Anyway, for the rest of your rubbish , here are some pretty pictures for you to admire, and hopefully realise where you went wrong.

stumptail macaque (a monkey)

OK I am big enof to modify my position. I asked for an intermidiate for and u gave it to me. Cool.
But the mutant boy with the extra vertebra. What is the point of that?

Anyway, few can argue about the plausibility of th ToE in explaining some aspects of life. Also natural selection is an evident force. But it still cannot provide an adequate explanation for all the phenomena we see. Just like Newtonian physics alone cannot explain light or energy or matter for that matter.

There is still no plausible explanation for the origins of DNA.
As much as i hate to quote people like Behe he did raise a valid point about the irreducable complexity of some structures, like the bacterial flagelum. ToE cannot explain its way around this particular organell

Living bacteria with traits that are closely similar to the fossilised bacteria were tested.

My point exactly. Doesnt that suggest that these organism have stayed the same for eons? Like reproduces like even after a billion generations.

and this is still unanswered

The  issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,?

It may very well fall under abiogenesis, especially as it is likely the first population with that ability, were not what we would call “alive”.

That is total bollox. Unfounded, speculative and wouldnt stand up in a decent court.
Scientists are more religious about this ToE thing than the creationists themselves. I remember reading a quote by a nobel laurate that we must keep reminding ourselves that the things we observe are not due to design but chance.( i am sure KAG with his superior powers of research can provide us with the exact quotation). Every explanation but intelligence is considered scientific . Why? Cos it just cannot be scientific to consider that order came from a greater order. Order must come from disorder.

Here’s a completely novel idea, which most people usually tend to glean for themselves, “common ancestry”. Descendants of the common ancestors, who most likely had that trait, still have those traits. You do know ubiquitous traits, are actually evidence for common ancestry, yes?

Here is a completely novel idea, all models of BMWs have the "kidney" grill. Maybe the design feature was kept by by the designer as he refined the model? That would be a thought wouldnt it. Maybe life itself was designed to lead up to something, an ideal life form. That thing being perfected slowly but surely over time by a cognate force?

Another thought, it is easy to infer evolution by showing pictures of monkeys and man. But how do u account for reptile to bird? archeoptera to aves. scale to feathers. cold to warm blooded? What mode of natural selection preserves a scale, fraying and forming the complex aerodynamic structure that is a fearther? Another thought, i am not sure but i think archeopthera were supposed to be the ancestors of modern birds? But i also think they got extinct around the same time as most dinosaurs, which is some time b4 the first feathered, flighted birds apeared. How do u explain this assuming of course i am correct?

And sorry about the mitochondria, nferyn mentioned that not u

Looks like someone forgot their meds today

Do you know what a vestige means, or are you just trying to show beyond any reasonable doubt, what a rambling buffoon you are?

He says, without any hint of ever noticing the irony; the irony is either strong with you, or you are an idiot. I’m leaning towards the latter.

Guy, what is with the name calling? Are you really so uncouth and unmannered or are you just pretending?.
Stick to the issues, if i am too stupid to argue with, then stop posting, but by all means stop the cheap insults.

xkape:

OK I am big enof to modify my position. I asked for an intermidiate for and u gave it to me. Cool.
But the mutant boy with the extra vertebra. What is the point of that?

I commend you for that, although I’d hardly call them intermediates. The girl (I think it’s a girl), was just an easy way of showing an ape with a tail. Vestiges and the human body are fun, aren’t they?

Anyway, few can argue about the plausibility of th ToE in explaining some aspects of life. Also natural selection is an evident force. But it still cannot provide an adequate explanation for all the phenomena we see. Just like Newtonian physics alone cannot explain light or energy or matter for that matter.

Actually it explains the origin and subsequent changes of species rather adequately. It may not have falsifiable theories for questions like, “how did laughter evolve”, but overall it’s got pretty good answers, and may get more with time.

There is still no plausible explanation for the origins of DNA.
As much as i hate to quote people like Behe he did raise a valid point about the irreducable complexity of some structures, like the bacterial flagelum. ToE cannot explain its way around this particular organell

Actually, there are plausible explanations for the origin of DNA. One really good hypothesis: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys7450/phys7450_sp05/downloads/tripletcode.pdf.

Also, Behe’s "irreducible complexity" argument has been beaten to death several times, especially the flagellum; the ToE – especially Ken Miller - has explained how it may have formed:
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html (read the references for more)

Also, Ken Miller’s (I read it a good while ago, hopefully nothing has changed): http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

My point exactly. Doesnt that suggest that these organism have stayed the same for eons? Like reproduces like even after a billion generations.

Probably not exactly the same, semantics perhaps, but a fair distinction. In any case, why is the fact they are relatively unchanged a problem?

and this is still unanswered
The issue is, however the food of organisms is derived, the mechanism for converting that food to energy is basically the same and has remained so over eons. Meaning the first life forms must have had an inherent ability to produce there own energy. How did this develop,?

I think my response was I had no idea. I still haven’t got a clue.

That is total bollox. Unfounded, speculative and wouldnt stand up in a decent court.

It really isn’t. Like I said I don’t know how it may have happened, so it’s likely it may fall under abiogenesis, if the first organism with that ability wasn’t “alive”. It may fall under evolution too, I wouldn’t know.

Scientists are more religious about this ToE thing than the creationists themselves.

Actually most scientists aren’t that dogmatic about the ToE, if evolution became falsified tomorrow, most would leave it for a better theory (as long as the new theory adequately explains the old data, and how they could have been wrongly interpreted), Dogma has no place in science.

I remember reading a quote by a nobel laurate that we must keep reminding ourselves that the things we observe are not due to design but chance.( i am sure KAG with his superior powers of research can provide us with the exact quotation).

Er, it’s your claim; you research it and give us the name and quote.

Every explanation but intelligence is considered scientific . Why? Cos it just cannot be scientific to consider that order came from a greater order. Order must come from disorder.

What? It’s most likely because so far, all claims of intelligence have been intentionally placed beyond the realm of science, the intelligent being(s) have so far been unfalsifiable and what’s more, left behind no distinguishing factors. Also, many who argue for the unevidenced intelligence often argue out of incredulity.
What’s this talk of order from disorder?

Here is a completely novel idea, all models of BMWs have the "kidney" grill. Maybe the design feature was kept by by the designer as he refined the model? That would be a thought wouldnt it. Maybe life itself was designed to lead up to something, an ideal life form. That thing being perfected slowly but surely over time by a cognate force?

Maybe, maybe it was panspermia, maybe it’s all a dream. All unfalsifiable, and completely useless. The most parsimonious explanation so far, is common ancestry, and all the evidence points to that.

Another thought, it is easy to infer evolution by showing pictures of monkeys and man. But how do u account for reptile to bird? archeoptera to aves. scale to feathers. cold to warm blooded? What mode of natural selection preserves a scale, fraying and forming the complex aerodynamic structure that is a fearther? Another thought, i am not sure but i think archeopthera were supposed to be the ancestors of modern birds? But i also think they got extinct around the same time as most dinosaurs, which is some time before the first feathered, flighted birds apeared. How do u explain this assuming of course i am correct?

Dinosaurs to birds? Some dinosaurs also had feathers, Sinosauropteryx is one example. Anyway, how might scales have changed to feather? See here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_feathers

About cold blood to warm, many (most?) dinosaurs were also warm homeothermic See: http://arnica.csustan.edu/jones/Publications/pdf/Ruben%20et%20al%202003%20PBZ.pdf, for more

Archaeopteryx? No “archie” was most likely not the ancestor of modern birds, it’s just a good example of a dinosaur-bird transitional. Also, “archie” wasn’t the only dinosaur-bird transitional, others existed too.

Man, what is with the name calling? Are you really so uncouth and unmannered or are you just pretending?.
Stick to the issues, if i am too stupid to argue with, then stop posting, but by all means stop the cheap insults.

What can I say, I was in a foul mood, and you pissed me off, especially with the last bit. I lash out sometimes Meh!


Anyway, I hope I got everything, if I missed any, please bring it o my attention (I'm a little out of it at the moment).

@KAG
Fair Enough
I will look into the links you gave. I wish I could see enough evidence to convince me , but all i have seen thus far wouldnt still stand up in court

i believe in the creation story

otokx:

i believe in the creation story

Which one?

xkape:

@KAG
Fair Enough
I will look into the links you gave. I wish I could see enough evidence to convince me , but all i have seen thus far wouldnt still stand up in court

Incidentally, it has stood up in court… several times, with the latest being the Dover trial.

KAG,
i was refering to those homo-erectus pictures.

Hi, im back, it's nice to see the debate is still raging
KAG, You really need to read what you write sometimes! You claimed i misintepreted xkp's points and then proceeded to explain them to me, only you repeated exactly what i said, sometimes i think ure just after having the last word!!
Then because i don't have a theory or an expanation for man's origins (even though i do) does not diqualify me from saying evolution is wrong

~~~lioness passes thru to check for evolved monkeys~~~

simmy:

Hi, im back, it's nice to see the debate is still raging
KAG, You really need to read what you write sometimes! You claimed i misintepreted xkp's points and then proceeded to explain them to me, only you repeated exactly what i said, sometimes i think ure just after having the last word!!

I didn't repeat what you said, reading back, I'm a litte confused on how you came to that conclusion . I first explained what his strawman was, then proceeded to answer the questions you asked.

To wit: "Actually, you seem unable to have understood his point. His point was one human race or population should be more evolved than the other, which was of course a silly straw man."

The point he was trying to make was something along the lines of, "due to evolution one race should be better than another", which like I made clear, was nothing but a strawman.

The following was my answer to the question you asked:

"To answer your questions, most likely mutations, yes all human beings most likely originated from the same population, yes white people are the same species as black and orientals, and no it's obviously not an example of speciation.

Then because i don't have a theory or an expanation for man's origins (even though i do) does not diqualify me from saying evolution is wrong

No, it doesn't disqualify you, I was just genuinely curious (and also wanted to see if they (it) could withstand scrutiny). So, now that you claim you do have an explanation, do you mind sharing?

@kag
but dog, explan how xkp's point is a strawman!!
If the different varuations of man that exist on earth today originated from a common ancestor and then diverged at a point in time , is it reasonable to assume that they evolved at exactly the same rates?
Isn,t it likely that a particular variant will evolve further (or in a slightly different direction) from another?

simmy:

@kag
but dog, explan how xkp's point is a strawman!!

The strawman would be that one species or race is better than another. Without a context and a scale, that is a useless term, that can be used to build a strawman.

If the different varuations of man that exist on earth today originated from a common ancestor and then diverged at a point in time , is it reasonable to assume that they evolved at exactly the same rates?

No.

Isn,t it likely that a particular variant will evolve further (or in a slightly different direction) from another?

Different doesn't mean "better" though.

donnie:

KAG,
i was refering to those homo-erectus pictures.

Then chances are "Adam" (mankind) is a descendant of them.

Emphatically NO! The bilble dosn't support that. Historical facts dont support it. I know where i came from.

Adam had the life of God in him.

11 pages and Yet No Convincing Point Yet.

What a Waste of Time.

Oops!! I Just Wasted Mine Reading Through.

Whats the Point Anyway?

donnie:

Emphatically NO! The bilble dosn't support that.

Probably because the Bible is neither a science nor a history book.

Historical facts don't support it.

Historical facts do actually support that.

I know where i came from.

Adam had the life of God in him.

Other animals don't have the life of God in them?

rotbog:

11 pages and Yet No Convincing Point Yet.

What a Waste of Time.

Oops!! I Just Wasted Mine Reading Through.

Whats the Point Anyway?

Nice contribution to the discussion. By the way, which process do you think brought species into existence?

creation is what the bible said, evolution has no biblical backup.

Ogisosoft:

creation is what the bible said, evolution has no biblical backup.

You give new meaning to the phrase blind faith

Ogisosoft:

creation is what the bible said, evolution has no biblical backup.

Some theistic evolutionists would surely argue that with you, but that's up to them. In truth, evolution (see also: gravity, atomic energy, internet) really doesn't need Biblical backup, as it has empirical evidence grounded in reality.

Just thoughtt to copy and paste this. And i will keep doing so as long as you guys pretend you didnt see it:

I first saw those homo-erectus pictures in secondary school.

Like i said, i do not have any problem with the possibility of these creatures to have existed millions of years ago.

But they are not the decendants of Adam. They were not made in the image of God.

They existed in the pre-adamic world along with the other creatures.

But they were all destroyed by God when he destroyed the old world.

God did not create the earth to be without form and void as we see in genesis chapter 1. It later became without form and void.

Isaiah 45
  18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

This is what happened to the earth:

Isaiah 24
   1Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

It was turned up side down. This explains the fossils of bones, metals etc. which some scientists/evolutionists use to support the wrong conclusions which they trying to sell.


My bible does not contradict the possible existence of those creatures at some time.

There is the description of a Dinnassour my the bible:


   Job 41

    1"Job, can you pull the leviathan out of the sea with a fish hook?
       Can you tie down its tongue with a rope?
    2Can you put a rope through its nose?
       Can you stick a hook through its jaw?
    3Will it keep begging you for mercy?
       Will it speak gently to you?
    4Will it make an agreement with you?
       Can you make it your slave for life?
    5Can you make a pet out of it like a bird?
       Can you put it on a leash for your young women?
    6Will traders offer you something for it?
       Will they divide it up among the merchants?
    7Can you fill its body with harpoons?
       Can you throw fishing spears into its head?
    8If you touch it, it will fight you.
       Then you will remember never to touch it again!
    9No one can possibly control the leviathan.
       Just looking at it will terrify you.
    10No one dares to wake it up.
       So who can possibly stand up to me?
    11Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
       Everything on earth belongs to me.
    12"Now I will speak about the leviathan's legs.
       I will talk about its strength and its graceful body.
    13Who can strip off its outer coat?
       Who would try to put a bridle on it?
    14Who dares to open its jaws?
       Its mouth is filled with terrifying teeth.
    15Its back has rows of shields
       that are close together.
    16Each one is so close to the next one
       that not even air can pass between them.
    17They are joined tightly to one another.
       They stick together and can't be forced apart.
    18The leviathan's snorting throws out flashes of light.
       Its eyes shine like the first light of day.
    19Fire seems to spray out of its mouth.
       Sparks of fire shoot out.
    20Smoke pours out of its nose.
       It is like smoke from a boiling pot over burning grass.
    21Its breath sets coals on fire.
       Flames fly out of its mouth.
    22Its neck is very strong.
       People run to get out of its way.
    23Its rolls of fat are close together.
       They are firm and can't be moved.
    24Its chest is as hard as rock.
       It is as hard as a lower millstone.
    25When the leviathan rises up,
       even mighty people are terrified.
       They run away when it moves around wildly.
    26A sword that strikes it has no effect.
       Neither does a spear or dart or javelin.
    27It treats iron as if it were straw.
       It crushes bronze as if it were rotten wood.
    28Arrows do not make it run away.
       Stones that are thrown from slings are like straw hitting it.
    29A club seems like a piece of straw to it.
       It laughs when it hears a javelin rattling.
    30Its undersides are like broken pieces of pottery.
       It leaves a trail in the mud like a threshing sled.
    31It makes the ocean churn like a boiling pot.
       It stirs up the sea like perfume someone is making.
    32It leaves a shiny trail behind it.
       You would think the ocean had white hair.
    33Nothing on earth is equal to the leviathan.
       That creature is not afraid of anything.
    34It looks down on proud people.
       It rules over all those who are proud."

donnie:

Just thoughtt to copy and paste this. And i will keep doing so as long as you guys pretend you didnt see it:

You are kidding, yes?

donnie:


I first saw those homo-erectus pictures in secondary school.

Like i said, i do not have any problem with the possibility of these creatures to have existed millions of years ago.

But they are not the decendants of Adam. They were not made in the image of God.

Well they wouldn't have been descendants of Adam (if we assume he was a real being), because he would have most likely being their descendants. What entails the image of God?

They existed in the pre-adamic world along with the other creatures.

But they were all destroyed by God when he destroyed the old world.

God did not create the earth to be without form and void as we see in genesis chapter 1. It later became without form and void.

Isaiah 45
18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

What other creatures? Also, is there any geologic evidence for the destruction of the old world, where every single organism was destroyed?

This is what happened to the earth:

Isaiah 24
1Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

In context, it actually doesn't scan like evidence for what you claim it should, at least not to me.

It was turned up side down. This explains the fossils of bones, metals etc. which some scientists/evolutionists use to support the wrong conclusions which they trying to sell.

No it absolutely doesn't explain fossils et al.

My bible does not contradict the possible existence of those creatures at some time.

A strict literal reading of Genesis does though.

There is the description of a Dinnassour my the bible:


Job 41

1"Job, can you pull the leviathan out of the sea with a fish hook?
Can you tie down its tongue with a rope?
2Can you put a rope through its nose?
Can you stick a hook through its jaw?
3Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak gently to you?
4Will it make an agreement with you?
Can you make it your slave for life?
<snip>

The ever famous "Job describes dinosaurs" mantra shows up once again. First, it is clearly not to be taken literally. Second, animals like Komodo dragons fit the description better than any dinosaur. Finally, if Job was describing dinosaurs, wouldn't that mean that dinosaurs either weren't destroyed with the "old Earth", and paleontologists have it wrong, or Job wasn't human?

@kag
thats semantics!! who cares what word is used, better, superior, more evolved,better adapted, the point is some races ought to have evolved further than others if they really got here by evolution.
Nb: I think we should all remember that the Nazi's justified the supremacy of the Aryan race by concluding that they are the most evolved of humans wich led to the gruesome happenings of the holocaust.

@kag's response to donnie
Please do not bandy around as fact contentious issues! Many scientists believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that dinosaurs existed side by side with homo sapiens. There are many others who think this is false. I'm not stating my opinion on this issue because i dont know which is right. The bible might have been describing a dinasour in the quoted passage and it might have not, the bible didnt specify,

simmy:

@kag
thats semantics!! who cares what word is used, better, superior, more evolved,better adapted, the point is some races ought to have evolved further than others if they really got here by evolution.
Nb: I think we should all remember that the Nazi's justified the supremacy of the Aryan race by concluding that they are the most evolved of humans wich led to the gruesome happenings of the holocaust.

The Human race is only one species with a rather limited genetic variability due to a bottleneck event some 70000 years ago if I recall correctly. There are no human subspecies and even though there are phenotypical differences between 'races', the genotypical differences are all but insignificant and certainly not up to a level to call any race more or less evolved (as if that would be relevant in the first place, humans are not more evolved than bacteria).
Your point is completely irrelevant and only a consequence of your imaginary theory of evolution; it is in no way a consequence of the theory of evolution as understood by the scientific community.

simmy:

@kag's response to donnie
Please do not bandy around as fact contentious issues! Many scientists believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that dinosaurs existed side by side with homo sapiens. There are many others who think this is false. I'm not stating my opinion on this issue because i don't know which is right. The bible might have been describing a dinasour in the quoted passage and it might have not, the bible didnt specify,

Could you please give some examples of these scientists? I guess they don't go by the name Steve?

The Bible could do with a few more dinosaurs in it. Maybe then it would appeal more to children instead of Marvel comics :-)

KAG,

Firstly, i will like you to know that the book of Job is belived among bible scholars to be the oldest book of the bible.

It talks about about the earth being spherical even though there was a time in history when a man was killed by the church for claiming that the earth was spherical whereas it was in the book of Job all the while.

The fact that Job spoke of a dinnasour does not mean it exixted in his time. After all i quoted the book of Isaiah 24. That did not mean that Isaiah witnessed the destruction of the old world.

Talking about Adam and the ape-man. Adam was made in God's image whereas the ape-man was just one of the creatures even though he was called man.

It is this creature(primitive/ape- man) that God later decided to make in his image.

About scientific proof for the destruction of the old world: haven't you heard of what they refer to as the big bang; from where they claim life on earth began?

Well, that was when God kicked satan and his angels who rebelled out of hell and destroyed the earth to which he (lucifer) was assigned as covering cherub.

Oh poor scientists, they seek what they do not know with a microscope to no avail 'cos you cant find God even with that instrument.

simmy:

@kag
thats semantics!! who cares what word is used, better, superior, more evolved,better adapted, the point is some races ought to have evolved further than others if they really got here by evolution.

To add a little to Nferyn's response, it really isn't semantics. It's easy to recognise it as a strawman, because it's a meaningless term that more often than not , ushers in the shifting of goalposts and misrepresentation of what the ToE states. Also, what does better or more evolved mean? Are bacteria that can withstand volcanic ecosystems more evolved than humans who can't? are cheetahs who can run faster than dogs, more evolved? Are fishes who because they live in water (which covers a large part of the Earth), superior to humans?

Nb: I think we should all remember that the Nazi's justified the supremacy of the Aryan race by concluding that they are the most evolved of humans wich led to the gruesome happenings of the holocaust.

I evoke Godwin's law. Anyway, the Nazi's were wrong, and misunderstood and carricatured the ToE, as many anti-evolution proponents are wont to do.

simmy:

@kag's response to donnie
Please do not bandy around as fact contentious issues! Many scientists believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that dinosaurs existed side by side with homo sapiens. There are many others who think this is false. I'm not stating my opinion on this issue because i don't know which is right. The bible might have been describing a dinasour in the quoted passage and it might have not, the bible didnt specify,

Could you name those scientists, and what evidence they present, and one can only hope you don't pull out "creation scientists" (as big an oxymoric term, as any I've heard or seen), like Dr Dino (K*nt H*vind).

Also, it's highly unlikely that the Bible was describing a dinosaur.

donnie:

KAG,

Firstly, i will like you to know that the book of Job is belived among bible scholars to be the oldest book of the bible.

Indeed.

It talks about about the earth being spherical even though there was a time in history when a man was killed by the church for claiming that the earth was spherical whereas it was in the book of Job all the while.

Could you point out where Job says the Earth is spherical? Thanks in advance. Also, I don't think I've heard of the church killing anyone for believing the Earth wasn't flat (not that I would blame them for interpreting the Bible that way - the flat bit, not the killing bit… although on second thoughts…)

The fact that Job spoke of a dinnasour does not mean it exixted in his time. After all i quoted the book of Isaiah 24. That did not mean that Isaiah witnessed the destruction of the old world.

Of course, but it is still unlikely Job was describing a dinosaur.

Talking about Adam and the ape-man. Adam was made in God's image whereas the ape-man was just one of the creatures even though he was called man.

It is this creature(primitive/ape- man) that God later decided to make in his image.

So what does God look like? What characteristics did he take from himself and put on/in humans?

About scientific proof for the destruction of the old world: haven't you heard of what they refer to as the big bang; from where they claim life on earth began?

Erm, the Big Bang is about the Universe, not the Earth. Furtehrmore, how is the formation of the Earth evidence for the supposed destruction of, *ahem*, the Earth?

Well, that was when God kicked satan and his angels who rebelled out of hell and destroyed the earth to which he (lucifer) was assigned as covering cherub.

Oh poor scientists, they seek what they do not know with a microscope to no avail 'because you can't find God even with that instrument.

, should suffice.

What does God look like?

He looks like Jesus.

what does Jesus look like?

He looks like me.

God looks like man. Man was made in his image(to look like God) and likeness(to function like God).

We were given creative minds, to think like God. To love like him and to give like he him.

The account in genesis was actually a re-creation of the earth.

You see that the waters which once covered the earth brought together so that the earth could be seen. Man came from the dust of the earth; the plants and animals too. The fisah came from the sea.

There was the destruction of the old and there will be a destruction of this present earth by fire.

As for the earth being spherical:

Isaiah 40:22