinosaurs followed unique evolutionary paths scientists have just begun to uncover.

Sounds like someone is still using the discredited PANGEA , ,


Sounds, the fossil evidence is being interpreted to mean what the evolutionist wants it to mean , the fossil itself does not give any other information apart from the fact that its dead and buried,


Question: How did they know, when and where the creatures lived,

Answer: They don't.

Question: Then What,


Answer: they just know where the bones of the creatures were buried, that is all

Question: So how did they arrive at their dates giving the problems of circular reasoning of geologic column dating and absolute dating ,

Answer: well they just choose a date that agrees with their preconceived idea based on assuming that the geologic column is correct which numerous evidences as shown that its not, and , for which inherently faulty radioactive dating that simply cannot give any dates less than millions of years (except of course the even more suspicious Carbon Dating)[/b]

USUALL SPECULATIVE AND SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF FOSSIL BY EVOLUTIONIST SO AS TO CONFORM TO ALREADY PRE-PLAN DATES AND TIMELINE,

Question: How come a Panda has the dentiture of a carnivore and yet still is a vegetarian, doesn't that do against the speculation of dogmatically attributing sharp teeth with being a meat-eater.

Answer: that is obviously a very good example, which I off course expect evolutionists to explain away in their usual , CASTLE IN THE SKY MANNER,

Question: Do you mean that the fossil can be found in a location and yet still not have lived there nor died at the location at which it was found

Answer: Yep, that's exactly what I mean,


Question: How is that possible

Answer: Let us use the example of Hurricane Katrina, The torrential rain and flood can easily kill people in one location and transfer them to deposit their dead bodies (under a lot of debris) at great distances as far as a few kilometres from the original site where the bodies had actually died. Yet anyone who finds the dead bodies later on might erroneously try to interprete the "possible" lifestyle of such bodies based on the where the dead body was found, yet there was no proof that the dead body actually died at the spot at which it was found. Even Police Homicide know enough today to know that the presence of a body at a location is not enough evidence to proof the location of death of such a body, all it proves is the location at which the dead body was found.

Now imagine a World wide flood (Noah's Flood, ) for which there is evidence of the location of Noah's Ark, around the location that the bible as clearly stated. Such a catastrophic flood would easily be able to move a material through hundreds of kilometres (if the mere Hurrican Katrina is violent enough to ) . Since the flood virtually covered each and every hill during Noah's time, , any dead animal killed by the flood could have easily have been transported and deposited (via the flood water) to anywhere in the world and thus buried under the amount of silt and debris that would have acrued from such a period.

Question: Thank you for the brief interview.

Answer: The pleasure is mine,

Observed speciation, genetics, etc, say you're wrong. Try again, Terry.

Which genetics and speciation, come on you possibly still can't be talking about the ones for which there is no evidence of actually observable increase in genetic information.

KAG I am not asking you about wether or not mutations occur,, I am simply asking you for observable increase in genetic information, not mere incidences of genetic mutation that result in loss of genetic information.

Maybe you have a pet terrier, who , evolved from one of your laboratory tested beneficial mutations,

SysUser:

No, you retard, I was giving you the best opportunity to show that evolution really has no scientific evidence. The point being, let's pretend there is only one evidence - erv's - and ignore the other ones I've both given and exist out there.

" 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."

Good to see you've not lost the touch for the profane, Did I strike a cord in your conscience or something! Haha!

I think you mean: "did I strike a nerve etc?" No, you neither struck a nerve nor a cord.

By the way I have given you reasons and why explanation why you examples and evidences are as "close to dancing in the street naked" as possible!
Yet you choose to repeat the same mantra over and over again.

No, you haven't. Considering I've responded to almost every topic you've raised, you're telling obvious porkies.

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 I don't agree that Lucy was bipedal, I am just assuming that "assuming the pelvic bone attributed to her was actually truthfully hers, then she might have been a bipedal ape, "

She was a bipedal ape. If the pelvic bone didn't belong to the hominid classified as Lucy, then to what did it belong?

Go and do the assignment I gave you and find out how far apart lucy bones were and why there is contention that, about their being from the same organism.Then report back to me to grade you on your effort!

Again, dum dum, I know the location of where her bones were found. You, however, claimed they were "very far apart". I'm asking you to quantify and justify that claim. It's not that difficult.

About pekking man, java man , lucy ,your statement shows you don't know enough about them to know that they have been discredited. This is made obvious in how your dogmatic knowledge about them and desperation to present any example makes you offer non existent proof of their viability .

Even individuals obviously smarter than you find lucy, pekking man, java man as embarrasment to the desperate but drowning world of evolution.

LoL. When and where did this discrediting happen? Hey, guess who called what would happen? C'est moi.

From my penultimate previous post:

"What is fallacious about them? I wont .hold my breath waiting for a cogent reply, though, considering that the one of the three that you've focused on, you still haven't made any inroads towards falsifying it."

With my newfoud prophetic powers, maybe I should start charging people to hear their future.

You blind faith and repetition of mostly answered question , only shows you out for who you are, a desperate atheist who is seeking every means to justify his faith by every possible means (outright deceit, feigned ignorance, vulgarity, dogmatic but non scientific evidences)

At some point you'll see this: Let's pretend only one evidence exists for the theory of evolution: Shared ERVs.

" 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."

I agree that Gorilla's are not entirely bipedal that was a bad example on my path,

Still not quite, but, yeah whatever.

KAG, throw your toys out of prawn for all you like , your so called evidences still don't stand up to scientific and pragmatic scrutiny.

Out of what? Prawn? The Bleep? In any case:

" 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."

Even the scientific community knows that are Archaeopteryx was a bird and not a prehistoric reptile-bird.
Assymetric feather(like present flying birds), Wing Claw (like modern bird known as "Haotzin" are one of the features of this extinct bird.
So can you thus show me your reptilian features of Archaeopteryx that makes you go hmm!

Posted previously here and here

Dinosaurean features:

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.

Coupled with the challenge of specifically stating what differentiates a dinosaur from a bird.

It funny that after the amount of fossil bones found in existence the only transitionals found are those disproved by science or those shown as mere fraud of money makers. We should practically be tripping over transitional fossils, yet the best transitional evidences evolution and KAG can offer are those that exist only in the "could" "may" "might" world of their mind.

Archie [/b]is still staring straight at you wondering when you're gonna stop making baby Jesus cry. [b]Turkana boy says, hey, Jude, why hast thou forsaken me.

Discussing the fallacy of pangea and continental drift and why they were replaced by plate tectonics is probably going to a waste of bandwidth, since you are obviously as dogmatic as possible. Your utterances show that simply can't see how plate tectonics destroys pangea and thus destroys a few foundation of evolution (the distribution of organisms) as proposed by pangea.

Lol. Of course it's going to waste bandwidth. Ha ha. How many page s ago was it that I asked you to tell me how plate tectonics "destroys" pangea? Lol, what an ass.

Its also funny that the location of fossil bones do not match the predicted nonsense of geologic column,

What fossil bones?

As far as the bible is concered , what u see is what you get,

Death came by Adam

Physical death? Are you claiming that no plants, bacteria or animals died before a physical Adam sinned?

Evolution is not science and never would be , whether or not KAG agrees or not,

" 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."

[snipped what may very well be considered a rant]

KAG STOP THE RANT

You really, really need to readup on deflection and psychological projection.

SysUser:

Which genetics and speciation, come on you possibly still can't be talking about the ones for which there is no evidence of actually observable increase in genetic information.

In the case of genetics I'll repeat the two examples I've previously given:

The presence of chromosome no.2 in humans.

The incidence of shared endogenous retroviral insertions between humans and other apes, in a heirarchial fashion

For speciation, again I'll repeat examples:

Speciation by hybridising peonies. Speciation in elephants. I'm not certain, but I may have provided links for them in a previous post.

KAG I am not asking you about wether or not mutations occur,, I am simply asking you for observable increase in genetic information, not mere incidences of genetic mutation that result in loss of genetic information.

I've given examples of both mutations and an estimation of beneficial mutation rates particular to humans. I'll repeat them here, once again:


I posted these here

Apo-AIM: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html
Nylon degradation bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

I also provided this here on more than one occasion:

Here: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15972001&postcount=31 Pete Harcoff, does an estimation of beneficial mutation rates and shows that the rate isn't a problem. That is applicable to the shared ancestry of humans and chimps.

"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."

(scorch

Maybe you have a pet terrier, who , evolved from one of your laboratory tested beneficial mutations,

That's gotta be it.

Gamine:

Take the scenario of the Glass on the Table

You enter a room with a glass on the table
You ask whoever you see in the room

"who put this glass on the table"

The person could answer in two ways

"The glass just appeared!" or

"Someone brought the glass in"

PLease which one are you likely to believe
even if the person you asked dosnt know who brought it in?

Simple reasoning

Dont fry your brain over nothing

In my opinion, your analogy suffers from several flaws, most notable of which is the fact that not only is disbelief of the person't story based on one's experience with glass and water, but also because the person's response isn't parsimonious. Our conception of planetary bodies and life, however, differs from that. There exist parsimonious, naturalistic explanations for things observed and even our limited experience doesn't point to any transcendent one bringing in a earth or organism.

In truth, one could argue that "the glass just appeared" aspect of your analogy is more synonymous with the notion of supernatural Creation, wherein an invisible, empirically unevidencable being just made things just appear.

Accept God who is Alpha and Omega
Knowing where He came from will not add anything to you.
You will keep drowning in the sea of unbelief

Why yours above others?

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

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

[b]
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
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.


Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus . The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man):
Homo erectus 'S SAILING CULTURE "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" According to this article in the March 14, 1998, issue of New Scientist, the people that evolutionists call Homo erectus were sailing 700,000 years ago. It is impossible, of course, to think of people who possessed the knowledge, technology and culture to go sailing as primitive.


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.200

It is now a more pronounced fact in the scientific community that Homo erectus is a superfluous taxon, and that fossils assigned to the Homo erectus class are actually not so different from Homo sapiens as to be considered a different species. In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way:

Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.201

The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens , but rather a race within Homo sapiens ." On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus , a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus , Homo Habilis , and Homo rudolfensis ). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history.



197 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992, p. 83.
198 Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11.
199 Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116.
200 Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992. p. 136.
201 Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491

[/b]

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

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

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