₦airaland Forum

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

Weird, considering just how many you've refused to acknowledge. Also, if you are referring to your response on the TO link, then that woulod be, your response to a short summary on how the flagellum may have evolved, written by one illustrious (how is that measured?) writer.

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

Not a problem, and the link was presenting a plausible explanation for the evolution of the flagellum. Note also, that it would have helped if you had followed my advice and read the sources given in the link, as, like the top of the TO link stated, the link was “a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function”.

Admittedly, I’m not expert on the flagellum, so hopefully a linky would do.

Stage 1

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 because 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

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 believe this was a random sequence or a cognate finetuning and development of a complex machine over the eons?

See link above, and please read as many of the sources cited.

stage 3

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 because 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

Hope this can answer your questions: http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/ArticlesPDFs/gophnaetal2003.pdf

Also, please read the sources given in the TO link, if you want to know more.

stage 4
And this is the lynch pin of the whole theory. Note the word FORTUITOUSLY meaning - since I don't 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

Actually it would seem you are the one who has constructed a strawman. You latching on fortuitous and attempting to use it as an argument, is the strawman In a sense, mutations could be considered fortuitous, what happens afterwards in the population cancels out the chance part. So a beneficial mutation fortuitously occurred, and it was selected.

Except, you meant your strawman was your attempt to beat a strawman (which in actuality wasn’t a strawman, as it was presenting a plausible explanation, and not really attacking a position).

stage5
Quote
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

More ridiculous hand waving, 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

Thanks for posting the link again, my advise would be to read the sources cited, and other peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Another astute observation made by the author is this
Quote
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

It really is an astute observation, and unfortunately you haven’t realised how true an observation it was. First on your analogy, it is well known that the various designs for and manufacturing of Nike running shoes have been done by many (and I mean many) designers and creators, so that begins to explain why we have different designs of Nike running shoes for the same function.

Also, the design and manufacture of Nike shoes, which are obviously not capable of imperfectly replicating themselves, have been observed over and over again. However, the Intelligent Designer (we are assured that there’s just one) hasn’t. been seen or observed, nor has any consistent way of identifying what was specially created by the said ID, been given.

Finally, you still haven’t addressed the important issue of why an Intelligent designer (wink, wink) would find it necessary to keep inventing new designs for different organisms, when one type of design evidently works just fine. Evolution has given a good and empirically testable explanation for why that phenomena, but not so ID. Reasons seem to range from the ridiculous, the Intelligent Designer (nudge, nudge) can do whatever he wants, to the incorrigible “the Intelligent Designer (you know who we are really referring to, so no need for this charade!) works in mysterious ways.

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.

I don’t get it.

blueiyke:
Things exist whether you believe it or not. Some people in remote villages of Africa do not believe in some of the wonders of science.Does their unbelief change anything?
Some folks do not believe that HIV/AIDS exist.Does that mean it really doesn't exist?

The fact remains that,whether Seun and people like him believe in God or not, He remains God.

Indeed, which is exactly why we know the Invisble Pink Unicorn, Iggy the Elf, the Diskworld (see: flat world resting firmly on the back of elephants, standing on a turtle - the great A'tuin), the microscopic teacup orbiting the Sun, Zeus and his cohorts, and many other wonderful things, all exist. The fact that you may not believe those mentioned (and others not mentioned), doesn't mean they don't exist. They remain what they are, unchanged by your disbelief.

rotbog:
Your Type?

My type!

Who the Hell R U? U are dust and Unto That U will return.

Madam, I'm Adam.

We all will, with our shallow perceptions of the Seen and Unseen.

Preaching to the choir here.

Brainwashed? Who isn't. Afterall our Convictions, Faith and Percetions are all amalgams of what we have seen , heard, studied, read, felt etc.
Our adherence to any School or No School of thot is but as result of our associations, geographical accidents of birth, family etc.

Hmm, education, teachings, perception and brainwashing. In my world they differ significantly.

What the hell do we know that we didnt aquire. ?

Squiggeblacokbvds?

Please give me break. And Do I need permission for that? No of Course!

Okay?

And Bob? Who the Hell is he?
Or is He your Conscience.? Perhaps seared?
Where does he live ? in Your Heart?

What's his bloodline?

Wheeew!

Jargons

She, BoB the narrative Goddess of the holy palindromes. She resides squarely in the metaphorical heart of everyone (just between the ventricles and the imaginary soul).

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.

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.

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.

ajia23:
Kag

The follower of Islam do not believe Muhammed descended from Prophet David (ASW).

No? My mistaken assumption, thanks for the correction .

dblock:
Before I say anytning further if this turns into some violent thing like the beauty pagent thing in 02 or the mohammad cartoons, I don care it's not meant to peace.

Jesus was a descendant of King david
And guess what I just learnt on Nat Geo that so is Mohammad.
Jesus founded a major religion and so did mohammad
the david blood line were born to be leaders. Maybe christians and Muslims should be more kind towards each other. sure we have our different rules but the two religions have a lot of similarities.
Does anyone know any more similarities?. I'm trying to get somewhere here

Where's the evidence for Jesus and Mohammed being descendants of David? Maybe what should be said is (until evidence to the contraryis provided of course), is both their followers have deemed it necessary to claim the two were descendants of King David.

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.

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.

Funny Mlks, good stuff.

Anyhoo:
https://i6.tinypic.com/11ubxfk.jpg

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?

Worthy contestant for the Darwin awards?

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.

This atheist uses "curse" words sometimes, and has no real problem with the use of them.

bluenubian:
landover

Yeah, Landover Baptists. http://landoverbaptist.org/

bluenubian:
this birth thing is sickening, how can u tell someone to cross their legs till aftermidnite, even tho the baby is about to be born, what is this scientology or something

It's Landover .

queensheba:
let me share a real life story with u guys. it happened like 2 wks ago in Egypt.

Firstly, it couldn't have happened two weeks ago (see: it never happened), because I read the same story months ago.

it was said that a certain man killed his wife for some reasons and buried her with their 2 children ( a baby and an 8 years old girl - which were buried alive). after all investigations, this man got arrested and told them all sort of things. like 2 wks after for further investigations, the went to open up the grave and there they found the baby and the 8 years old girl still ALIVE. people were dazed and there were lots of questioning. a muslim newscaster lady got a chance to interview the girl. and the lady said to the girl " you and your baby brother were buried alive, how did to survive?" and the little girl answered saying " a man in a white shining gown with wounds in the middle of both of his palms covered in blood came to feed me everyday and he also woke up my mother to feed my brother". and the muslim lady said this is none other than JESUS CHRIST.
this is a living testimony and a living proof that our jesus is alive and forever will he be.

Once again, at least she died with Jesus in her heart. Lying for Jesus seems to be in vogue right about now.

"At least she died with Jesus in her heart". *rolls eyes*

If Your Child Is Born on 06-06-06


A Checklist For Christian Mothers

Freehold, Iowa - A number of panicked Christian ladies across America are scheduled to give birth on June 6th, 2006. This date raises concern among church members since the numbers of that day also identify the son of Satan, the "Beast" from the book of Revelation. No decent, Christian family wants the little red bottom of the devil's spawn perched on a limb of their family tree, taking a dump on the branches below, much less sitting in a high-chair at the dinner table listening in on family prayers while quietly finalizing plans to sodomize mommy with the family vacuum. As such, Landover Baptist Creation Scientists have put together a checklist of recommended actions one should take if their baby is being born or was born on 06-06-06.

Is My Child The Devil's Son?
A Checklist for Christian Mothers

1. Ladies, keep your legs crossed until after midnight. A True Christian™ lady always keeps her knees together -- and June 6 is no time to stop. As your demon child willfully pushes and kicks, causing your lady hole to dilate to the size of a drainage pipe, keep your knees locked together at all times. This will give your demanding child a wonderful, early lesson that he can't always have his way. To underscore this valuable disciplinary message, as the devil child flops around, trying to claw its way out to the human world to do Lucifer's bidding, continue to warble in a loud voice, "La la la la la la la I CAN'T FEEL YOU!"

2. If at all possible, have your Baptist doctor induce the child to be born earlier. The most reliable method known to Creation Science to get a mother to go instantly into labor is to jump in front of her when she least expects it and scare the dickens out of her. If this doesn't prove scary enough, read the Bible to her. Otherwise, FedEx a love processing gift of $2,000 to " Landover Baptist Church , Freehold, Iowa 55369." As soon as your check clears, we will send you information on how to perform a "Creation Birth Reduction." Reduction will cause the mother to give birth two or three days out from her expected due date. If you have a weak stomach, allergies to dried locusts and can not drink human urine, the Reduction is not for you.

3. If the 06-06-06 date can not be avoided, make sure that the child is kept in a chicken cage on the hospital floor, and that there are at least two full grown hogs within four feet of the cage at all times. As a Bible believing Christian, you know that demons and pigs act like the two sides of Velcro when they are around each other (Mark 5:12-13), so keeping them by your newborn's side acts as a Godly safety net. If one of the hogs starts grinning and snorting, prancing about, or just plain acting full of the Devil's business by emptying its bowels all over the hospital floor, get it out to a lake and drown it as soon as humanly possible. And you don't have to be a Christ-killing Jew to know this: Goodness gracious, don't eat the bacon!

4. Make sure you check under your child's testicles for any peculiar markings. For it is not upon the head (as the hell bound Catholics incorrectly believe and, by all other indications, should be the last ones to be wrong in this regard), but rather hidden in the rough skin on the nape under a newborn's tiny tallywhacker, or slightly inside the anal cavity that one should be looking for any signs of the Evil One. Creation Scientists have observed that the so-called "taint" (the disagreeable area between the genitals and the anus) is where demons are most likely to post messages for each other.

5. Place your child in the care of our Creation Scientists for a period of 10-days. During this period, they will perform a Bible Crawl and conduct Creation Science Experiments on your newborn to determine if it needs to be shipped off the Landover Baptist Home for the Demonically Possessed in North Dakota. The shipping charges and five years of care costs will be billed monthly to the same credit card account you use when you drop your child off with us.

6. You might decide (as many Christian families in need have before you) that it is best just to sell your child to the cause of Creation Science. Our laboratory and research center will pay $18 a pound (17 cents a pound for mixed race infants) for any child under the age of 6-months. In making this decision, you can rest assured that you are doing something for the cause of Christendom™. Your family will be helping Creation Scientists better understand Satan's handiwork in early childhood development. This greater understanding will better prepare us in case (God forbid we'd have to suffer) there is a post-tribulational Rapture. If that is ever the case, the more we know about the enemy, the better.

7. Buy an enormous, full Korean wig that cascades thick locks of hair down your back to your waist. June 6, 2006 is no time for a pregnant woman to be walking around looking like a young boy, lest she be mistaken for Mia Farrow.

(from Landover Baptists).

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?

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?

jagunlabi:
Let me locate that something you think is missing from the equation for you.
for you
As creations of God,created in his/her image and likeness,we inherit what is known as the divine spark or substance from the creator.You are free to give it whatever name you want,spirit,soul,whatever.The immortal part of us that lives on.Something that the physical world can neither grasp nor explain.
It is through this divine substance or essence that is buried deep within us that enables some of us - atleast - to be telekinetic.
God's substance - transferred to man during his creation - results in man having parts of God's powers,in this case,TELEKINESIS.
Well,that's the equation.

Thanks for that, but suely that's nothing but an unsupported assumption based on more illogical assumptions, no?

If we were to accept that telekinetic abilities do exist (and that's extremely debatable), there's absolutely no reason to believe that it's a result of yet another unseen divine spark. Other hypothetical reasons for the ability would, and do exist.

silans:
Please Nairaland users comments on the "DEVIL NETWORK" how he operates, His agent, his aim, etc

I've heard the network has the best pron out there, his agent is the sme *cough* "Lady" that manages Tom Cruise, and his aim is to be i am. Oh, and he operates without a licence, and under the influence too.

*Peeps in thread, sees weird stuff about some date* Sixth of June 06? *Wanders off to find out what those superstitious hilibillies did in 1006* *Grabs some pizza too (for the time machine)*

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

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

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.

jagunlabi:
, hence not also having the belief in the possibility of GOD existing.How do you explain the ability in some human beings to move solid physical things with the thought of the mind?

Wait, what does one have to do with the other? People have anecdotally being reported to have the ability to move things with their minds, therefore God? Somethings evidently missing from that equation.

No need to deny this phenomenon because it has been well documented the world over.This is one of those paranormal phenos of which existence scientists and atheists alike can neither deny nor explain.

Actually, it's rather easy, not to deny them, but dismiss them. We still haven't seen any empirical demonstartion of the "ability", so until then, I remain skeptical (not that I'm saying it's impossible, just that anecdotes don't cut it).

By the way, from the Skeptic dictionary linky you were kind and fair enough to post: "Scientists have been investigating PK since the mid-19th century but with little success at demonstrating that anyone can move even a feather without trickery involving something as simple and obvious as blowing on objects to move them".

So,my point and logic is,if some humans are capable of possessing such an unnatural ability,then deifinitely this has to point to a very distinct possibility that there has to be a supernatural being that we know as GOD.One of his/her well documented(in world mythologies) capabilities being the ability to influence the physical world by the power of thought(telekinesis).
Comments.

I fail to see how that applies. It's seems like (once again), Humans with nice ability, therefore God.

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?

Rottweiler:
It's just a matter of nomenclature. Animism, atheism, pythomism, pussism, they are all the same.

I have no idea what the ones after atheism are, but I'm pretty sure they are not the same.

When you worship any god other than God then it means you don't believe in him.

Is that like when you worship any other God than [the Zoroastrian] God, then it means you don't believe in him? Reads like a duh! moment.

And by the way, what has skepticism got to do with this issue? Some of you guys, the problem is that because you are opportuned to be based outside your motherland, you think where you are is equivalent to Heaven and as such, there ain't no Heaven. Please open your eyes and your mind!

Indeed!h

Rottweiler:
My friend, I would like to know the name of your sect and what you guys worship.

Still not your friend, and I'm an atheist. A tad hard getting an atheist sect, I'd have thought.

As for me, I worship the only true living God.

Bob?

The I am that I am. The one that was, that is and that will continue to be.The only one that every other living things (humans, powers, etc) bow before. The one whose name performs wonders,

Yep, sounds like Bob; she's weird like that.