donnie:

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).

So God is a mammal, primate, ape?

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

Like many other animals too. Many other animals have creative minds too, love arguably more than humans, and give as well.

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.

Interesting eisegesis, however, unless God magicked away the evidence for what you've claimed, then the question has to be, is it founded on geologic reality, and where the said evidence is?

As for the earth being spherical:

Isaiah 40:22

With all due respect, Isaiah is not Job, and what's more A circle which is two dimensional, does not equal a sphere which is three dimensional.

@kag and nferyn
u've made my point 4 me! It just shows you how easy it is to cclaim speciation. I'm now in the place of the evolutionist and ure the ones refuting my claims of speciation by showing thtat the differnces i mentioned can be xplained away as variation. Notice that this is a very 'uncomplex' (if im allowed to use that word) example relative to most evolutionist's claims of speciation but the same logic holds. By the way, nobody has taken me up on my challenge to give me a concrete example of speciation and expalin exactly why it should be taken to be speciation.
PLEASE DO NOT REFER ME TO SOME WEBSITE
As for the dinasour claims please dont try to pass it away as some creationist attempt at verifying biblical claims. Do ur own research on the net. I've already stated that the bible makes NO claims. The claims that exist are as a result of people's personal interpretations which is subjective at best

@kags reply to donnie

Ure a sarcastic one aren't u? If i was as rude as uare i'ld use harsher words than u did against xkp.
1) what god looks like is irrelevant! the bible says we (humans) were made in his image. Does tht refer to physical appearance or something else The answer depends on how u interprete the passage
2) Humans are THE MOST CREATIVE arent they? At leat i know im more intelligent than other animals, creative as used in donnies thread should be read as intelligent!
3) Whoever wrote genesis did not have it in mind to write it as a scientific paper. imagine u want to xplain to ur village man what evolution really is, won't u use very SIMPLISTIC terms
4 Job (or isaiah) was not a scientist. 4 a layman, a circle is good enuff descriptyion 4 a sphere and remember the bible was originally written in hebrew, meanings get twisted in translation, dog, u shld kno w tht

simmy:

@kag and nferyn
u've made my point 4 me! It just shows you how easy it is to cclaim speciation. I'm now in the place of the evolutionist and ure the ones refuting my claims of speciation by showing thtat the differnces i mentioned can be xplained away as variation.

You are kidding, yes? One can only hope that was a joke. What we've been trying to explain was that xcape's strwaman was in trying to claim one species, race, etc was better than the other. "Better" being an arbitrary term in this instance, is absolutely meaningless, and allows the user to create strawmen and carricatures of the ToE. How you came to the conclusion that that nullifies speciation, is something I cannot comprehend.

Lest I forget, quantifying "better", by adding suited or adapted, gives more meaning. A bacterium that lives in extreme heat is better suited to that niche, than humans; it isn't better than humans. I hope you understand the difference.

Notice that this is a very 'uncomplex' (if im allowed to use that word) example relative to most evolutionist's claims of speciation but the same logic holds. By the way, nobody has taken me up on my challenge to give me a concrete example of speciation and expalin exactly why it should be taken to be speciation.
PLEASE DO NOT REFER ME TO SOME WEBSITE

I have given at least two, and I took your eventual lack of response to my last post on the subject of the one, and total lack of response to the other, as an acceptance of those examples. You could perhaps respond and tell us why they are not good enough.

Also, I should point out that your cry of, "do not refer me to a website", is rather ridiculous to say the least. Websites are the best way to provide all or most of the necessary information on whatever example is giving. For example, simply mentioning Peonies as an example of speciation, is meaningless in itself, a reference to a website however, explains the details.

As for the dinasour claims please don't try to pass it away as some creationist attempt at verifying biblical claims. Do your own research on the net. I've already stated that the bible makes NO claims. The claims that exist are as a result of people's personal interpretations which is subjective at best

Then produce the scientists and their research and evidence. You made the claim, you provide the evidence to back up your claim, and let's see if it stands up to examination, It's no good telling me to research it myself.

simmy:

@kags reply to donnie

Ure a sarcastic one aren't u? If i was as rude as uare i'ld use harsher words than u did against xkp.

Yes, I am a sarcastic one, although I should point out most of my sarcastic remarks aren't meant as insults. Think of them mostly as some kind of (not so) gentle ribbing. Also, feel free to be as rude and caustic as you please.

1) what god looks like is irrelevant! the bible says we (humans) were made in his image. Does that refer to physical appearance or something else The answer depends on how u interprete the passage

I was going by Donnie's interpretation, which seemed to suggest a physical image. I could go by your own eisegesis if you so desired.

2) Humans are THE MOST CREATIVE arent they? At leat i know im more intelligent than other animals, creative as used in donnies thread should be read as intelligent!

Well, they are probably the most creative by most definitions of creative (it of course depends in what way you decide to interpret creativity), but when it comes to most intelligent, I tend to lean towards dolphins (yes, dolphins).

3) Whoever wrote genesis did not have it in mind to write it as a scientific paper. imagine u want to explain to your village man what evolution really is, won't u use very SIMPLISTIC terms

Which has been one of my points all along.

4 Job (or isaiah) was not a scientist. 4 a layman, a circle is good enough descriptyion 4 a sphere and remember the bible was originally written in hebrew, meanings get twisted in translation, dog, u shld kno w that

A ball is even better than a circle, and other ancient "laymen" managed to convey a sphericallish Earth. Also, if the writer had meant sphere, he\she would have used the word for ball or indeed sphere, as those words existed then. Instead the writer used good ol' two dimensional flat circle. Go figure.

simmy:

@kag and nferyn
u've made my point 4 me! It just shows you how easy it is to cclaim speciation. I'm now in the place of the evolutionist and ure the ones refuting my claims of speciation by showing thtat the differnces i mentioned can be xplained away as variation. Notice that this is a very 'uncomplex' (if im allowed to use that word) example relative to most evolutionist's claims of speciation but the same logic holds.

Either you don't read the posts in this thread or you don't want to comprehend what they're saying. In each and any definition of speciating I've come accross, a minimal condition for speciation in reproductive isolation. If anyone in his right mind would imply that such a thing is the case among different races of humans, he must be living on mars.

simmy:

By the way, nobody has taken me up on my challenge to give me a concrete example of speciation and expalin exactly why it should be taken to be speciation.

Read the thread from the beginning and you will find them. If you're not satisfied with the examples, explain exactly why they don't met the criterium of speciation or even better, define speciation yourself and explain why your definition differs from the commonly accepted one.

Evolution or creation which do I believe? Both!! I don't see any mutually exclusive terms or events here. Atleast not by my belief.

nferyn:

Either you don't read the posts in this thread or you don't want to comprehend what they're saying. In each and any definition of speciating I've come accross, a minimal condition for speciation in reproductive isolation. If anyone in his right mind would imply that such a thing is the case among different races of humans, he must be living on mars.
Read the thread from the beginning and you will find them. If you're not satisfied with the examples, explain exactly why they don't met the criterium of speciation or even better, define speciation yourself and explain why your definition differs from the commonly accepted one.

That is just a cop-out cum strawman

Isolation is relative and ve have some examples of isolated populations, Aborigenes of Australia have been for all practical purposes isolated for 40,000 years (or there about) deep jungle dwellers of central Africa and the Amazon can also be considered to be reproductively isolated.

xkape,
good to know that all of a sudden I'm the one coming up with strawmen. Maybe you can explain me how my agrument could somehow be described as setting up a strawman?
Anyway, reproductive isolation is an a priori condition for speciation to occur. It is not because a gene pool is geographically isolated that this means that it is reproductively isolated. As history has shown us, there is no effective barrier (either behaviorally or genetically) for e.g. Aborigines and Brits to produce offspring. Your point is mute.

@nferyn
maybe u should explain reproductive isolation

xkape:

@nferyn
maybe u should explain reproductive isolation

Have a look here

@nferyn
Thanx for the link

But prithee, how does a fruit fly in a banana blown in a hurricane to an island where it becomes reproductively isolated from the main gene pool differ from an aborigine seperated from the larger continent by continental drift.
By the logic so meticulously expounded in ur link, the aborigene should develop speciation different from the main strain of humans
Ur strawman is still alive and well

@ KAG
Sorry for the long silence, but let us now look at ur link explaining the evolution of the bacterial flagellum

Stage 1

A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

How? Why? Gating proteins a very stereo-specific did an excreted protein just luckily get stuck in the pore and form a filter? and there after codons began coding for this protein and were transported to this exact same spot in subsequent generations? this fortuitous happening only giving rise to one location for the binding of the protein? since we know that the flagellum is located at the dorsal portion of the organism becos this is where the motor function is best served. The process in this explanation would have giving rise to flagella all over the organism hence negating the motor function since it originaly developed as an excretory organ. This explanation would have been suited for cilia and not flagella but this same article states that these organels were developed independent of one another?

stage 2

The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

Speculative, unfounded. Another example of the obsfucation inherent in the ToE. On the surface all these look plausible but it begs the question of the kind of selective pressure that would induce a protein being added to an excretory system. All we have is speculation and a series of increasingly improbable coincidental events
Is it easier to belive this was a random sequence or a cognate finetuning and development of a complex machine over the eons?

stage 3

The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

Polymerization? Again, mechanism? purpose? These would be possible in a genetic framework that already coded for such reactions at this exact location (has to be becos again, of stero-specificity). But the situation here is of an a-priori organelle, a novel binding site, and a excretory protein that is tailor made to serve the function so conveniently prepared for it

stage 4

An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

And this is the lynch pin of the whole theory. Note the word FORTUITOUSLY meaning - since I dont have a reasonable explanation for how this simplified anus becomes an electric motor, let me just blame it on blind luck.
This is where a strawman attempts to beat up another strawman

stage5

The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

More of the same crap. literally.

At this point i got tired of the whole article. Anybody interested can check the link out himself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Another astute observation made by the author is this

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

This is an insult on the inteligence of the reader. It is like saying that since there are various designs for Nike running shoes that perform the same function, they must have evolved from loose raw materials in the Nike factory

In fact i propose an adendum to the theory of evolution. The theory of Archeological Evolution which posits that archeological structures such as the Pyramids of Giza could not have been made by humans but must have evolved through the action of  agents like wind rain earthquakes meteors and such like.

xkape:

@nferyn
Thanx for the link

But prithee, how does a fruit fly in a banana blown in a hurricane to an island where it becomes reproductively isolated from the main gene pool differ from an aborigine seperated from the larger continent by continental drift.
By the logic so meticulously expounded in your link, the aborigene should develop speciation different from the main strain of humans
your strawman is still alive and well

Maybe you can compare the lifespan of a fruitfly to that of a human and you'll get the idea. 40.000 years of separation without much noticably different evolutionary pressures is extremely short to effectuate speciation. Possibly you didn't fully comprehend the logic you're trying to invalidate. Mind you, the aborigines were not separated by continental drift and there's no reason to think that they should have undergone speciation, unless of course you believe that there's a direction or need in evolution. Species that undergo little evolutionary pressure hardly change over time.

@nferyn

the continental drift thing was a shot in the dark. i was trying to draw u into saying they had been there that long

Anyways, back to the point, so u think there is no evulutionary pressure in the outback right? then where is this elusive evolutionary pressure u keep talking about. It seems the ToE invokes phenomena only when it suits it.
40,000 years wasnt too short for the famous galapagos finches was it? even if we divide the lifespan of a finch by that of a manand factor in the answer. Or am i missing something here?

xcape,

If an organism is well adapted to it's environment and the environment doesn't change that much, there's litle evolutionary pressure (or to use a more accurate term, selective pressure). In that case, changes to the phenotype due to mutations do not lead to a significantly increased reproductive success. Coulacanth's haven't changed much over millions of years because the environment in which they thrived didn't change much either.

still no evolved tombo flies huh?

nferyn:

xcape,

If an organism is well adapted to it's environment and the environment doesn't change that much, there's litle evolutionary pressure (or to use a more accurate term, selective pressure). In that case, changes to the phenotype due to mutations do not lead to a significantly increased reproductive success. Coulacanth's haven't changed much over millions of years because the environment in which they thrived didn't change much either.

My guy you just shot urself in the foot. If that is the case, then 99.9% of organisms that live on earth today are not and have never been subjected to ur so-called evolutionary pressure

;d

simmy:

My guy you just shot yourself in the foot. If that is the case, then 99.9% of organisms that live on earth today are not and have never been subjected to your so-called evolutionary pressure

On the basis of what do you come to that conclusion? Or are you just specialising in repeating your unfounded assertions in the hope they become more truthful? Something resembling an argument wouldn't hurt you in asserting that I shoot myself in the foot.

whoooooa! the coelacanth! someone mentioned my favourite dinosaur :-) (or dinosaur fish, lololol)

I remember when, as a kid, I dreamed of seeing one. Just think, a real live dinosaur still alive today! I still hope to see one, although not as feverently as before, lololol!

And here someone is using the biggest proof OF evolution as an excuse to claim someone is shooting himself in the foot!

Nferyn, why do you continue to punish yourself and the rest of us? These guys DO NOT WANT TO THINK. And even if you convince them to think, they do not want to know the truth. They want to believe they are luminous angelic demigod sons of a diety that has built mansions of gold for them beyond the grave.

Give it a rest, dude!

These guys DO NOT WANT TO THINK.

Interesting deduction, since u r the one who brought up religions and demigods here
I see u are all conveniently quite on my rebutall of some of ur illustrious evolutionary writers i did somewhere back there

xkape:

Interesting deduction, since you're the one who brought up religions and demigods here
I see u are all conveniently quite on my rebutall of some of your illustrious evolutionary writers i did somewhere back there

I decided not to enter into the discussion you had with KAG, as he has been quite able to counter whatever you've been throwing at him.
If you would like me to rebut something you wrote, please be so kind to tell me where that rebutal of illustrious evulutionary writers is, as I have not been able to find it burried between your attempts at argumentation.

dakmanzero:

Give it a rest, dude!

I'm staring to think I should follow your advice. It does diminish my faith in humanity though

If you would like me to rebut something you wrote, please be so kind to tell me where that rebutal of illustrious evulutionary writers is, as I have not been able to find it burried between your attempts at argumentation.

well, there is no point then is there? since anything i write thereafter will be just another "attempt at argumentation".
I assumed weak arguments are easiest to rebutt but since u cannot find the argument in the first place, forget it.

THANK GOD! (or monkey, )

HE SAID FORGET IT! Nferyn did u hear? he said forget it. So lets forget it and just live happily ever after! everyone link hands and dance around in a circle,


ring-a-ring-a roses, tra-la-la, there are bunnies in the fields and the sun is shining (bunny rules!)


lets all exist inpeace and harmony and leave all the monkeys for lioness to eat!

aaight. Thread closed, right?

hope u hv read ur bible very well.

be careful the way u respond to sensitive cases like this

wr also gat evolved goats o.

Wow!!! I am surprised at the very few number of Christians who came up to support the creation story.
One thing for sure, if u r using physical means to find ur origin and how u were created, its a futile effort and a complete waste of time. There are facts to prove that there is a God!!! Tell me, how do miracles happen? There are people who have died and have returned to life, they share experiences of their encounter with God, what proof does science have to give concerning this? The Bible is another evidence. If u feel its just a book, u r deceiving urself. False prophets were spoken of in the Bible, and the fufilment is being witnessed by the world today. Is it still just a book? I hope u will not live to regret ur decision after the rapture. Ppl like we Christians would have gone by His grace,, and it would be left 4 u who refused to believe to feeel remorse on nairaland. U still have a chance!

supaguy,

Assertion is neither proof nor evidence. One can repeat the claim that the earth is flat as much as one wants, that doesn't make it any more true.

@supaguy

Wow!!! I am surprised at the very few number of Christians who came up to support the creation story.

That is because even the most staunch Christian realizes that the story of the creation is absolute nonsense and a fairy tale

nferyn,

nferyn:

Assertion is neither proof nor evidence. One can repeat the claim that the earth is flat as much as one wants, that doesn't make it any more true.

I agree with you on that note - that assertions are neither proof nor evidence. However, one thing is for sure: miracles are real, and I've experienced it in my life time and again with evidence attested to by those who have checked out my claims.