₦airaland Forum

Just a minor quibble: it's not proof, it's evidence.

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?

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.

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:
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.

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:
-----------------

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.

4 Play:
That is why it is so mangled.Its like a car wreck.

That or you haven't bothered to read the thread and understandmy response.

At the root of matter was whether anti-I.slam polemicists faced a unique degree of censorship compared to "anti-Christian" writers.

I pointed out that most didn't

David mentioned Rushdie in response to which you brought up Dan Brown. . . . .its risible to place Brown in Rushdie or Ali's position in so far as threats to their lives are concerned.

No, I mentioned Rushdie; he mentioned Dan Brown. Jeez, is it any wonder you can't make sense of what's going on! Actually, if you read the link I provided and my note after posting it, you'd have seen the similarities.

Merely noting instances of such death threats is ridiculous,a lot of "high-profile" people from footballers to musicians regularly receive such threats.Its not the prescence of threats per se that is at issue but the likelihood of such threats materialising and its attendant effects on civil liberties.

No, really?

Simply saying-'Christians issue death threats,Mu.slims issue death threats, so therein lies their moral equivalence'-demonstrates a shocking lack of perspective.

Now would be a good time to read the thread, no?

Your attempts to show that Brown and Ali faced the same level of risks was absurd.

No.

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.

4 Play:
Trying to make sense of your mangled comparisons.

Apparently you still haven't managed that.

Davidylan noted the death threats hanging over Rushdie and Ali,in response,you whimsically brought up Dan Brown's death threats stating that the only difference was the source of the threat.By the same token,you should bear in mind that Beckham,Goody and Idibia have all received death threats too so are on par with Rushdie using your 'logic.'

Um, no. Rushdie's death threat, like the other few examples brought up by David, came from the people of the religion that his book deals with. Dan Brown's death threat came from the people of the religion that his book deals with. Therein lies the comparism.

When the others you mentioned are getting death threats from religious nuts for their books on religion, then your response to my post will make sense.

dp

D-Chair:
My reply is; when are u going to write your GCE or SSCE?

LoL.

You need to be educate more foreign on affairs. I think you should humble yourself and take lectures fro 4HIM and other intellectual ones.

What excatly would they educate me about on foreign affairs? About the jaundiced view the OP has when it comes to Christianity, governance and a country's economic situation? Unlikely. Here's a tip for you: using the OP's criteria for gauging what type of religion a country is, why don't you tell me how many Christian African countries have super ecomies. You could also use countries in Eastern Europe if Africa is not to your taste. Silly rabbit.

Also if you don't have a clue about Isreal please seal your mouth or freeze your fingers, you don't need to contribute. we are happy that way.

LMAO. You know it's spelt ISRAEL, right? I'm assuming you bolded your spelling of it to act as a correction of my spelling in my previous post. In any case, I know Israel isn't a Christian country, which is evidently more than you know.

4 Play:
Could I also add that David Beckham,Jade Goody and Tuface Idibia have also received death threats,which by your reckoning should put them on par with Salman Rushdie.

The f*ck are you on about?

imhotep:
You can see the error here!.

No, I meant to many German Protestants he wasn't infinitesimally lower in comparism to Jesus. Either way, though, you're right. The thinking would have been erronous either way.

imhotep:
Let me post the Parable of the Good Samaritan ->

Gospel of Luke, chapter 10 verses 25-37.

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." [/b]

No, I understand that, but you missed my point, I think: the conception would have been that Jews weren't humans like the Germanic people were. To give you an idea of the thought, a polemic would involve likening the Jew to a rabid, diseased dog, followed by the question, "would you allow an animal or thing that can infect and kill you and your neighbour to live amongst you?

Notice that several would have been able to circumvent the verse by pointing out the Jew could not be considered a neighbour due to several stereotypical characteristics.

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

It is important to note that Samaritans were despised by the story's target audience, the Jews. The Samaritans were also largely taught by their interpretation of history to hate Jews. Thus the parable, as told originally, had a significant theme of non-discrimination and interracial harmony.

I get that.

--------------
On the scale of authority, Martin Luther is infinitesimally low when compared with Jesus. A German invented the printing press.

Not to many German Protestants he wasn't.

Many bibles were printed in Germany. The Nazis had copies of the bible in their own language.

Many didn't.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'. The Nazis chose to ignore this and murder millions of people . Hiding behind any misguided reformer or philosopher can never exculpate them.

I'm not trying to excuse their behaviour, just merely pointing out how the edict could have been [mis]applied. The thinking was probably similar - for many antiSemitic Germans - to that of the White supremacists: whereby the other group, usually Black, aren't human.

4Him:
Men built the great pyramids . . . till tomorrow our scientists are still baffled as to how they were able to do so without present technology.

Hogwash. Scientists aren't baffled as to how the pyramids were built. they do, however, marvel at the dedication and time it must have taken to build them without modern technology. There's a difference.

imhotep:
The Nazis murdered millions of people using 'the science and technologies of the day'. They also ignored Theistic admonitions to love their neighbor.

Yes to the first; no to the latter. Most actually were theists, and several were convinced that they were loving their neighbour by committing those attrocities. Herein lies the danger of ambiguous religious edicts. Many were convinced that the Jews, Gypsies, etc weren't their neighbours. A thinking that probably went along th lines of "since we aren't to be equally yoked with the darkness especially personified by the demonic Jews, then they surely aren't our neighbours." It wouldn't have necessarily been as elaborate as that, as the simple belief that the "Jews are devils" or "satan's children" would have sufficed. There might also have been an idea that at least killing the infants and young ones was a mercy in its own right, as it saved them from the devilry of their forebears.

To buttress the point, it is almost impossible to overlook Martin Luther's influence on Nazi antisemitism, typified by this quote:

"[The Jews are a] base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] They are full of the "devil's feces , which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible LovePeddler and an evil slut , "[3]"

Further:

"He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[7]"

WIKI

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.

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?

imhotep:
Old? Not old.

It's not just old, it's tired.

But everlasting truth.

Now that is dogmatic

I will write an article on this and email it to you.

You don't have my email address.

imhotep:
Yes indeed. No knowledge is wasted.

Okay? I wonder why, then, you are carrying on with the same old canard.

imhotep:
Atheists can not disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

They cannot defend their position. I wonder why they continue being atheists!!

We've been over this before.

OLAADEGBU:
G.K. Chesterton put it succintly right by saying and I quote "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

You've either misquoted Chesterton or he's gotten it wrong. What he probably meant to say was: if there were no conception of a god, there would be no atheists.

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.

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

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

Yet that is non existent, Evolution my A**


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

imhotep:
You assumed AND jumped to the conclusion that a part of the brain is still active.

I assumed and asserted based on that assumption and several detailed experiments to understand the workings of the brain, that parts of the brain remain active.

NDEs are not initiated by the human will. Those who experience it are usually [i]passive [/i]subjects. [b]After[/b]looking at those that experienced it, I will then proceed to those that have not (and why they did not).

The subject is still one of intense research.

That's fair enough.

imhotep:
Don't you think it is dogmatic to:
- maintain that there is no existence after death;
- maintain that everything must be traced to some brain function/activity;
- deny the existence of anything spiritual on incorporeal;

,without physical evidence to back up any of these

I don't remember doing any of that, but no, it's not dogmatic especially because of this part of your post: "without physical evidence to back up any of these"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care about the spelling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

What do you think differentiates dinosaurs from birds?

So STOP DEceIving yourself KAG,

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

imhotep:
@KAG
The definition of Dogma ->

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

You missed the important part:


Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

There you go. Now can you please stop using the word inappropriately

imhotep:
You have silently assumed that these experiences are limited to a part of the brain. This is why I called your first comment dogmatic.

Assumption and dogmatic together in the same sentence? Say it ain't so. Yes, I assumed. That is not dogma.

I am not concerned with those that did NOT have these experiences. I am trying to learn as much as I can from those that had them, without resorting to dogmatism or prejudices.

Again, back to my question. Why don't those that didn't experience it, concern you? Wouldn't taking them into account be essential to avoiding dogmatism and prejudices?

Let me refer you ( and others ) to two sites that have a lot of information on this
1) International Association for Near Death Studies -> http://www.iands.org/

2) Near Death Experience Research Foundation -> http://www.nderf.org/

Okay.

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

The creation itself shows evidence of the creator,

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

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

Um, what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you get this nonsense from? Seriously!

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

SysUser:
KAg ,

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

kindly explain,

Be more specific.

SysUser:
Mr Genius , Yes, I used Copy and Paste,

Really?

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

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

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

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

Answer to you question about a Kind:

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

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

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

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

That's not evolution.

Actually that is evolution, implied by you and many others like you.[/quote]This explains a lot. You clearly still don't know a thing about evolution. I'd love to explain but it would be difficult to know where to start with you, based on your other posts in this thread.

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

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

Except, it does still occur and has been observed.

Variation as a proof for evolution,

I'm not sure of what you mean here.

Evidences for evolution,

I've given several.

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

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

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

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

It doesn't.

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

It's not scientific.

Did you mean , its not evolutionary,

No.

My friend its certainly very scientific, check it again

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

and an additional link for you

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

It's aig. Go figure.

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

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

Evidence?

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

notice were God cursed the ground,

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

-----------

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

Groundwater? Water reservoirs, rain, etc.

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

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

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