Why is Evolution associated with atheists? there are many theists who support Evolution.  Even the catholic church has been forced to concede.

Then again, where would we be if yet another dishonest Creationist didn't use the "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Hey he is the sole expert.  Ad hominem isn't a good thing.

In conclusion, science points to a single reality whether materialist scientists like it or not. Matter and time have been created by a Creator, Who is All-Powerful and Who created the heavens, the earth and all that is in between: Almighty God.

How are you sure of only one creator?

@DavidDylan.

What an utter liar. You title the thread "Why are they afraid to debate Evolution" yet any time anyone has argued with you on the subject, you've made a few illogical, fundamentalist, clap-trap posts and then slunk away with your tail between your legs.

Nobody is afraid to debate Evolution with you - they're just tired of your bullshit.


@bawomolo.

A fundamentalist fool will always call someone who disagrees with him an atheist. It matters not if you're a deiist or theist. If you don't believe exactly the same cretinism as they do - you're an atheist in their blind eyes.

Bastage:

@bawomolo.

A fundamentalist fool will always call someone who disagrees with him an atheist. It matters not if you're a deiist or theist. If you don't believe exactly the same cretinism as they do - you're an atheist in their blind eyes.

ur illustration best describes the fallacy of both atheistic and evolution protagonists. Go over the religion archive in nairaland and see the lots of next to nonsense googled lies being peddled around in the name of intelligence.

noetic:

ur illustration best describes the fallacy of both atheistic and evolution protagonists. Go over the religion archive in nairaland and see the lots of next to nonsense googled lies being peddled around in the name of intelligence.

A theory that has stood the test of time in courts and academic debates is not a fraud. Denial is a bitch

bawomolo:

A theory that has stood the test of time in courts and academic debates is not a fraud. Denial is a bitch

and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

I refuse to be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post

noetic:

and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

I refuse to be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post

You are right, the theory of relativity is a Fraud too, one of the biggest fraud known to mankind. Lots of so-called laws have been disproved in science. It's a theory because it's being refined till these day.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it deals with how primordial forms of life diverged. You can't engage in an argument when you don't even organize the basics of what u are arguing against. jeez

bawomolo:

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it deals with how primordial forms of life diverged.

It depends on who's using the term,and in what context.In biology it's merely the changes that take place in the traits of a species over time;which traits are reproduced and which aren't. It's just genes, genetic drift and natural selection. One gets lost in the details, but it merely studies change in a species over extended periods of time.

But it's dishonest to hide behind semantics and simple 'biology textbook' definitions when it's obvious it's gone far beyond that in reality, has counterparts in physics, paleontology,zoology,evolutionary psychology et al, and so deals with the origins of life and the universe.

bawomolo:


Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it deals with how primordial forms of life diverged. You can't engage in an argument when you don't even organize the basics of what u are arguing against. jeez

did u really say this??, . . . . . .u dont even know ur onions.

Go and call ur senior evolution advocates disputing creationism.

Ah thanks to another email i got from another unnamed resident atheist here, i was prompted to return to nairaland and address issues:

The unnamed fellow's email is in blue and my responses in red:

This write-up is most amazing by its sheer ignorance and stupidity.

Just to make you understand me very clearly: 4 years is a long time to get so much wrong like you obviously have. I'm not trying to sidestep any “serious issues”, evolution is a fact of life it's not controversial or some sort of “fringe” thinking that I'm trying to protect with censorship.

There is a reason “evolution” is still being referred to as a THEORY even within the scientific circle. If it were a “fact of life” like you fraudulently claim (WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE), do you think even scientists would still be referring to it as a “theory”?

At the end of the day I discuss evolution with those that have a willingness to learn facts. Creationists are as relevant to biology as Astrology is to Astronomy. Since you readily admit that you're a creationist and a “scientist” (whatever field it is, I doubt it is genuine biology) I hate to say this but you'd be a waste of time to debate, nobody likes to have to continually fill in the gaps of someone else's lack of knowledge & that is exactly what you're asking me to do (fill in the gaps of YOUR lack of knowledge). I've had to debate creationists before and they usually end up infuriating me by arguing in circles.

More retarded garbage. Dude, I work as a molecular biologist in training and unlike you do not have to depend on atheist websites and google to back up wishy washy claims. I don’t talk about genes, proteins and cells as abstract terms, I talk about them as tangible material that I work with on a daily basis. Isaac Newton was a creationist, he had more grey matter in his smallest toe than you will ever have in your entire head.

Also I'd appreciate it if you don't LABEL me an evolutionist,  the term is as retarded to me as naming someone a Gravitationalist. Creation is a belief and I am glad you admit that, but[b] evolution isn't a “belief”[/b] it's a shorthand term to describe the mechanism of the fact that species change over time due to natural selection. It takes a real inferior mind to project their own short-comings on to other people just because they don't understand or accept a scientific theory.

Now Mr:
1. Evolution IS A THEORY, which in essence makes it a BELIEF AND NOT A FACT. Check any biology textbook.

2. It is a FACT that genomes mutate, it is however a clear FRAUD to claim that random mutation and adaptation are the same as evolution. If this is so one would have expected man to have “evolved” into a more highly intelligent organism by now. Why have we remained largely the same for thousands of yrs? Why have dragon flies FAILED to “evolve” in over 400 million yrs even though their genome has undergone rare mutations?

I have to admit there is something amazingly retarded about this quote.

“By simply looking at the millions of tiny processes by which the single cell regulates itself, it is immediately apparent that it is statistically impossible for those processes to have developed simply through a process of trial and error.”

Statistically impossible? What the hell does that even mean? Which single cell are you talking about? A single celled organism? A single cell in a body? A single cell in a crab? I dunno what you're talking about you'd have to be more specific before you can say such things.

This above further confirms the fact that you noise makers are simply a bunch of ignorant buffoons with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what you pretend to debate. That you don’t even understand what I mean by the term “single cell” is an amazing shame. Do you know how many processes are required to generate one mole of ATP from the mitochondrion which is less than 0.5 micrometer in size? Do you know how tightly the cell regulates the simple process of protein degradation?
You mean to tell me that all these simply appeared by random mutations?

Did you EVER take statistics in class?

On to your ignorance of the fossil record: There are tons of intermediate fossils, including hominid ones you need only pick up children books on palaeontology for the evidence you seek.

That you need to “pick up children’s books” to show evidence of “intermediate fossils” should ordinarily tell you THEY DON’T EXIST. If they did they would be all over the internet by now.

Or go to youtube, I got no time to start listing them down.

You “got no time” because you really can’t find them dude. ‘fess up!

I notice you went with the tired lack of evidence for the evolution of Dragon flies, most likely picked up from that piece of shit website “Answers in Genesis”. Which strikes me as just plain dishonest.

More bull. I don’t even know what website that is dude, I don’t need websites to pick up talking points I am largely ignorant about unlike you air-headed clowns.

a gap in the fossil record for one particular species of insect isn't a gap in the entirety of evolution

There is a gap in the fossil record for crabs, shrimps, horses, goats, sheep, chicken, maple leaves, ferns, snails, dogs, wolves, lions, tigers, leopards, sharks, lizards, kangaroos . . . duh!

dragonflies are akin to great white sharks in that they haven't really had to evolve much besides small changes here and there.

The question is WHY? Why is it that the only organisms “that haven’t really had to evolve much” are those for which there is overwhelming evidence from fossil records that they NEVER changed for the last 400 million yrs?

Even those small changes are documented, we even know what dragonflies evolved from: “Tachopteryx thoreyi”, and Paleodictyoptera are considered precursors of odonata ancestors, which lived during the Upper Carboniferous period (280 - 360 million years ago). The evidence supports this hypothesis however Science doesn't mind sifting through the counter evidence, however just to make myself perfectly clear.

Here is how science and its clueless worshippers mislead the public. First he starts out with “we even know” then ends with “evidence supports this HYPOTHESIS”! Where is the “evidence” and how can you "know" when you are merely speculating? He won’t show us of course.
Note the careful use of the words “considered”, a clear indication that there is no CLEAR EVIDENCE to support these bogus claims being pushed forward by those stumped by the fact that fossil records are proving them wrong.

Creation (as in popping into the universe by magic) isn't even on the table of hypothesis within the scientific community. The scientific consensus is arguing about which was was the precursor to the Ordonata species. Not whether they were poofed into existence by which ever Jewish fairytale some Nigerian believes in.

It cant because then they’d be faced with the problem of eternity and faith. They dare not consider it.

I have no problem with questions, Science thrives on them. However I have problems with questions that are provided by the scientific method which is used to argue against the scientific method. Creationism hasn't got a single “test” or piece of evidence for its claims. Show me magic, show me the mechanism that poofed these creatures into existence, show me a mechanism besides evolution for the variety and diversity of species and life on Earth. I can reason through your questions, I bet you can't reason through mine. If you really think your claims can stand scrutiny argue them in a court of law, or go to academic institutes and put them down, I have done so why don't you.
See are you happy now? Join us at scienceforums.net or richarddawkins.net, I want you to put forward your "strengthened" creaionism,  I'm not a Biologists but I know enough about Biology to spot a bogus claim like Creationism.

So that is where you go to find your talking points? What a shame, and here I was thinking all these was coming from your puny brain.

As regards KAG's post, i will repeat as i have oft said . . . note the COMPLETE lack of ANY shred of scientific examples . . . its filled with incoherent verbiage, long on grammar (and personal insults as usual) but desperately short on both science and logic. Responding to it is a pure waste of time. I'm eagerly anticipating clear-cut examples of evolution rather than grammar lessons.

noetic:

and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

[size=14pt]I refuse to be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post[/size]

That there has been my biggest problem with these airheads. They NEVER address the central question, rather prefering to waste precious time arguing about the inane.

Bastage:

@DavidDylan.

What an utter liar. You title the thread "Why are they afraid to debate Evolution" yet any time anyone has argued with you on the subject, you've made a few illogical, fundamentalist, clap-trap posts and then slunk away with your tail between your legs.

Nobody is afraid to debate Evolution with you - they're just tired of your bullshit.

My entire life does not revolve 24/7 around responding to some of the clearly disgraceful, unintelligent, clear cases of parroting website talking points. I am more than prepared to remain here as long as the responses remain ON POINT and with RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLES. Isnt it a shame that of the 4-5 "evolutionists" who have shown up here NONE has even managed to give us JUST ONE EXAMPLE of evolution happening in the lab or before our very eyes?

I will repeat again, should google.com shut down, many of you will be unable to post.

bawomolo:

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, it deals with how primordial forms of life diverged. You can't engage in an argument when you don't even organize the basics of what u are arguing against. jeez

How then did those primordial life forms originate? Did they come from thin air?
How can you be busy with how life forms diverged when you have NO IDEA how they appeared in the first place?

hiding behind your finger on that one dude.

Mad_Max:

It depends on who's using the term,and in what context.In biology it's merely the changes that take place in the traits of a species over time;which traits are reproduced and which aren't. It's just genes, genetic drift and natural selection.  One gets lost in the details, but it merely studies change in a species over extended periods of time.

But it's dishonest to hide behind semantics and simple 'biology textbook' definitions when it's obvious it's gone far beyond that in reality, has counterparts in physics, paleontology,zoology,evolutionary psychology et al, and so deals with the origins of life and the universe.

There is no dishonesty here, Abiogenesis is not Evolution.  you guys are confusing the two.  Please show me a biology textbook that claims evolution deal withs the Origin of Life.

You are on some strong stuff if you think Physicists work on research that deals with the origin of life.  There is no point to this debate if Evolution and the Big Bang theory is confused with Abiogenesis. 

Now a new thread called " Why are They Afraid to Debate the Origin of Life" can be created then you have a point. Question's such as how old is the earth arise when we begin to go there.

How can you be busy with how life forms diverged when you have NO IDEA how they appeared in the first place?

umm because they are two different fields that bother each other. Why not make a thread comparing creation theories rather than bothering about evolution? We know your main aim is to challenge atheists and not exactly supporters of evolution (which also include religionists)

The question is WHY? Why is it that the only organisms “that haven’t really had to evolve much” are those for which there is overwhelming evidence from fossil records that they NEVER changed for the last 400 million yrs?

your use of extreme words like NEVER is alarming. there's not much to say here

noetic:

and why is it still a theory after 300 years?? the biggest lie ever told to mankind.

I refuse to  be drawn into this side arguments. . . please address the issues about the origin of life i raised in my previous post

Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.


Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and  divergence of species.

Mad_Max:

It depends on who's using the term,and in what context.In biology it's merely the changes that take place in the traits of a species over time;which traits are reproduced and which aren't. It's just genes, genetic drift and natural selection.  One gets lost in the details, but it merely studies change in a species over extended periods of time.

But it's dishonest to hide behind semantics and simple 'biology textbook' definitions when it's obvious it's gone far beyond that in reality, has counterparts in physics, paleontology,zoology,evolutionary psychology et al, and so deals with the origins of life and the universe.

What Bawomolo said.

Yeah, I'm responding to this one too, but this will probably be my last response to Davidylan. There's only so much time that can be devoted to an exercise in futility.

davidylan:

As regards KAG's post, i will repeat as i have oft said . . . note the COMPLETE lack of ANY shred of scientific examples . . . its filled with incoherent verbiage, long on grammar (and personal insults as usual) but desperately short on both science and logic. Responding to it is a pure waste of time. I'm eagerly anticipating clear-cut examples of evolution rather than grammar lessons.

Lol. You're a weird liar. Are you assuming that people are so stupid as to not read my post and take your word for it? Or are you still trolling? Either way, some examples from my previous post:

"You can start from ERV's as presented in the last couple of posts in that thread from which you're hiding."

"As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

For the other one: the lack of external changes in a species in the face of no pressure to evolve, my explanations were logical and scientific. I just didn't bother to give any peer-reviewed journal references because I neither used any nor thought them necessary.

I can pull some up, but it's pointless as you tend never to engage with the material provided.

davidylan:

I am more than prepared to remain here as long as the responses remain ON POINT and with RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLES. Isnt it a shame that of the 4-5 "evolutionists" who have shown up here NONE has even managed to give us JUST ONE EXAMPLE of evolution happening in the lab or before our very eyes?

I will repeat again, should google.com shut down, many of you will be unable to post.

Shared Endogenous Retroviruses

KAG:

Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.

What nonsense are u saying?

Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and  divergence of species.

ur ignorance on this subject amazes me considerin that u are a self proffessed evolutionist.

Have u ever heard about evolution of life?
if u have, what preceded the prokaryotes, since evolutionist claim they existed more than 3 billion years ago?
Or is the basic consesus amongst evolutionist not that all organisms share the same genetic pool implying that prokaryotes  are descent from another organism.so where did they originate from?

evolution claims that life today is composed of a complex chemical reaction that originated from simpler chemical reactions. I am asking u the evolutionist what was the very first simple chemical reaction, that coupled with others resulted in the complex reaction that kick started the evolution process vis a vis life?

And u come here saying evolution does not discuss the origin of life. 

Dont bother to reply unless u have sometin meaningful to say.

I wonder if anyone here can guess who gave this ringing endorsement of evolution theory?

“New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

Err, yep. It was the Pope.
These literal, creationist freaks don't even agree with the head of the Catholic church yet we're supposed to swallow their claptrap, bullshit without blinking?

noetic:

Actually, it's after 150 years, not 300 years. Also, the theory of evolution is "still" a theory because science, especially in its modern form, insists on avoiding dogmatism; therefore leaving every proposal open to falsification and further enquiry, i.e a theory. What that means is that a theory never changes to anything else - it will always remain a theory. Unsurprisingly, then, the highest level of enquiry in science is the scientific theory as it contains several lines of evidence and can be potentially falsified.

In line with the above, an hypothesis, on the other hand, can change into a theory, provided it meets the criteria.

What nonsense are u saying?

It's not nonsense, it was several lines aimed at correcting your misconceptions of the meaning of a scientific theory. Basically, in science, contrary to what you implied, a theory doesn't change into a "higher" form. Therefore, the theory of evolution is "still just a theory" because that's the highest form of enquiry in science.

Finally, like has been pointed out to you, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. Theories and hypotheses in\on abiogenesis deal with the origin of life from a scientific perspective. The theory of evolution deals with the origin and divergence of species.

ur ignorance on this subject amazes me considerin that u are a self proffessed evolutionist.

Have u ever heard about evolution of life?

Yes, and the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life, not the origins of life. They are two different lines of of enquiry.

if u have, what preceded the prokaryotes, since evolutionist claim they existed more than 3 billion years ago?
Or is the basic consesus amongst evolutionist not that all organisms share the same genetic pool implying that prokaryotes  are descent from another organism.so where did they originate from?

evolution claims that life today is composed of a complex chemical reaction that originated from simpler chemical reactions. I am asking u the evolutionist what was the very first simple chemical reaction, that coupled with others resulted in the complex reaction that kick started the evolution process vis a vis life?

Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes. As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others may have been caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc).

And u come here saying evolution does not discuss the origin of life. 

It doesn't. However, we can discuss abiogenesis while discussing evolution. The point is that it's more meaningful to realise that the two are separate fields, and thereby have different sets of data, etc.

Dont bother to reply unless u have sometin meaningful to say.

Good thing I always have something meaningful to say then, eh.

Although i consider my self a complete evolutionist (meaning evolution is in every part of our existence), i am constrained to respond comprehensively at you argument. I am shocked when you say you are a scientist( molecular biologist) and you do not understand what a scientific theory means, as opposed to a scientific hypothesis. I learnt the difference between a theory and an an hypothesis when i just started science classes in form3. So for you to give us a literary definition of a theory is quite strange. A theory is an hypothesis that is verifiable and have been reviewed and accepted by your majority of scientists in that particular field. Said in another way it is the explanation that best correlates and explains the observation of an experiment or a phenomenon as accepted by other experts in the same field. So for you to say that the theory of evolution is "still" a theory after 300 years is what i will call nonsense. As long as the theory correlates with evidence, the theory of evolution will remain the theory of evolution for the next 1,000,000 years.

Now let me educate you further on scientific reasoning, a theory is always valid for the conditions of observation, for example people like you will say newton's theory was wrong and that Einstein was right. But newton was never wrong for the condition of his observation. he was studying moving objects and not photons and electrons. If you fire a bullet it will follow newtons laws.

So please do not attempt to argue on evolution, because you just jumble and confuse ever body with unrelated issues like the big bang, Solar formation, earth formation and even bacteriology.

KAG:

What nonsense are u saying?

It's not nonsense, it was several lines aimed at correcting your misconceptions of the meaning of a scientific theory. Basically, in science, contrary to what you implied, a theory doesn't change into a "higher" form. Therefore, the theory of evolution is "still just a theory" because that's the highest form of enquiry in science.

forgive my "perceived misconceptions". I wrongly assumed u were intelligent enuf to discern my line of tots. _{no insults intended}
  have u ever heard of a scientific fact?

Yes, and the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life, not the origins of life. They are two different lines of of enquiry.

is that so?? 
there is no point debating evolution in relevance to creation, if i have to educate u on the subject u are supposed to be postulating.
Go n do ur home work.

Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes.
As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others [b]may [/b]have been caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks that become meteorites, etc).

Your supposed knowledge of evolution truly amazes me.
_{hisses and walks away}

It doesn't. However, we can discuss abiogenesis while discussing evolution. The point is that it's more meaningful to realise that the two are separate fields, and thereby have different sets of data, etc.

depends on how u look at it. abiogenesis in reference to prokaryotes as the first inhabitants of the earth, is a claim buttressed by evolution.
So how do u intend to seperate this claim, which is the underlying basic of  evolution from the debate when evolution is compared to creationism.
me think u are short of ideas. . . . .  .no point pushing on.

wirinet:

Although i consider my self a complete evolutionist (meaning evolution is in every part of our existence), i am constrained to respond comprehensively at you argument.  I am shocked when you say you are a scientist( molecular biologist) and you do not understand what a scientific theory means, as opposed to a scientific hypothesis. I learnt the difference between a theory and an an hypothesis when i just started science classes in form3. So for you to give us a literary definition of a theory is quite strange. A theory is an hypothesis that is verifiable and have been reviewed and accepted by your majority of scientists in that particular field. Said in another way it is the explanation that best correlates and explains  the observation of an experiment or a phenomenon as accepted by other experts in the same field. So for you to say that   the theory of evolution is "still" a theory after 300 years is what i will call nonsense. As long as the theory correlates with evidence, the theory of evolution will remain the theory of evolution for the next 1,000,000 years.

molecular biologist? what are u saying??
The literal definition of a theory was to help a lay man understand the terms that define evolution.

dont get emotional here. Now look at ur contradictory statement, while ur teacher in js3 taught u the difference btw theory and hypothesis, yet in defining theory u call it an hypothesis.
shame on google and wikipedia.

Now let me educate you further on scientific reasoning, a theory is always valid for the conditions of observation, for example people like you will say newton's theory was wrong and that Einstein was right. But newton was never wrong for the condition of his observation. he was studying moving objects and not photons and electrons. If you fire a bullet it will follow newtons laws.

thanks for the education. . . it is however very irrelevant. I just cant figure out what u are talking about.
Go and read the introductory note to the thread and understand that this is not the pasting of evolution postulations but an objective analysis of its theory or facts or truths in retrospect to creation.
until u do that. . . . kindly back off.

unlike evolution creationism answers the very basic origin and "evolution" of life.

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Hmmmm,Why would you post an email someone sent to you on the forum?? Who contacted who?

noetic:

unlike evolution creationism answers the very basic origin and "evolution" of life.

I thought the point of the thread was to bring the flaws in the theory of evolution to the fore and either seek to find alternative solutions or convince us that it is a rubbish theory based upon the flaws you would highlight in the theory. I would like to see a list of potential scientific errors in that theory and other possible scientific points of view that is more plausible route to the Origin of life and the consequent evolution to the many species we find on earth today. If there is none, then we can finally ignore this theory that has raised so much dust and accept the words of the 1st chapter of Genesis as science and move on.

noetic:

unlike evolution creationism answers the very basic origin and "evolution" of life.

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5[b] God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.[/b]

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 [b]God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. [/b]17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Look above at my highlighting of your post above.   From that, you will see that the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day.  Now answer these questions:

1)  How could there have been day/night on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd days without the sun?

2)  What is the definition of a day?

3)  Where did the light in the first three "days" come from given there was no sun until the 4th day.

4)   The lesser light (ie, the moon)- Is the moon a source of light by itself?

5)  We know that the planets are held in orbit around the sun by the gravitational attraction of the sun.  If the earth was created before the sun, 4 days before the sun - what was holding the earth and the other planets in their orbits about the sun.

6) When did god create the other planets?

7)  Are you also in opposition of the Theory of Gravity as you are about The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?


I await your responses to these questions with bated breath, or are you gonna evade them?  I guess I know what you might do.

I never gave you permission to post my words here. The reason while I'll expose it because I originally gave the offer to someone else, YOU instead answered the offer and I told you why I wouldn't be interested, you then made a false assumption and accused me of being a coward. You're a dishonest prick and I want everybody on this website to know it before this is over.

[quote="DavidDylan"]There is a reason “evolution” is still being referred to as a THEORY even within the scientific circle. If it were a “fact of life” like you fraudulently claim (WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE), do you think even scientists would still be referring to it as a “theory”? [/quote]

The theory of Gravity is called a theory, germ theory is also called a theory, the theory of relativity, atomic theory etc etc. These things are called theories because theories in science are a body of facts. The word theory in colloquial usage is a misuse of the word and is more akin to hypothesis than a body of objective facts. So David strike #1 for your utter stupidity and ignorance.

[quote="DavidDylan"]More retarded garbage. Dude, I work as a molecular biologist in training and unlike you do not have to depend on atheist websites and google to back up wishy washy claims. I don’t talk about genes, proteins and cells as abstract terms, I talk about them as tangible material that I work with on a daily basis. Isaac Newton was a creationist, he had more grey matter in his smallest toe than you will ever have in your entire head. [/quote]

A molecular biologist? I don't believe you for a second, unless google search engines are handing out diplomas. Your knowledge of rudimentary biology, terminology and the scientific consensus is a testament to the fact that you wouldn't even qualify for a receptionist at the Discovery institute of Creationism. You are in training on what google? Your utter ignorance on the subject of scientific facts and terminology show that you are either an extremely shit scientist or a fraudulent liar. I'm going to go with the latter. I won't strike you out for this, but I have to admit you might want to sue your university (diploma mill) because they f&*kedup your education big time. Isaac Newton only invoked God when he reached his intellectual limits. He knew God wasn't behind gravity or calculus but the minute he got stumped with a question that was too advanced for his current level of scientific knowledge and capabilities showed up, he started bringing up a crude form of creationism because of it. It's funny though, because as science expands your “God” concept is being pushed to smaller and smaller places. I also find it funny that you'd make an appeal to authority like the fallacious little bitch that you are to try and “win” a debate. LoL you're a joke.

[quote="DavidDylan"]Now Mr:
1. Evolution IS A THEORY, which in essence makes it a BELIEF AND NOT A FACT. Check any biology textbook. [/quote]

I know evolution is a theory, it's a Pedagogical definition. Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific “theory”. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories) And that's just from Wiktionary, there are a plethora of websites and text books that explain this very thing and yet you a "molecular biologist" was ignorant to day 1 scientific terminology. You're a failure in the making man.

[quote="DavidDylan"]
1 It is a FACT that genomes mutate, it is however a clear FRAUD to claim that random mutation and adaptation are the same as evolution. If this is so one would have expected man to have “evolved” into a more highly intelligent organism by now. Why have we remained largely the same for thousands of yrs? Why have dragon flies FAILED to “evolve” in over 400 million yrs even though their genome has undergone rare mutations?[/quote]

Random mutation and adapatation are part of the mechanism that is called evolution. Genies mutate by what appears to be at "random" although proteins cvan cause genomes to mutate also. If you don't know the actual theory why create an actual thread dedicated to it? Ironically I'm not the only member of Naija land to have said this. Your share ignorance on it is baffling to me. It's like watching a man who was born blind describe the colour “blue”. F**king hilarious.

[quote="DavidDylan"]This above further confirms the fact that you noise makers are simply a bunch of ignorant buffoons with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what you pretend to debate. That you don’t even understand what I mean by the term “single cell” is an amazing shame. Do you know how many processes are required to generate one mole of ATP from the mitochondrion which is less than 0.5 micrometer in size? Do you know how tightly the cell regulates the simple process of protein degradation?
You mean to tell me that all these simply appeared by random mutations?[/quote]

You've spent most of your time insulting your opposition than actually addressing anything. Is that how creationism works? There are billions of “single” cells, be more specific with which one you're talking about, we're not talking about the atomic structure of matter we're talking about biological single cells and I asked for more clarification into what single cell you're talking about, bacteria, a human single cell? How can you go off and be so flippant and down right rude when all I have asked for is clarification? I don't need the trivia lesson, despite how much “awe” you have at what can only be described as “modern” cells doesn't pose enough information to “doubt” evolution. Evolution accounts for rising complexity and I'm sorry your disbelief doesn't allow you to let your bullshit go. However I can smell your bullshit a mile a way. If you want to bring out the irreducible complexity argument be my guest. However I think it's best I let you make it first before I counter argue (just in case you're not that stupid).

[quote="DavidDylan"]Did you EVER take statistics in class? [/quote]

Did you? Are you retarded? Because it seems you don't understand the difference between improbability and impossibility. You've used them interchangeably and because of this I can only envy your student loans company,, because they''re going to have a perpetual customer in you.

[quote="DavidDylan"]That you need to “pick up children’s books” to show evidence of “intermediate fossils” should ordinarily tell you THEY DON’T EXIST. If they did they would be all over the internet by now. [/quote]

They ARE ALL OVER THE INTERNET. I directed you to childrens books because of how much exposure they have. The internet is brimming with them. Her'es a plethora of websites that deal with this very thing since you seem to be completely ignorant of this kind of thing:

http://www.answersincreation.org/transitional_fossils.htm
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/transitional-fossils/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/photo4.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVaCmASYLDg&feature=related

[quote="DavidDylan"]You “got no time” because you really can’t find them dude. ‘fess up![/quote]

See this is why I don't like to debate creationists, because they are like you David. Ignorant, arrogant, rude, liars and plain boring.

[quote="DavidDylan"]There is a gap in the fossil record for crabs, shrimps, horses, goats, sheep, chicken, maple leaves, ferns, snails, dogs, wolves, lions, tigers, leopards, sharks, lizards, kangaroos . . . duh! [/quote]

There is gaps in everything, but just because there is a gap doesn't refute it. You're a creationist, you're working with nothing at all (that's slightly larger than a gap), you're just a “scientific” skeptic who uses science to be a skeptic about fields of science that don't fit your bronze age mythology.

[quote="DavidDylan"]The question is WHY? Why is it that the only organisms “that haven’t really had to evolve much” are those for which there is overwhelming evidence from fossil records that they NEVER changed for the last 400 million yrs? [/quote]

Because the fossil record is doing its job, if it wasn't it would show a different picture now wouldnt it? DUH!!!!. They were near enough apex predators, that could survive a multitude of environmental changes, had nearly uninterrupted breeding cycles and had what it took to survive the 500 million year changes. Insects in general have gone through fewer changes than reptiles or mammals you should KNOW that. Asking WHY isn't refuting something, jeez, what are you a 6 year old? The only way you're going to find all the clues is through genuine science, creationism isn't genuine science it is anti science let alone pseudo science and thus will not contribute towards answering those questions.
[quote="DavidDylan"]
Here is how science and its clueless worshippers mislead the public. First he starts out with “we even know” then ends with “evidence supports this HYPOTHESIS”! Where is the “evidence” and how can you "know" when you are merely speculating? He won’t show us of course.
Note the careful use of the words “considered”, a clear indication that there is no CLEAR EVIDENCE to support these bogus claims being pushed forward by those stumped by the fact that fossil records are proving them wrong. [/quote]

The evidence that doesn't exist: I was being kind before because I KNOW there is a current debate amongst the scientific consensus as to whether which suborders are monophyletic and which are paraphyletic. Which fossil groups are "ancestral to" or closely related to which modern suborders? Please do not confuse this with their being a “poor” fossil record, or a poor documented, or loose grasping at straws. Like MOST fossils and information on a species, there is an over abundance of it and now they are having to file them in what is the most likely the correct order. I chose my words carefully because science doesn't deal with absolutes it deals with repetition and is always falsifiable so I say that we know: I mean “what we currently know”. When I say hypothesis I mean scientific hypothesis that is based upon observable data, when I say scientific theory I mean what is demonstrable. However, how dare you accuse me of dishonesty when YOU without my permission posted my private conversation with you on the board. You are a dishonest piece of sh!t David, and I regret even giving you the slightest minute of my time. For those whom are interested here's some information on dragonflies and their history: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Odonata&contgroup=Pterygota

[quote="DavidDylan"]
It cant because then they’d be faced with the problem of eternity and faith. They dare not consider it. [/quote]

Whatever it takes to make you sleep easier at night, you elitist piece of shit.

[quote="DavidDylan"]So that is where you go to find your talking points? What a shame, and here I was thinking all these was coming from your puny brain. [/quote]

That's rich, coming from a dim wit like you, I go there for social networking just like I was planning to do with Naijaland but people like you (Bigots, liars, conmen, ignorant, barbarians) have put me off this website almost entirely. I didn't even need to post here, everybody else is eating you alive anyway, You should have just kept it to emails, I don't know why you wanted to plaster this every where without permission.

Badriyyah:

Hmmmm,Why would you post an email someone sent to you on the forum?? Who contacted who?

1. I dont see how its ur business.
2. That's why i left it anonymous.

KAG:

Yeah, I'm responding to this one too, but this will probably be my last response to Davidylan. There's only so much time that can be devoted to an exercise in futility.

Lol. You're a weird liar. Are you assuming that people are so stupid as to not read my post and take your word for it? Or are you still trolling? Either way, some examples from my previous post:

"You can start from ERV's as presented in the last couple of posts in that thread from which you're hiding."

"As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

For the other one: the lack of external changes in a species in the face of no pressure to evolve, my explanations were logical and scientific. I just didn't bother to give any peer-reviewed journal references because I neither used any nor thought them necessary.

I can pull some up, but it's pointless as you tend never to engage with the material provided.

err what "material" have you provided? Insults, grammatical verbiage and incoherent arguments? You seriously hold too high an opinion of urself.

1. On the issue of ERVs, most of you dont have ANY CLUE what they do, you are merely regurgitating the nonsense you read from anti-creationist websites. Answer me this simple question - we all know how exogenous RVs behave and that the vast majority of them are highly detrimental to the human cell (HIV, HSV, Marburg, Ebola to name a few) . . . why are ERVs completely different in mechanism of action? Why do we have ONLY ONE ERV active in humans which doesnt even replicate the alleged initial virus?

2. Dinosaur-Bird transitions is just pure nonsensical garbage again. . . typical of the clueless who hide their ignorance behind using bogus but high-fallutin words WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT TO ELUCIDATE THEIR POSITION.

KAG:

Shared Endogenous Retroviruses

Do you say anything else beyond this tired old fraud?

Some videos about evolution here

Another clueless idiot who confessed to have a very poor understanding of biology is here assuming he can pull the wool over our eyes with long long nebulous posts.

0thello:

I never gave you permission to post my words here. The reason while I'll expose it because I originally gave the offer to someone else, YOU instead answered the offer and I told you why I wouldn't be interested, you then made a false assumption and accused me of being a coward. You're a dishonest prick and I want everybody on this website to know it before this is over.

You could have remained anonymous but as usual your pride and ignorance wont let you. Go ahead.

0thello:

A molecular biologist? I don't believe you for a second, unless google search engines are handing out diplomas.

Its ok, you dont have to believe. Its not like i require your belief to survive.

0thello:

Your knowledge of rudimentary biology, terminology and the scientific consensus is a testament to the fact that you wouldn't even qualify for a receptionist at the Discovery institute of Creationism. You are in training on what google? Your utter ignorance on the subject of scientific facts and terminology show that you are either an extremely shit scientist or a fraudulent liar. I'm going to go with the latter. I won't strike you out for this, but I have to admit you might want to sue your university (diploma mill) because they f&*kedup your education big time. Isaac Newton only invoked God when he reached his intellectual limits. He knew God wasn't behind gravity or calculus but the minute he got stumped with a question that was too advanced for his current level of scientific knowledge and capabilities showed up, he started bringing up a crude form of creationism because of it. It's funny though, because as science expands your “God” concept is being pushed to smaller and smaller places. I also find it funny that you'd make an appeal to authority like the fallacious little bitch that you are to try and “win” a debate. LoL you're a joke.

errr when are you actually going to get into the real meat of the issue? You spent so much wasted energy attacking my person and totally forgot to deal with the myth of evolution? Its not too difficult to spot the clueless.

0thello:

I know evolution is a theory, it's a Pedagogical definition. Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific “theory”. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories) And that's just from Wiktionary, there are a plethora of websites and text books that explain this very thing and yet you a "molecular biologist" was ignorant to day 1 scientific terminology. You're a failure in the making man.

errrr when are you going to get to the real issue?

0thello:

Random mutation and adapatation are part of the mechanism that is called evolution. Genies mutate by what appears to be at "random" although proteins cvan cause genomes to mutate also. If you don't know the actual theory why create an actual thread dedicated to it? Ironically I'm not the only member of Naija land to have said this. Your share ignorance on it is baffling to me. It's like watching a man who was born blind describe the colour “blue”. F**king hilarious.

1. Random mutation and adaptation are not part of the mechanism of evolution; they have simply been siezed upon by clueless morons like you searching desperately for anything to proof that what they have held dear to them for so long isnt a fraud afterall.
As usual i'll give you examples - cancers are the result of random mutations in genes causing an rapid increase in cellular proliferation as against terminal differentiation. Has man evolved to a different organism yet? Ever seen a down's syndrome kid? That's also a mutation . . . has the kid also evolved?

- Camels adapted to the desert by devising a means of storing water in their humps, have they evolved into a more highly intelligent organism yet? With all the myriads of well established mutations in yeast and bacteria why have they not evolved ever since?  

0thello:

You've spent most of your time insulting your opposition than actually addressing anything. Is that how creationism works?

You'd be surprised that this is a direct indictment of your own post.

0thello:

There are billions of “single” cells, be more specific with which one you're talking about, we're not talking about the atomic structure of matter we're talking about biological single cells and I asked for more clarification into what single cell you're talking about, bacteria, a human single cell? How can you go off and be so flippant and down right rude when all I have asked for is clarification? I don't need the trivia lesson, despite how much “awe” you have at what can only be described as “modern” cells doesn't pose enough information to “doubt” evolution.

Lets define your "single cell" as a human cell or unicellular organism. Pls explain how evolution accounts for the intricate complexities of cellular behaviour.

0thello:

Evolution accounts for rising complexity and I'm sorry your disbelief doesn't allow you to let your bullshit go. However I can smell your bullshit a mile a way. If you want to bring out the irreducible complexity argument be my guest. However I think it's best I let you make it first before I counter argue (just in case you're not that stupid).

errrr when are we going to have a debate rather than an abusing match?  

0thello:

Did you? Are you retarded? Because it seems you don't understand the difference between improbability and impossibility. You've used them interchangeably and because of this I can only envy your student loans company,, because they''re going to have a perpetual customer in you.

errr when are we getting to the subject matter?

0thello:

They ARE ALL OVER THE INTERNET. I directed you to childrens books because of how much exposure they have. The internet is brimming with them. Her'es a plethora of websites that deal with this very thing since you seem to be completely ignorant of this kind of thing:

You're still directing me to children's books?   Unbelievable! Not a single peer-reviewed science article to see?

0thello:

http://www.answersincreation.org/transitional_fossils.htm
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/transitional-fossils/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/photo4.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVaCmASYLDg&feature=related

So that's where you get your talking points?   Incredible!

0thello:

See this is why I don't like to debate creationists, because they are like you David. Ignorant, arrogant, rude, liars and plain boring.

errr when are we going to debate this issue?  

0thello:

There is gaps in everything, but just because there is a gap doesn't refute it. You're a creationist, you're working with nothing at all (that's slightly larger than a gap), you're just a “scientific” skeptic who uses science to be a skeptic about fields of science that don't fit your bronze age mythology.

err is that all you have to explain why we cant find A SINGLE intermediate life form? Out of the billions of living organisms on eart? Just one?  

0thello:

Because the fossil record is doing its job, if it wasn't it would show a different picture now wouldnt it? DUH!!!!. They were near enough apex predators, that could survive a multitude of environmental changes, had nearly uninterrupted breeding cycles and had what it took to survive the 500 million year changes. Insects in general have gone through fewer changes than reptiles or mammals you should KNOW that. Asking WHY isn't refuting something, jeez, what are you a 6 year old? The only way you're going to find all the clues is through genuine science, creationism isn't genuine science it is anti science let alone pseudo science and thus will not contribute towards answering those questions.
The evidence that doesn't exist: I was being kind before because I KNOW there is a current debate amongst the scientific consensus as to whether which suborders are monophyletic and which are paraphyletic. Which fossil groups are "ancestral to" or closely related to which modern suborders? Please do not confuse this with their being a “poor” fossil record, or a poor documented, or loose grasping at straws. Like MOST fossils and information on a species, there is an over abundance of it and now they are having to file them in what is the most likely the correct order. I chose my words carefully because science doesn't deal with absolutes it deals with repetition and is always falsifiable so I say that we know: I mean “what we currently know”. When I say hypothesis I mean scientific hypothesis that is based upon observable data, when I say scientific theory I mean what is demonstrable. However, how dare you accuse me of dishonesty when YOU without my permission posted my private conversation with you on the board. You are a dishonest piece of sh!t David, and I regret even giving you the slightest minute of my time. For those whom are interested here's some information on dragonflies and their history: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Odonata&contgroup=Pterygota

what is this? A confused monologue? What were you answering here?  

0thello:

Whatever it takes to make you sleep easier at night, you elitist piece of shit.

errr when are you humble sir going to tackle the issue at hand?

0thello:

That's rich, coming from a dim wit like you, I go there for social networking just like I was planning to do with Naijaland but people like you (Bigots, liars, conmen, ignorant, barbarians) have put me off this website almost entirely. I didn't even need to post here, everybody else is eating you alive anyway, You should have just kept it to emails, I don't know why you wanted to plaster this every where without permission.

No attempt at discussing the main subject? What a shame . . . i thought i'd find some intelligent stuff in that entire textbook you posted.  

davidylan:

1. I dont see how its ur business.
2. That's why i left it anonymous.

Well, you decided to open a topic on an open forum. So of course I can make it my business. What was your goal of posting someones private message to you here. And as I asked, who contacted who?

@ Bawomolo, you missed out an important part of my question when you quoted me earlier . . . i repeat it here again for your highness to pls provide a coherent answer - How then did those primordial life forms originate? Did they come from thin air?

This is futile, it's like arguing with a third world child, as I said in my initial response to you. You're a creationist, and are going to argue in circles, when posed questions you'll deflect (which you have) when met with evidence you merely scoff at it without providing a single counter argument unless it's in the form of butchering the actual process. Just like your use of cancer as mutation in general (which is so flawed in its reasoning and accuracy that to point out where you've gone wrong would be insulting to YOUR intelligence.

David you're a lost cause, do not email me again, do not ever, ever go behind my back and then shift the onus of your deceit on to me. A message to anybody here. David is no Biologist, the only thing you need go to him is for Insurance advice.

http://www.davidylan.com/index.php