If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

.
Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.

your answers just show ignorance ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.

I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.

 

[dpr112yme]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Asking people such as Steven Hawking and other scientists about what they think would be a good start, at least for me. Steven Hawking is rather very 'spaced-minded', more so than myself so I would have to accept that he would know more and has thought more about space than myself.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Asking people such as Steven Hawking and other scientists about what they think would be a good start, at least for me. Steven Hawking is rather very 'spaced-minded', more so than myself so I would have to accept that he would know more and has thought more about space than myself.

Stephen Hawking’s Three Arguments Against God | The Confident Christian

....In his critique of Hawking’s position, science journalist Tim Radford recognizes this inconsistency and writes: “The laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted: just like biblical miracles. M-theory invokes something different: a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere. This force cannot be identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities. It incorporates omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, and it's a big mystery. Remind you of Anybody?”

***************************************************************************************************************************

Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is 'Highly Probable'

Stephen Hawking has since published a rebuttal to his critics, insisting that “Intelligent design” doesn’t in any way prove that God exists, but only that a “God-like force” played a role in the creation of our Universe, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

***************************************************************************************************************************

He appears to flip-flop on the subject...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[james bond]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

.
Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.

your answers just show ignorance ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.

I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.

A rainbow over the Ark Encounter

to remind us of God's promise.

It was built to mark an important period of our lives.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

 

[james bond]

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

 

[james bond]

Here's another prehistoric man contradiction to evolution.

Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas. There aren't enough Stone Age skeletons.

Another point for a young Earth?

 

[BreezeWood]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

.
Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.

your answers just show ignorance ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.

I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.

A rainbow over the Ark Encounter

to remind us of God's promise.

It was built to mark an important period of our lives.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...

metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty .

... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.

to remind us of God's promise.

Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?

Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier


you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.

.

 

[forkup]

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

 

[james bond]

After you answer it you can come up with more bogus objections. How do you account for 8 ppl building a boat, so big, no expert shipbuilder can do it. Outfitting it with enough food and water to take care of 10000 plus animals, when it takes 750 people to take care of the London Zoo. The waste problem alone is staggering. How does this practically works

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

.
Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.

your answers just show ignorance ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.

I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.

A rainbow over the Ark Encounter

to remind us of God's promise.

It was built to mark an important period of our lives.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...

metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty .

... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.

to remind us of God's promise.

Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?

Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier


you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.

.

Ha ha. You're still here?

Metamorphosis? Who discovered that? An atheist scientist? Frick no. Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist. The Christian DNA of Modern Genetics

In fact, Christian or religious scientists have contributed more to the history of humankind than atheist ones. Thus, all those atheists here who thought Christians do not do science are WRONG.

Then, you missed the beauty of the rainbow.

Sir Isaac Newton, Christian scientist

"The technical details of rainbow formation were first analyzed by Isaac Newton in 1665. His brilliant optics work concerning reflection and refraction certainly does not detract from the beauty and promise of the rainbow. On the contrary, Newton's scientific insights show the marvelous complexity of creation. The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17):
“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of a covenant between me and the Earth… Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:13,15).

Read more at: RAINBOWS - What causes a rainbow? • Kid Explorers • ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[james bond]

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers. Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis? There were movies made of the story. History channel provides a good one. I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode. BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.



Again, you are just blabbering on and NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above. You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years. It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article. Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time? I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking. In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia. You haven't sourced anybody and what they did. Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof? You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.

Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus? We can do that. That wipes out 1 million years before? Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says. He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. Nova, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. Science News 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997. When is your video from? That's only part of it. The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US. Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists? I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman. More shenanigans?

What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha? Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha. We can discuss this, too.

 

[BreezeWood]

they built the boat ... notice the bow, the ark had no propulsion why do you think they tried to make it look like an oil tanker ?

for its purpose a perfectly square design would have made far more sense structurally and simplicity to build, theirs without power would succumb to wave swells and capsize ...


Bonds last post was just an appeal to the mutually brainwashed christians ...

maybe they will engage the subject which is the mechanism employed to alter physiological changes from parent to offspring that is universal to all beings from their origin humanity not withstanding ?

.

Your answers just show ignorance ha ha. The boat did not have to go anywhere. Most people know this. God provided the specs, and it's specified in the Bible. And it wasn't 8 ppl, but just Noah. He had 120 years to build it. He was around 500 when he started. Now wrap your minds around that. Again, the Ark Encounter should be able to answer all these questions or the Bible.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference. Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

.
Bond: Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier.

your answers just show ignorance ha ha ...The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise, christian why is that ?

where in that book is the consequence for the Triumpth of Good vs Evil the meaning of Noah's parable where the conclusion acquiesces the Final Judgement.

As for the physiological changes, you're just using today's humans as reference.

I have given you an example of a being that changes their legs into wings where is your biological explanation

and what is the intent of choice found in your book ?

I do not necessarily stem humanity from 160K years ago but from the point of first life on Earth to the present.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

genesis is poorly written and is subject to interpretation whether a christian likes it or not and would only be the beginning. then surly the number published will fall - were it to become real, ha ha.

.

A rainbow over the Ark Encounter

to remind us of God's promise.

It was built to mark an important period of our lives.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu, ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

.

That's the difference between you and I. I admire complexity and beauty while you admire larva and pupu ...

metamorphosis is not complexity and beauty .

... ancient fossil fish and dragon-bird which in the overall scheme of things mean very little.

neither you nor forkup have speculated the process that generates the physiological change, humans did not grow wings nor gills the dissimilarity alone is evolutionary and seems equal among all Earthly beings.

my examples have all been provable and real life, you simply are unable to respond to their factual representations.

to remind us of God's promise.

Pre-flood humans were able to procreate among close relatives because the genetic defects did not show up. They were much healthier. The genetic defects started to show up post-flood.

you are simply dishonest, those before the flood were all but Noah deemed recalcitrant by the Almighty and destroyed - before Noah's death to give humanity a second chance and yet they are the objects of your praise christian, why is that ?

Pre-flood humans ... They were much healthier


you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil. there is no promise only a certainty for an outcome without interruption. praising those before Noah is not for you a promising contribution and is why those like you must be corrected for the good of humanity.

.

Ha ha. You're still here?

Metamorphosis? Who discovered that? An atheist scientist? Frick no. Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist. The Christian DNA of Modern Genetics

In fact, Christian or religious scientists have contributed more to the history of humankind than atheist ones. Thus, all those atheists here who thought Christians do not do science are WRONG.

Then, you missed the beauty of the rainbow.

Sir Isaac Newton, Christian scientist

"The technical details of rainbow formation were first analyzed by Isaac Newton in 1665. His brilliant optics work concerning reflection and refraction certainly does not detract from the beauty and promise of the rainbow. On the contrary, Newton's scientific insights show the marvelous complexity of creation. The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17):
“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of a covenant between me and the Earth… Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:13,15).

Read more at: RAINBOWS - What causes a rainbow? • Kid Explorers • ChristianAnswers.Net

.

Metamorphosis? Who discovered that? An atheist scientist? Frick no. Gregor Mendel, a Christian scientist.

the above has nothing to do with Mendel, Bond your good at dodging when there is no alternative to a real life example and you have no answers for your creationist hyperbole ... all beings have the same adaptability derived from a similar origin, their Spirits given as the same, no different than humanity by the Almighty.

The rainbow is a gracious pledge that God will not destroy the Earth a second time with a worldwide flood (Genesis 9:11-17):

you do not understand the parable of Noah as the religion set forth from that time foreword The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

your christianity does not fulfill the parable of Noah, the true religion as prescribed by the Almighty for humanities redemption ...

Ha ha. You're still here?

. what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?

.

 

[james bond]

I'll just let the scientific posts I started about tree rings and not enough Stone Age fossils go for now.

I found out today there was a Lucy exhibit put on by Ethiopia, Johanson and the Pacific Science Center at Seattle in 2009. I just want to point out the difference between its success and the Creation Museum which has become a top-notch family attraction in the Midwest US.

Here's the headline, "No Love for Lucy" (the news article has been deleted). "Who loves Lucy? Far fewer people than a Seattle science center hoped when officials paid millions to show the fossil remains of one of the earliest known human ancestors.

Halfway through the five-month exhibit, the Pacific Science Center faces a half-million-dollar loss resulting in layoffs of 8 percent of the staff, furloughs and a wage freeze, President Bryce Seidl said Friday."

Other museums withdrew because of the cost. Lucy will likely remain in Ethiopia forever ha ha.

OTOH the Creation Museum has become a success and a premier family destination. Add to it the Ark Encounter and it sounds like both will be hits.



"We didn’t read any stories about museums losing money when they paid Egypt a pharaoh’s ransom to show King Tut’s artifacts. Lots of people (including me) went to the Pacific Science Center to see the Titanic artifacts. Attendance figures (and the resulting income) represent reality. How people spend their money is a better indication of what people believe than mere words. People aren’t fascinated by the evolution myth any more. That’s why they didn’t go."

 

[james bond]

So, it appears that the evolutionists here have been FOOLED by the optical illusion of evolution. They believe in a science (theories) based on political motivations. Here's a good example of what I mean.

The colors of the squares A and B are both the same color despite the "illusion."

 

[forkup]

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers. Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis? There were movies made of the story. History channel provides a good one. I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode. BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.



Again, you are just blabbering on and NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above. You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years. It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article. Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time? I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking. In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia. You haven't sourced anybody and what they did. Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof? You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.

Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus? We can do that. That wipes out 1 million years before? Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says. He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. Nova, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. Science News 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997. When is your video from? That's only part of it. The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US. Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists? I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman. More shenanigans?

What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha? Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha. We can discuss this, too.

I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal. I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.

 

[james bond]

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers. Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis? There were movies made of the story. History channel provides a good one. I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode. BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.



Again, you are just blabbering on and NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above. You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years. It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article. Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time? I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking. In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia. You haven't sourced anybody and what they did. Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof? You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.

Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus? We can do that. That wipes out 1 million years before? Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says. He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. Nova, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. Science News 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997. When is your video from? That's only part of it. The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US. Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists? I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman. More shenanigans?

What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha? Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha. We can discuss this, too.

I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal. I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.

You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.

Again, you avoid my questions. Is it because you LOST again and are wrong again? I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus. Face it, Lucy was a CHIMPANZEE. Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore. Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore? That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually WRONG. This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.

Here is the TRUTH right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.



Early humans were around the same time as Lucy. Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans. Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like. That is so whack. When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.

What about the Stone Age man skeletons? They buried the deceased with artifacts. Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.

On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline. You have no explanation for this.

It's time to move on, forkup.

 

[forkup]

Y

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers. Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis? There were movies made of the story. History channel provides a good one. I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode. BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.



Again, you are just blabbering on and NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above. You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years. It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article. Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time? I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking. In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia. You haven't sourced anybody and what they did. Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof? You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.

Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus? We can do that. That wipes out 1 million years before? Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says. He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. Nova, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. Science News 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997. When is your video from? That's only part of it. The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US. Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists? I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman. More shenanigans?

What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha? Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha. We can discuss this, too.

I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal. I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.

You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.

Again, you avoid my questions. Is it because you LOST again and are wrong again? I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus. Face it, Lucy was a CHIMPANZEE. Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore. Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore? That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually WRONG. This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.

Here is the TRUTH right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.



Early humans were around the same time as Lucy. Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans. Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like. That is so whack. When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.

What about the Stone Age man skeletons? They buried the deceased with artifacts. Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.

On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline. You have no explanation for this.

It's time to move on, forkup.

You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?

 

[james bond]

Y

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

forkup, the Ark Encounter was built to answer your questions. That's a full-sized workable model. Maybe we'll have more creation museums in the near-future to educate our children.

I've answered all your questions and destroyed Australopithecus despite your claims (there's still the 100 million years before Ardipithecus to explain), but you haven't proved tiktaalik nor archaeopteryx. How was tiktaalik able to breathe on land? Thus, the lungfish, which is just natural selection and it lives today.

I think you're stuck, so will move on.

So you gave me exactly 0 answers. I'll try again. How do you propose 8 people do the work of 750 people in a way more challeging enviremont (high seas), just one question but start there????? Oh an btw you destroyed exactly nothing about Australopithecus. First of I don't know how you came by the 100 million years. Lets disregard that you have fought those kind of timeframes from the beginning. It seems to me that you flipflopped something fierce on time, but lets move past that but look

none other then your hero , professor Lovejoy he obiously doesn't think Australopithecus is destroyed, proving once again that you using actual scientist as your sources ends bad for you. What does that tell you?

I gather the 8 people is Noah's family, and again the Ark Encounter provides the answers. Is it too hard for you to google Ark Encounter, Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis? There were movies made of the story. History channel provides a good one. I have a scientific website, but it will just make your head explode. BTW I'll come back to Ark Encounter at the end of my post.



Again, you are just blabbering on and NOT answering my questions on the lungfish and the ones I highlighted above. You claim evolution is fact, so you should be able to spit out the answers faster than I can type.

The only point, I stand corrected on is the 100 million years. It should be ~1 million years as I probably misread Lovejoy's article. Why do you say or assume I flip-flopped on the time? I will continue to give you the answers which won't be to your liking. In contrast to your posts, I provide the sources, name names and provide better links than wikipedia. You haven't sourced anybody and what they did. Typical of evolutionists who do not know enough on forums such as this.

Does this explain why your posts are not evidence nor proof? You seem to think you can spout opinion and this will make it so.

Are you saying that Australopithecus Lucy is the one who started bipedality and you rather focus on it than Ardipithecus? We can do that. That wipes out 1 million years before? Ardi was not bipidal then?

I think Lovejoy stands by what he says. He worked with Donald Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23

22 Johanson, Donald. Nova, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1). PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997. Transcript at NOVA | Transcripts | In Search of Human Origins (1) | PBS.

23 Herbert, W. 1982. Was Lucy a Climber? Dissenting Views of Ancient Bones. Science News 122, no. 8:116.

The NOVA program was from 1997. When is your video from? That's only part of it. The rest was in his paper and the news article in 2009 timeframe.

Ethiopia, the owners of Lucy's remains wanted to schedule a Lucy exhibition tour in the US. Why was that kaboshed by the evo scientists? I think it was because they were afraid they would not exhibit her they way they wanted and that was to make her more an apewoman. More shenanigans?

What about the hominid footprints found 1000 miles away and claimed to be Lucy's ha ha? Got anything to say about that?

The Ark Encounter, or more correctly, the Creation Museum at the site has its own Lucy exhibit ha ha. We can discuss this, too.

I used your own source, Lovejoy against you twice now and I did it using youtube not wikepedia. And you know wat I find realy funny, you even admit that Lovejoy thinks Lucy was fully bipedal. I use sources who doesn't have as its main function, disproving Creationism. That's just a side effect of their research and I'm consistent in my explanations. I don't for instance try to do a post trying to establish a timeframe of a million years ago and then try to defend a young earth. So both me and my sources provide a far more consistent and scientific argument. That's in contrast to you James who has to use biased sources and inconsistentent and in a lot of cases non-sensical arguments, like for instance trying to cast doubt on Austrolopithicus in favor of an older and just as apelike creature. At this point in time I don't even know what your positions are. Do you believe the earth is millions or thousands of years old, do you believe humans evolved from apelike creatures, do you believe in any type of evolution, do you believe in transitional fossils? Arguing both sides of an argument, insures you'll never be wrong but it does make for an confusing conversation.

You forgot this Lovejoy video uploaded after yours.

Again, you avoid my questions. Is it because you LOST again and are wrong again? I've moved on and found even more evidence against Australopithecus. Face it, Lucy was a CHIMPANZEE. Nobody believes in that evolution story anymore. Maybe they do not believe in evolution anymore? That would be exquisite and show the world evos and atheists are usually WRONG. This is science I am using to counter your so-called evo theories.

Here is the TRUTH right here, but you will ignore or be in denial ha ha.



Early humans were around the same time as Lucy. Otherwise, we would see more of these apemen creatures and no evidence of humans. Also, there is no agreement on what Lucy actually looked like. That is so whack. When I question two subjects and they each describe the same person in different ways, then we have to question their stories until more information comes in.

What about the Stone Age man skeletons? They buried the deceased with artifacts. Not enough of them to show 100,000 years (then it would number appx. 4 million skeletons and bones would last 100,000 years), but enough to show a 6,000 - 10,000 year-old Earth.

On top of all this, there are much more humanoid fossils and they overlap the evolution timeline. You have no explanation for this.

It's time to move on, forkup.

You know James, I strongly suggest you watch your own video and listen carefully. Lovejoy talks about the fact that Ardi, is probably the common ancestor for homononids and chimpansees. Lucy he classifies in the homonid camp, based on the fact she is bipedal and is a member of a species were the males hasn't got the longer teeth, common in chimpansees and all modern apes, the video I posted talks about another Austrolopiticus Lovejoy worked on a male btw so its not conjecture. I get you hear only what you want to hear but it's obvious. In the end he sais "Darwin would be estatic". And before you say it. He also sais Darwin had the order evolutionary traits appeared, wrong, but only because Darwin only had 1 other homonid fossil (Neathertall), so again, I'm completely baffled why you would use a source that completely and utterly supports Darwin's vision on us evolving from apes. You just get stuck on the old mind trick Creastionist use (Darwin claims we evolved from chimpansees). Since the only thing Darwin claimed is that we had a common ancestor and Lovejoy is trying to make a case for Ardi being it. Oh and btw Lovejoy also completely nullifies your second video. That guy talks about that theirs nothing found before Autrolopitecus and tries to cast doubt on Lucy. While Lovejoy has Ardi wich is a million years older and my video also talks about another austrolopiticus that has been found so you lose twice.This is that video again, listen very carefully to both videos and then explain to me why you feel Lovejoy is usefull for you?

Lovejoy believes it's a chimpanzee-like ape. Besides, there are others who think it's a chimpanzee. Most people do not care about Lucy anymore. They do not believe it. You can keep believing "she's" an apeman ha ha. So, where are the other apemen? Instead, I showed that early humans and chimpanzees and apes lived together. Did you forget the footprints found 1000 miles away from Lucy? And I've posted about the australopithecines already.

"Australopithecines include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.

The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone. However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs. They also have curved fingers and long curved toes. Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. The article of Mark Collard and Leislie Aiello in Nature Magazine reports "good evidence from Lucy's hand-bones that her species "knuckle-walked as chimps and gorillas still do today. It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees. However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other."

Collard, Mark; Aiello, Leslie C. (March 23, 2000). "From Forelimbs to Two Legs". Nature 404 (6776): 339-340. ISSN 0028-0836

 

[james bond]

How about continuing our discussion of mutations, forkup? Do you still think they are beneficial? Tobacco is a GMO product today. The mutation has been patented. People are more likely to get cancer and they may have their cells mutated by smoking 15 cigarettes.

Smoking 15 cigarettes harms your DNA, finds cancer study

 

[james bond]

>>
. what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<

Egg, larva, pupa and adult.

Knock yerself out, BreezeWood. I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.

Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover

 

[BreezeWood]

>>
. what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?<<

Egg, larva, pupa and adult.

Knock yerself out, BreezeWood. I enjoy watching you dig a hole presumably to bury yourself in.

Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover

.

Egg, Larva, Pupa, and Adult | Kids Discover

been busy, not enough time to log into your site though not my example an equally compelling demonstration from a common origin an entirely personalized regeneration of species that equal if not surpas the simpler reproductive processes of other beings including humans.

what is the guiding force for metamorphosis, Bond and where does it reside during the transformation ?

... you posted the question but did not answer it, and let me be remindful this is a religious forum. the contrasts you and I have for the written vs spoken similar religion your reference as christianity can also explain the variances in answers you block your mind from in consideration at the expense of a resultant conclusion.

... does even your site reflect the written biblical genesis, you may think you are not buried but in fact spinning wheels only digs you deeper.

.