If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

Y

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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the ccr5-Δ32 mutation wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

 

[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

.

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.

.

I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

 

[james bond]

Y

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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

 

[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.

.

I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

.

and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.

you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.

Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.

It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.

The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.

 

[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

.

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.

.

Ha ha. No cicadas. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.



I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

.

and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.

you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.

Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.

It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.

The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

 

[forkup]

Y

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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

 

[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.

.

Ha ha. No cicadas. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.



I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

.

and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.

you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.

Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.

It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.

The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.

.

 

[sizzler]

...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*****

God doesn't exist. But Bat Boy does!

 

[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

.

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.

.

Ha ha. No cicadas. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.



I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

.

and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.

you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.

Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.

It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.

The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.

.

Do you know how I know you lost? I've become part of your argument. The scientific method is not based on personal traits of an opponent. Then, you have to be able to explain your theory well enough to be able to convince others.

 

[james bond]

Y

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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.

 

[Mudda]

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.


... 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.

.

Ha ha. No cicadas. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road to keep cool while you keep digging.



I'm not the one looking for a conclusion. You are referring to the evolutionist scientists and atheists who look for the facts to fit their hypotheses. That isn't science. You have no explanation for the questions that come up with australopithecus, tiktaalik and archeopteryx and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up. The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications. Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

Let's assume the creationists are correct. Let's limit it to Genesis because they cover a wide array of things. It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God. There could have been another creator or intelligent designer. The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

.

and so you avoid it and try to sidetrack the discussion or replace it with something you made up.

you wish the above weren't real or that you could disclaim it's existence, is why "I made it up" ... it is you who has no answer how a being changes their legs into wings to find their mate.

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

the driving force is finding a mate, look at what the Cicada has accomplished to fulfill their dream, a greater accomplishment of flight no human being has come close to succeeding ... your "mutation" is a custom fit for your purposes and nothing more.

Do you wonder why these people and companies behind it are the ones who sponsor evolution? It's so it will be easier to get their genome patents and foist their dangerous products on an unsuspecting public.

liberals have been fighting corporate malfeasance since time immemorial, it is your christianity that does their bidding for them, they prefer the unsuspecting to foster their own dangerous product of christianity and work with the corporations for their mutual self rewarding returns.

not to mention the above quote is borderline madness.

It would explain all the questions that were brought up in regards to evolution and to God's existence. However, it does not conclusively prove the Christian God.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No. there is your proof such events occur and only when the mechanism has accomplished the highest degree of efficiency, Spiritual purity for the physicality to correctly be configured. and the proof of a non physical self sustaining matrix that provides results when properly acquired. christianity at best is a poor substitute for the true Spiritual search for life.

The one thing we do have is the Bible since the 4th century (or 1st century if you followed Jesus and the Apostles and the church after Jesus). Science has backed it up and continues to back it up. The atheists are willfully ignorant of the Bible and creation science. The simpletons think it's between science and religion or a flying spaghetti monster and the other simpletons lap it up.

more madness from the mentally challenged ...

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

.

Ha ha. Cicadas? No. Pina coladas. And getting caught in the rain. I'll have one for the road while you keep digging.

christianity and alcohol have walked hand in hand throughout history, do try and drown your sorrows - and yes the Cicadas are as remarkable as any human being ... to bad it's above your pay scale.

.

Do you know how I know you lost? I've become part of your argument. The scientific method is not based on personal traits of an opponent. Then, you have to be able to explain your theory well enough to be able to convince others.

.

Do you know how I know you lost? I've become part of your argument.

how's that Bond ?

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

The evo scientists claim mutation is the driving force, but ignore its negative ramifications.

what is the mechanism for the Cicadas transition from a land creature to an aviest - could it be accomplished by improper mutation, No.

among a few specifics you have not become a part of with a reply Bond as a means to continue the discussion you seem incapable of understanding ... and no it is only your deflections you have maintained as your continued presence.

not to mention your childlike responses to biblical interpretations.

.

 

[forkup]

Y
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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.

First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.

 

[forkup]

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?

A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.

 

[james bond]

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

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.

First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.

It's not me who does what you described, but you. You're the dishonest one. Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers. Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim? Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain. If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact. However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there. That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee. Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx. There isn't enough there. You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.

Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant. It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth. Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers. Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.

What were you right about? Positive benefits in mutations? You have not proven that. You still have to overcome the side effects. I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over. You have not proven that information is added to the DNA. That's the only way evolution would create an evolution. You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell? Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.

You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements. Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution. I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations. Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."

I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that. I did address the lactose persistence with lactase. Or did you just conveniently ignore that?

What argument was strawman? Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.

 

[james bond]

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?

A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.

People naturally assume Jesus, but it started with Abraham. The Bible is a written history of Jesus as well as Abraham. It is a non-fiction book. Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam begins with Abraham.

"Historian Paul Johnson has offered a likely alternative to these beliefs in his book, ”A History of the Jews”. He states that, although “the Book of Genesis and related Biblical passages are the only evidence that he existed,” there are several corroborative archaeological finds that support the cultural norms of time period making “the substance of this Biblical account” history. Abraham (then Abram) traveled from Ur, first to Haran, then throughout Canaan, and ending at Hebron (where he was buried at the Cave of Machpelah); real cities illuminated by the findings of Leonard Woolley, William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, Samantha Kenyon, et. al. Johnson agrees with R. K. Harrison’s calculations which place the time period of Abraham “between Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the outside limits being 2100-1550 BC” (Middle Bronze Age). He states that the king-list of Genesis is “not to be despised” anymore than other king-lists of antiquity, such as the pharaoh-list by Manetho and king-list by Berossus. Johnson also states that the ten-name anti-diluvian genealogy in Genesis (as opposed to the earliest king-list containing eight names) corresponds to Berossus’ list; a “link between the two is perhaps Abraham, who brought the tradition with him.”

Ancient customs as seen through the Ebla, Nuzi, and Mari tablets support this claim. For example, the “Ebla and Mari tablets contain administrative and legal documents referring to people with patriarchal-type names such as Abram, Jacob, Leah, Laban and Ishmael” and there are “also suggestive expressions and loan-words related to Hebrew.” The Nuzi tablets offer even more direct cultural parallels. One tablet “produces exact parallels” to Abraham taking Hagar as a child-bearing concubine because of Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 16). Other Nuzi tablets attest Esau’s sale of his birthright and the binding power of Isaac’s oral contract “in the form of a death-bed blessing” in Genesis 27. Another Nuzi parallel shows that “family gods were like title-deeds, with symbolic legal value” thus explaining why Rachel stole Laban’s idols. All of these show to be authorized legal proceedings of marriage and family contracts at the time. Tablets from Mari corroborate the more strange practice of slaughtering animals to confirm a covenant; attesting Abraham’s covenant with God seen in Genesis 15:9-10.

Johnson believes that Abraham is best understood in the context of being a tribal leader among the Habiru, “difficult and destructive non-city-dwellers” who moved from “place to place” living in agreement (or at war with) governing authorities. Abraham, like the Habiru, had the power to purchase freehold land in Hebron with the consent of the community while being an alien. The land he purchased in Genesis 23:20 “was owned by a dignitary called Ephron the Hittite, a West Semite and Habiru of Hittite origin. In light of this view, some patriarchal events are more sensible. For example, tablets show that a “wife with the legal status of a sister commanded more protection than an ordinary wife,” highlighting Abimelech’s fear in Genesis 20. Like the Habiru, Abraham also deals with major authorities, such as Egypt in Genesis 12 and the King of Sodom in Genesis 14. Although settlement deals were contentious and legalistic, as seen in Genesis 21:22-31, “it was sometimes in the interests of the settled kings to tolerate the Habiru, as a source of mercenaries.” Though if the dwelling tribe grew too large and powerful, “the local king had to tell them to move on, or risk being overwhelmed himself” as seen with Abimelech and Isaac in Genesis 26:16. In Johnson’s view, all of these dealings, “problems of immigration, of water-well and contracts and birthrights … testifies to the Bible’s great antiquity and authenticity.”

There is the History of Rome by Livy and Roman records, but sadly it does not contain references to a historical Jesus nor Abraham -- The History of Rome, Books 1-5 .

My thinking is once you bring Jesus Christ into the discussion, then we are discussing religion. The parts in Bible where Jesus is involved would be taught as philosophy. While the topic of Jesus of Nazareth is very interesting, the parts I discussed were Genesis and the parts backed up by science to counter evolution.

Where a creator or intelligent designer comes in would be during creation in six days. This is what I would propose be taught in schools as scientific theory. The ID camp has written their own books. The Jesus or religious parts should be continued to be taught under philosophy.

 

[Mudda]

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?

A couple of things. Just putting it out there. We have no source besides the NT that Jesus existed, so it's kind of hard to judge the itentions of someone when we can't even confirm that he existed. Me personally I'm inclined to believe he did. If for no other reason that the NT has to have some bases in historical events. So was he a con man? No probably not, I envision him being like most cult leaders, somebody who interpreted his beliefs in another way then was the norm. Like all cult leaders he was able to convince people of his interpretation and eventually got punished for having a dissenting view. Over the next couple of centuries his followers, embelished the person who was Jesus into the Godlike person he is considered today. This is of course all hypothesising but all the steps I just put forth has been seen happening before. Think for instance Mormonism and scientoligy. My point is that my hypothesis is more believable considering the evidence then a person who could litterraly raise the death and walk on water. I'm not saying it did happen because that would make it a belief system, but it is inherrently more believable.

People naturally assume Jesus, but it started with Abraham. The Bible is a written history of Jesus as well as Abraham. It is a non-fiction book. Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam begins with Abraham.

"Historian Paul Johnson has offered a likely alternative to these beliefs in his book, ”A History of the Jews”. He states that, although “the Book of Genesis and related Biblical passages are the only evidence that he existed,” there are several corroborative archaeological finds that support the cultural norms of time period making “the substance of this Biblical account” history. Abraham (then Abram) traveled from Ur, first to Haran, then throughout Canaan, and ending at Hebron (where he was buried at the Cave of Machpelah); real cities illuminated by the findings of Leonard Woolley, William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, Samantha Kenyon, et. al. Johnson agrees with R. K. Harrison’s calculations which place the time period of Abraham “between Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, the outside limits being 2100-1550 BC” (Middle Bronze Age). He states that the king-list of Genesis is “not to be despised” anymore than other king-lists of antiquity, such as the pharaoh-list by Manetho and king-list by Berossus. Johnson also states that the ten-name anti-diluvian genealogy in Genesis (as opposed to the earliest king-list containing eight names) corresponds to Berossus’ list; a “link between the two is perhaps Abraham, who brought the tradition with him.”

Ancient customs as seen through the Ebla, Nuzi, and Mari tablets support this claim. For example, the “Ebla and Mari tablets contain administrative and legal documents referring to people with patriarchal-type names such as Abram, Jacob, Leah, Laban and Ishmael” and there are “also suggestive expressions and loan-words related to Hebrew.” The Nuzi tablets offer even more direct cultural parallels. One tablet “produces exact parallels” to Abraham taking Hagar as a child-bearing concubine because of Sarah’s barrenness (Genesis 16). Other Nuzi tablets attest Esau’s sale of his birthright and the binding power of Isaac’s oral contract “in the form of a death-bed blessing” in Genesis 27. Another Nuzi parallel shows that “family gods were like title-deeds, with symbolic legal value” thus explaining why Rachel stole Laban’s idols. All of these show to be authorized legal proceedings of marriage and family contracts at the time. Tablets from Mari corroborate the more strange practice of slaughtering animals to confirm a covenant; attesting Abraham’s covenant with God seen in Genesis 15:9-10.

Johnson believes that Abraham is best understood in the context of being a tribal leader among the Habiru, “difficult and destructive non-city-dwellers” who moved from “place to place” living in agreement (or at war with) governing authorities. Abraham, like the Habiru, had the power to purchase freehold land in Hebron with the consent of the community while being an alien. The land he purchased in Genesis 23:20 “was owned by a dignitary called Ephron the Hittite, a West Semite and Habiru of Hittite origin. In light of this view, some patriarchal events are more sensible. For example, tablets show that a “wife with the legal status of a sister commanded more protection than an ordinary wife,” highlighting Abimelech’s fear in Genesis 20. Like the Habiru, Abraham also deals with major authorities, such as Egypt in Genesis 12 and the King of Sodom in Genesis 14. Although settlement deals were contentious and legalistic, as seen in Genesis 21:22-31, “it was sometimes in the interests of the settled kings to tolerate the Habiru, as a source of mercenaries.” Though if the dwelling tribe grew too large and powerful, “the local king had to tell them to move on, or risk being overwhelmed himself” as seen with Abimelech and Isaac in Genesis 26:16. In Johnson’s view, all of these dealings, “problems of immigration, of water-well and contracts and birthrights … testifies to the Bible’s great antiquity and authenticity.”

There is the History of Rome by Livy and Roman records, but sadly it does not contain references to a historical Jesus nor Abraham -- The History of Rome, Books 1-5 .

My thinking is once you bring Jesus Christ into the discussion, then we are discussing religion. The parts in Bible where Jesus is involved would be taught as philosophy. While the topic of Jesus of Nazareth is very interesting, the parts I discussed were Genesis and the parts backed up by science to counter evolution.

Where a creator or intelligent designer comes in would be during creation in six days. This is what I would propose be taught in schools as scientific theory. The ID camp has written their own books. The Jesus or religious parts should be continued to be taught under philosophy.

That sure is a lot of copy&paste, even for you.

 

[forkup]

Lovejoy starts talking about Lucy on the 2 minute mark on YOUR video, and he talks how she is so unlike any modern higher primate. If you can't even admit that you are completely wrong on his position then we are done. If someone is so dishonest that they can't even admit that they're wrong when I point out video evidence using your own video then their really is no point in continuing. I'm willing to argue to ignorant people. But if they are besides ignorant, also dishonest I have to say, their is no hope for this person. 1 last thing, just so you know the mutation thing fases me not in the slightest, I already gave a very positive mutation, namely lactose persistence in Europeans, there's also the utatioccr5-Δ32 mn wich gives resistance to HIV, plague and smallpox but increases suseptability to West Nile virus and you have this boy Genetic mutationturns tot into superboy.

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.

First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.

It's not me who does what you described, but you. You're the dishonest one. Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers. Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim? Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain. If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact. However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there. That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee. Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx. There isn't enough there. You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.

Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant. It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth. Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers. Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.

What were you right about? Positive benefits in mutations? You have not proven that. You still have to overcome the side effects. I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over. You have not proven that information is added to the DNA. That's the only way evolution would create an evolution. You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell? Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.

You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements. Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution. I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations. Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."

I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that. I did address the lactose persistence with lactase. Or did you just conveniently ignore that?

What argument was strawman? Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.

-K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.

I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
- On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me. So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
- This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
- On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.

 

[james bond]

Primate doesn't necessarily mean man. He has used the term to refer to a higher order of apes which chimpanzees are. That doesn't mean apeman or australopithecina. For the sake of argument, suppose I agree with you about apemen. Where are you going next with your australopithecus? Why aren't there more of these fossils if they existed for a million years? We have complete dinosaurs, so why no complete australopithecina?

For lactose intolerance, they created lactase supplements and these have drawbacks. You have to keep taking them before dairy consumption and most people won't do that so they can consume dairy products. For those who are lactose tolerant, like me except for drinking a lot of milk, moderation of dairy products is best.

The ccr5-delta 32 mutation does appear to be "positive" mutation to help prevent HIV and mutation that decreases the information content of the genome (actually damages the ccr5 receptor beyond repair) and degrades the functionality of the organism, yet provides a tangible benefit. The drawback could be that it causes chronic and potentially life-threatening liver disease or West Nile virus as you mentioned.

As for the muscle superboy, your own article states, "The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems." Yet, we have these “myostatin-blocking” supplements to bodybuilders. Would you take these? It's another type of PEDs.

He specifies Lucy when he starts talking about "Unlike any higher primate" Lucy is an Australopithecus so, yes he sais she is unlike any chimpansee. It's deductive reasoning on a 5 year old level. You are not 5 years old, so that means you are dishonest. Hence me questioning the sense in continuing if you are completely unwilling to grant even such a thouroughly debunked statement as claiming "Lovejoy thinks she is a chimpansee like ape"
-Lactose persistence is a positive mutation, the fact that lactose intolerance is not dibilatating with modern medicines is neither here nore there.
-ccr5-delta 32 mutation is positive the fact that it has drawbacks too is of no consequence if the net result is positive wich resistance to 3 of the deadliest diseases in history certainly is.
- Being insanely strong thanks to a mutation is positive, if it might and I stress might because the doctors don't know yet if it is the case, cause problems down the line that is of little consequence. -The only rule evolution really adheres to is. "Does this mutation gives me a higher chance of survival". Digesting something previously undigestable, resistance to diseases and extra strenght qualify that criterea. Btw most medicines have drawbacks are you going to claim that medicines are negative to peoples health? The net result not possible drawbacks determine if something is positive. If you don't your opinion that there are no positive mutations is thouroughly debunked.

This should not be strictly be about Lovejoy and me. What you should consider is what the creation museum is saying and different interpretations -- Lucy | Creation Museum . If what you claim is true, then we should see more and better apemen fossils. We have put together whole dinosaurs. As well as being able to explain the footprints found a thousand miles away. In general, creation states that God made certain traits like feathers, bipedality, being able to breathe underwater and so on for certain creatures. Thus, creation explains the lack of the evidence for transitional forms.

Of course, it is of consequence. That is the entire crux of the matter. All of these mutations do not add genetic information which is what it takes to make your transitional forms. What they do is change the information. That's all and it is negative or neutral. I will give you this. What you call "postive" is questionable. What these evo scientists are doing is taking what they have discovered and exploiting it for their own purpose. Some have become very rich off the sufferings of others. I have to admit for someone like Magic Johnson, taking the ccr5-delta 32 mutation (and destroying his cell receptors?) did prevent AIDS. We'll have to see whether he has liver or other problems down the road. That said, people think ccr5 is the silver bullet. It is not a solution, but a questionable cure. That goes all for these new mutated PED-like products. It may help get people over their immediate health problem, but cause others down the road. Achieving perfection does not work that way.

As for PEDs, we have tests to disqualify or penalize a sports participant. Also, they'll pay a price down the road even if they did get their big payday. Is there a safe PED? I don't know, but it does not involve mutations. I looked into the myostin-blocker supplements (mostly from seaweed extract and considered a PED) and they do nothing but placebo. Better to have a "healthy" diet. Some of these athletes have personal chefs, but one can eat healthy by understanding what is bad for you, i.e what foods to avoid or consume in moderation, and what one can eat regularly.

Again, I can't answer what is optimum for the health-impaired. If it will save their life or make their life better, the maybe taking the PED is the answer. However, I can't recommend it for normal people as the way to go. What about the big payday? There's no guarantee that it will lead to that. Very few athletes get it although it is widely publicized when they do.

First of all, it is not about you and Lovejoy, it's about just you. You and your tendency to try and use any and every argument that you think is helpfull, and not being able to admit in the slightest when you say something wrong and get called on it. This whole Lovejoy thing clearly shows that you are willing to try as a source someone who utters a single sentence that you think you can use. You use that 1 sentence and then when I point out, in detail I might add how you misrepresent his position you do anything but admit to your fault.Being wrong at a certain point is inevitable if you have a discussion as long as we've been going at it. Maybe you simply got exited when you saw the title to that youtube video and you didn't take the time to properly check. I'm a grownup and I might find it funny but in the end I get that if your arguing sometimes people get overzealous. In short, If you just would have said you're right and you'd moved on, it wouldn't have been anything but a minor blip. Instead you chose like I've seen numorous times in the course of this discussion a no retreat stance, never ever admit a mistake, or to the other person making his point. Which brings me to the other part of your post. This is such a strawman argument. Your assertion is that there are no positive mutations. I proved that there were. Like I pointed out the fact that both the muscle boy and the ccr-5 mutation have possible drawback is of no consequence from an evolutionary standpoint since the net effect increases survivability. You didn't even attempt to talk about lactose persistence because the net effect is positive accross the board.. Instead you start talking about it doesn't increase information and then put out out a disjointed explanation about anyting but the mutation in general. I disproved your original assertion. Trying to use strawman arguments to distract from that fact makes you dishonest yet again, hence my problem. I can understand people being wrong in a debate. I have no understanding for people who are unable to admit to being wrong. You can correct mistakes, being dishonest is systemic and therefore not correctable.

It's not me who does what you described, but you. You're the dishonest one. Instead of answering my questions, you avoid them and resort to this kind of post when you clearly have no answers. Where is the mountain of evidence that evos claim? Instead, it's the creationists who have the mountain. If the evidence that you have are true, then we can all use it as a fact. However, we can't use Lucy to believe in evolution because there isn't enough there. That's why people do not care about Lucy the chimpanzee. Nor do they care about Tiktaalik nor Archeopteryx. There isn't enough there. You probably do not even know where the originals are kept.

Instead, people care about finding Noah's Ark, the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant. It really isn't about science vs religion, but creation vs evolution and finding the truth. Evolution has done a lousy job of providing the evidence and we can see that it does not have the answers. Otherwise, you would not be frustrated and be able to answer all my questions.

What were you right about? Positive benefits in mutations? You have not proven that. You still have to overcome the side effects. I'll grant you HIV or Ebola blockers, but eventually the side effects will take over. You have not proven that information is added to the DNA. That's the only way evolution would create an evolution. You have not proven how even the basic building block of life is created outside the cell? Even millions of years cannot overcome these issues.

You can continue to believe in your "positive" mutations and keep lying about how you were able to disprove my statements. Certainly, you failed in showing how mutations cause evolution. I hope you practice what you preach on the "positive" mutations. Then you can give us a first-hand lecture on how mutations are "beneficial" and how it increased your "survivability."

I admitted I was wrong is stating 100 million years instead of 1 million years, so you're wrong about that. I did address the lactose persistence with lactase. Or did you just conveniently ignore that?

What argument was strawman? Instead, you continue to use circular reasoning to explain evolution when the so-called mountain of evidence isn't there.

-K I'll first go into your first assertion, the fact that I'm the dishonest one. This has been taken from another conversation I had about gun control, if you can show me anything like it I will immediatly appoligise for calling you dishonest.

I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untennable. I still have strong objections to asault rifles because they are excessive but I'm someone who tries to be honest even when honest means I have to admit I'm wrong. I'll provide a link with the article.Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

This is the difference between me and you. I put out an assertion. In my quest to find outside confermation I found my assertion wasn't supported by fact. I didn't just give up my objections or admit that I was wrong. I gave him the link. I could have quite easily not said anything, but it wouldn't have been honest. Btw this is also the scientific method, when something isn't supported by the evidence it is given up no matter how much the people who put forth the hypothesis have invested in the idea.
- On your second assertion that I haven't presented a mountain of evidence. The thing is I have, the problem is you don't accept it even if you sometimes admit to it. For instance you don't accept any transitional fossils altough you do admit to certain fossils having traits of different species, what do you suppose a transitional fossil is but a fossil that shows traits of 2 different species? You don't accept positive mutations altough you do admit that having resistance to HIV is positive. So on and so forth. I talked about radiometric dating and the different dating methods that exist and you simply say, I don't accept it. I talked about stars and light and you come back with some weird explanation that astronomers for some reason didn't account for spacetime, an assertion so ridiculous that none of your Creasionist friends try that argument, they use different ones also ridiculous but this one doesn't even have a wisp of credibility. I have used Bioligy ( vestigality), Genetics (mutations),Geoligy (stratas), vulkanoligy and history( the fact that there's is no written record of supervolcanoes or the Siberean traps, events so massive they would have been recorded if they occured during human existence.) and probably a few more that I've forgotten. And I know I haven't used all the arguments available to me. So saying I haven't presented my case is false.
- This is the reason you saying I want Creationism thaught in schools as science makes me shiver. In order for Creationism to be true, litteraly all branches of science have to be fundamentally flawed. You want something thaught as science wich is the exact opposite of science. Creationism wants all critical thinking and the scientific method suspended in favor of blind faith.
- On lactase something I ignored. There's a good reason I ignored it. It's another strawman argument. How does the fact that modern medicine created lactase supplements have anything to do with the fact that Europeans have developed a mutation to tolerate lactose? A mutation that has allowed us to digest different milks when for instance most Asian people can't. It's a mutation that has brought Europeans another source of nutrition previously unavailable. How is that mutation in any way negative? I'm sure your lactase argument is an argument for something just not for what I was talking about.

Too much for me to get into in one post right now, so will stick with Lucy. You put out an assertion that Lucy is an apeman. If we follow what you did with having a gun to prevent burglary and crime, then do you investigate what I said?

My criteria from Malcolm Bowden who states in order to distinguish an ape from human skeleton or fossil 1) a human skull has to have a larger cranium area, over a 1000 cc's, in order to house a brain that is a human brain, 2) the skulls that we are comparing either has to be ape or human (there are no other classes), and 3) have a mouth positioned almost vertically under the nose. Now, you're going to disagree with statement #2, but the creationist argument is the reputed ape-man transitional forms, which are used to support human evolution, are actually distortions or exaggerations of the fossil evidence. Will you investigate this?

 

[HUGGY]

If god doesn't exist, was jesus just a con man?

Yes.