New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[AlphaNumeric]

Is that the best you can do?

No, its just obvious from the cretinous bull you spout that you are simply too thick to be worth wasting time teaching high school biology to.

Everyone will have to account for their actions at one time or another.

I don't believe so. It might not be 'nice' to some people to think that people can do bad things and get away with it since there's no cosmic karma or bearded guy who will judge you when you're dead but that's a distinct possibility.

Personally I find it very hypocritical and contradictory of religious people to shun science in the name of their holy book. If their god made them in his image, giving them reasoning and thought and intelligence beyond any animal so that they might grasp the majesty of his creation to waste that mind on ignorance and stupidity, to throw reason in the bin and be wilfully ignorant of the things God has made (ie like you and your idiotic creationist friends) is pretty much the biggest slap in the face you could give to your creator. If he made you in his image and your mind, your ability to reason, is what sets you above an animal then you should use it.

Too bad you've decided to waste all you believe he's given you. That's a far worse kind of blasphemy than taking his name in vain.

 

[stateofmind]

Now when we take this Hebrew letter and spiral a wire around it (pictures are in my book) in such a way that exhibits a similar unit of growth (where it starts out with a small hoop and then gradually grows into a bigger hoop and than again a third hoop (which is a mathematical unit of growth similar to the ones mentioned in the paragraph above). When we remove this wire form and turn it around in different angles we can begin to see that all the other 22 Hebrew letters become visible depending on the angle one looks at it. For instance if we take this spiral form of the Hebrew letter B and turn it upside down we now have the Hebrew letter T. Another words this “one prototype form“, forms all the 22 Hebrew letters. No other writing in the world does this!

This is very interesting to me. I don't quite understand what you mean by wrapping a wire around that letter though. Wrapping a wire around it makes it 3 dimensional I'm guessing? I'm a little confused but trying to follow you because if what you say is true, that would be really cool!

 

[Trippy]

James I am talking about deformities such as in a nub or a fin in the process of evolving into a arm, leg or wing. And I’m not talking about fully formed or functional parts. What I am looking for in the fossil record is the transitional forms that show dysfunctional parts.

Therein lies the point that you've decieved yourself on/in.
Therein lies the point that you completely and utterly failed to grasp with regards to the evolution of the eye, when you got lost in your pseudoscientific mumbojumbo.

Evolution doesn't, strictly speaking, require failed experiments.
It's a relatively small step from a Pseudopod:

to a Flagella:

To tentacles:

To Limbs:
http://thespokedb.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/krill_wideweb__470x2980.jpg
The kind of deformations that you're insisting must occur as whole species, eg (may be disturbing):
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-043-01/images/photo1.jpg
http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/faune/assets/images/Grenouille160pix.JPG

Aren't generally successful. They also aren't generally neccessary.

I say generally because, for example, if a semi-aquatic species exists, then those individuals that have, for example, more webbing between their digits will have the advantage under water.

The 'transitional fossils' you're demanding must exist don't exist because they're unsuccessful. Individuals bearing those traits tend to die out rather quickly, however those mutations that do led to an individual being more successful are the ones that you're simply dismissing without considering the evidence.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Personally I find it very hypocritical and contradictory of religious people to shun science in the name of their holy book. If their god made them in his image, giving them reasoning and thought and intelligence beyond any animal so that they might grasp the majesty of his creation to waste that mind on ignorance and stupidity, to throw reason in the bin and be wilfully ignorant of the things God has made (ie like you and your idiotic creationist friends) is pretty much the biggest slap in the face you could give to your creator. If he made you in his image and your mind, your ability to reason, is what sets you above an animal then you should use it.

Too bad you've decided to waste all you believe he's given you. That's a far worse kind of blasphemy than taking his name in vain.

Alphanumeric, I thinks it’s a pretty big slap in the face if you cant see the creators workings in all things! At least most people I talk to acknowledge a creator. After all He did design you and the world around you and there are many evidences for this. One of the big evidences of this is that science continually observes in nature the apparent fact that something cannot come about from nothing (in other words, living things cannot come from non living things).

With all do respect, maybe the world would seem more realistic to you when teddy bears begin to bully you for milk and cookies...



Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[AlphaNumeric]

At least most people I talk to acknowledge a creator.

So truth is contingent on popular belief? Do you know a random segment of the population? I doubt it. Given you're a religious creationist its likely you know more of them so you saying "I have friends with similar views to me" is pretty redundant. If you lived in the middle of Saudi Arabia most people you know would say Allah and not God is er.... god.

Most people I know don't acknowledge a creator. Or if they do believe in a god they still believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

After all He did design you and the world around you and there are many evidences for this.

Simply repeating your claim as if a fact does not make it so.

One of the big evidences of this is that science continually observes in nature the apparent fact that something cannot come about from nothing (in other words, living things cannot come from non living things).

Firstly, simply because we don't yet know the specifics of how organic matter formed doesn't mean it cannot be known. Ignorance now doesn't prove ignorance forever. 100 years ago we didn't know how to split the atom but to claim its impossible would be false. Secondly, if science was constantly supporting your view wouldn't science have an even higher number of believers in creationism than other areas of work? Yet the opposite is true. In this thread you have been corrected by numerous science graduates and you've ignored them all. And something tells me you don't have a science degree....

So to say science supports your claims is simply a lie. Its a fact that the more educated a population is in science the less they believe in creationism.

With all do respect, maybe the world would seem more realistic to you when teddy bears begin to bully you for milk and cookies...

At least teddy bears exist. When someone says "God loves you and if you don't believe that he'll condemn you forever" I can't help but think its a bit of a contradictory thing to say.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Again hostility is being used as a self defense mechanism.

Tiktaalik is not a sufficient transitional fossil. It is a separate species. Apparently it was a fully formed functional creature (as I attempted to explain in my previous post). Nothing abnormal about it.

Evolutionary biology does not predict that transitional species or intermediate forms need to be non functional or "abnormal" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) in order to be classed as transitional or an intermediate.

You either already know this and are being deliberately dishonest in this representation - or you are ignorant of biology.

In order for this discussion to continue in a way that is mseaning ful you must present a reputable reference that describes and defines transitional forms/species in such a way that fits the definition you have so far provided - if you cannot do this you will be obliged to publicly retract the statement and apologise for wasting our time.

If you are not in fact being dishonest and its simply the case that you have a knowledge of biology that is less than a junior school pupil of below average intelligence (which given the level of knowledge you are demostrated in your posts would seem about right) - then once you have apologised for wasting our time with your nonsense, you may then ask us biology related questions based upon what you have learned from the text-books you are about to go and read.

 

[Anita Meyer]

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...isions/KingdomProtista/Protists/pseudopod.gif
http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/moder_just/Images/Flagella.png
http://universe-review.ca/I10-26-hydra.jpg
http://thespokedb.files.wordpress.co...__470x2980.jpg
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-043-01/images/photo1.jpg
http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/faune/a...ille160pix.JPG

Trippy I don’t know what you are attempting to prove here?

There is still no new information that is being added to the genes, and on top of this there is a clear loss of information.

One cannot say that the gene for extra legs is added information since it is just simply a tandem repeat of the same genes. And as far as the frog picture, this is a LOSS of information. Loss of information does not turn one creature into another. Frogs do not turn into princes.

But you also run into other problems… there has been numerous genetic experiments done that have tried to induce/cause mutations to flies, insects, rats, mice and birds and other organisms in an effort to prove evolution. Yet none of these experiments have been successful in producing a single permanent (and it can be argued “beneficial”) morphological change in any organism. It still deals with the same INFORMATION that is just rearranged differently or is lost.

Here is something else that needs serious thought… Scientists have found that certain living cells come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism. For instance as a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, or a tadpole into a frog. When these types of things morph (metamorphosis) they no longer need their former apparatuses (tails, arms, legs or gills). This happens when a special morphing gene gives the order at the appropriate programmed time for the tail cells of a tadpole to begin to die, or the caterpillar to grow butterfly wings. What is actually happening here is that programmed within these specific living cells G-d had programmed a certain gene that signals the death of those cells at the appointed time of His choosing. Perhaps G-d created metamorphosis in some creature to help pollinate, provide food for predators, and help plants grow through many mechanisms. However, the million dollar question remains, if this is not G-d’s doing, then why would evolution develop genes that order their own death, because such a gene would not aid survival? I’ll tell you what else is amazing about the metamorphosis of frogs and butterfly (including other things that morph like beetles)… and this has to do with continuing reproduction. If one evolved where was the other to mate with?

What I talk about here is all encorporated in my book.

So truth is contingent on popular belief? Do you know a random segment of the population? I doubt it. Given you're a religious creationist its likely you know more of them so you saying "I have friends with similar views to me" is pretty redundant. If you lived in the middle of Saudi Arabia most people you know would say Allah and not God is er.... god.

Firstly, simply because we don't yet know the specifics of how organic matter formed doesn't mean it cannot be known. Ignorance now doesn't prove ignorance forever. 100 years ago we didn't know how to split the atom but to claim its impossible would be false. Secondly, if science was constantly supporting your view wouldn't science have an even higher number of believers in creationism than other areas of work? Yet the opposite is true. In this thread you have been corrected by numerous science graduates and you've ignored them all. And something tells me you don't have a science degree....

So to say science supports your claims is simply a lie. Its a fact that the more educated a population is in science the less they believe in creationism.

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
With all do respect, maybe the world would seem more realistic to you when teddy bears begin to bully you for milk and cookies... ”

At least teddy bears exist. When someone says "God loves you and if you don't believe that he'll condemn you forever" I can't help but think its a bit of a contradictory thing to say.

Alphanumeric, Good, at least you can acknowledge that teddy bears exist. You do know that the teddy bear was thought of and "designed" by man, they did not come about by chance. I suppose you may have a theory on how they are related (mutated or evolved) from the real bear? You know that imaginary link.

I often wonder the implications of this whole premise that evolutionism poses on society. I think that there is some kind of “political agenda” working behind the scenes to dumb-down people which often revolves around “money” and power.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[Anita Meyer]

“ Originally Posted by anita meyer
Now when we take this Hebrew letter and spiral a wire around it (pictures are in my book) in such a way that exhibits a similar unit of growth (where it starts out with a small hoop and then gradually grows into a bigger hoop and than again a third hoop (which is a mathematical unit of growth similar to the ones mentioned in the paragraph above). When we remove this wire form and turn it around in different angles we can begin to see that all the other 22 Hebrew letters become visible depending on the angle one looks at it. For instance if we take this spiral form of the Hebrew letter B and turn it upside down we now have the Hebrew letter T. Another words this “one prototype form“, forms all the 22 Hebrew letters. No other writing in the world does this! ”

This is very interesting to me. I don't quite understand what you mean by wrapping a wire around that letter though. Wrapping a wire around it makes it 3 dimensional I'm guessing? I'm a little confused but trying to follow you because if what you say is true, that would be really cool!

Hello stateofmind,

Yes, wrapping a bendable wire around the Hebrew letter results in a 3 dimensional view. I cannot post the pictures yet, but I can assure you that what I say is true and I illustrate this beautifully for all to see with pictures in my book.

To get a general idea about this... Here is a picture of the Hebrew letter B and the spiral design of a shell. One can see that it is almost nearly the Hebrew letter B.

I go on to show how all the 22 Hebrew letters are formed from this mathematical basic spiraling shape. It is natures law which is also evident in the Hebrew letters, which shows DESIGN! Now when this same design was said to be given by the creator (with which He designed all things with), it then turns into DIVINE DESIGN! (Exodus 31:18 - inscribed by the finger of G-d).

Have a great day!

Love and Light, Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[AlphaNumeric]

One cannot say that the gene for extra legs is added information since it is just simply a tandem repeat of the same genes. And as far as the frog picture, this is a LOSS of information. Loss of information does not turn one creature into another. Frogs do not turn into princes.

But you also run into other problems… there has been numerous genetic experiments done that have tried to induce/cause mutations to flies, insects, rats, mice and birds and other organisms in an effort to prove evolution. Yet none of these experiments have been successful in producing a single permanent (and it can be argued “beneficial”) morphological change in any organism. It still deals with the same INFORMATION that is just rearranged differently or is lost.

Your entire premise of it not being possible to produce new information in genes is wrong and its pretty easy to see why.

You accept gene duplication, where a segment of DNA is copied two rather than once. No new information there, just two lots of the same thing. However, you now have a region of DNA whose function is being done elsewhere and so can be altered without losing the original function. Like having two copies of the same book, you can scribble over one without fear of losing the information. When DNA is copied (ie when cells divide) its not always a perfect copy, errors sneak in. As you would if you kept having to type out a bunch of hand written letters, you're bound to make mistakes here and there. These mistakes are random. Copy errors in the new segment aren't much of a problem because the original will still be there (or vice versa). Every generation introduces new errrors, again and again until the two sections of DNA are quite different. There is now a segment of DNA which wasn't there before and isn't doing the job of any other segment. Since the variations are random its impossible to say "No useful result can arise from this new DNA". Consider the panda. Big fat bear who has to spend 22 hours a day eating because it only eats bamboo and it can't digest the cellulose of the plant very easily. However, it does have plenty of enzymes in its stomach doing other jobs. Suppose the section of DNA copies is for such an enzyme. A variation in the new segment could change the enzyme produced to one which can break down cellulose better than current ones. This can be done with only a minor variation but it would have HUGE ramifications for the animal. When you need only spend 1 hour eating rather than 22 suddenly life becomes a whole lot easier. A panda with such a mutation would have an enormous advantage over its relatives.

If you want a bit of a simpler example, go back to my example of transcribing a written letter. Someone writes a letter in a language you don't know and asks you to type it up. You do so but might make typos and you wouldn't notice spelling and grammar mistakes because you don't know the language. You print it out and give it to another person who doesn't know the language and they type it up. They might make more typos, more mistakes. Again and again, each time the document will change slightly. It's like 'chinese whispers', the message changes a tiny amount yet after enough 'generations' the result is utterly different from the original. And since the errors are random you might have ended up typing something meaningful in another language you don't know. You've produced new information for someone, yet its been done in a random manner where each step doesn't vary much from the previous.

Alphanumeric, Good, at least you can acknowledge that teddy bears exist. You do know that the teddy bear was thought of and "designed" by man, they did not come about by chance. I suppose you may have a theory on how they are related (mutated or evolved) from the real bear? You know that imaginary link.

Are you trying (and failing) to be funny or are you just that thick?

I often wonder the implications of this whole premise that evolutionism poses on society. I think that there is some kind of “political agenda” working behind the scenes to dumb-down people which often revolves around “money” and power.

You are the one who shows absolutely no understanding of science or mathematics. You're arguing with educated people on topics they study and you don't. You're a creationist, the only way you can defend your position is to promote ignorance. As scientific education goes up religious ignorance like yours goes down. There is no hidden agenda on the part of scientists, their work is there for all to read. The fact you haven't read it and you don't want to read it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, it means you're a lazy moron. No one is stopping you from learning science but you so the only dumbing down is the dumbing down you've done to yourself.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Your entire premise of it not being possible to produce new information in genes is wrong and its pretty easy to see why.

You accept gene duplication, where a segment of DNA is copied two rather than once. No new information there, just two lots of the same thing. However, you now have a region of DNA whose function is being done elsewhere and so can be altered without losing the original function. Like having two copies of the same book, you can scribble over one without fear of losing the information. When DNA is copied (ie when cells divide) its not always a perfect copy, errors sneak in. As you would if you kept having to type out a bunch of hand written letters, you're bound to make mistakes here and there. These mistakes are random. Copy errors in the new segment aren't much of a problem because the original will still be there (or vice versa). Every generation introduces new errrors, again and again until the two sections of DNA are quite different. There is now a segment of DNA which wasn't there before and isn't doing the job of any other segment. Since the variations are random its impossible to say "No useful result can arise from this new DNA". Consider the panda. Big fat bear who has to spend 22 hours a day eating because it only eats bamboo and it can't digest the cellulose of the plant very easily. However, it does have plenty of enzymes in its stomach doing other jobs. Suppose the section of DNA copies is for such an enzyme. A variation in the new segment could change the enzyme produced to one which can break down cellulose better than current ones. This can be done with only a minor variation but it would have HUGE ramifications for the animal. When you need only spend 1 hour eating rather than 22 suddenly life becomes a whole lot easier. A panda with such a mutation would have an enormous advantage over its relatives.

If you want a bit of a simpler example, go back to my example of transcribing a written letter. Someone writes a letter in a language you don't know and asks you to type it up. You do so but might make typos and you wouldn't notice spelling and grammar mistakes because you don't know the language. You print it out and give it to another person who doesn't know the language and they type it up. They might make more typos, more mistakes. Again and again, each time the document will change slightly. It's like 'chinese whispers', the message changes a tiny amount yet after enough 'generations' the result is utterly different from the original. And since the errors are random you might have ended up typing something meaningful in another language you don't know. You've produced new information for someone, yet its been done in a random manner where each step doesn't vary much from the previous.

Alphanumeric, this sounds like typical Dawkins talking here pushing his theories to the extremes to try and sound even more convincing. I keep hearing that same humdrum about random mutations in nature that can happen when one set of genes is copied to another, the enzymes that are responsible for constantly replicating DNA do not do it with 100% accuracy causing errors to be made. They say this is a built in mechanism that allows for change to happen that causes one creature to evolve into another - thus evolution.

However this is not correct! As it turns out nature is programmed to protect genes from changes and to correct errors that occur. What we are witnessing here again are only “varieties” of species (such as varieties of fruits, vegetables, insects, animals, as well as humans).

There is still no new DNA information! A dog is still a dog and there are many variations (big and small) in appearance. NOTHING can change that fact.

Evolutionists associate a mutation of the DNA to be “changed” genes and categorize them as tandem repeats, duplications, copies and sequencing (such as in dogs when cross breading). The tandem repeats are small sections of DNA that replicate over and over again changing the protein made by the cell, thus leading to changes in cell function and ultimately physical appearance. All living things have tandem repeats in their genes but the dog has significantly more than most, that is why the dog is so malleable in appearance. And again this is NOT the mutation that accomplishes “steps forward” in evolution as Dawkins insists. Evolutionists have confused the word to make the dog look like something other than what it is - another species!


Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, the DNA does have self-protection mechanisms, but even they are not perfect.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Yes, the DNA does have self-protection mechanisms, but even they are not perfect.

Yes, but they are not common - in fact very rare actually. Therefore the replication errors that Dawkins is talking about is quite slim. And if there were such errors we would be finding many of these mutations in the fossil record (since many of them would have died) - and were not!



Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltru...llanguage.html

 

[noodler]

As it turns out nature is programmed to protect genes from changes and to correct errors that occur. What we are witnessing here again are only “varieties” of species (such as varieties of fruits, vegetables, insects, animals, as well as humans).

There is still no new DNA information! A dog is still a dog and there are many variations (big and small) in appearance. NOTHING can change that fact.

Evolutionists associate a mutation of the DNA to be “changed” genes and categorize them as tandem repeats, duplications, copies and sequencing (such as in dogs when cross breading).
The tandem repeats are small sections of DNA that replicate over and over again changing the protein made by the cell, thus leading to changes in cell function and ultimately physical appearance.

All living things have tandem repeats in their genes but the dog has significantly more than most, that is why the dog is so malleable in appearance. And again this is NOT the mutation that accomplishes “steps forward” in evolution as Dawkins insists. Evolutionists have confused the word to make the dog look like something other than what it is - another species!

Anita, can you define the underlined words more clearly? Since the scientists have it all wrong, then what is your definition of DNA information? And how, if it were possible, would this information change, or become "new" information?

What's a step forward in evolution? What exactly is another species, apart from how say, dogs and cats appear to us, why are they different animals, how different, or similar are they, and why bother finding out?

And can I ask, where did you learn to spell? Did you run a spellchecker over your book, before it got published?

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, but they are not common - in fact very rare actually. Therefore the replication errors that Dawkins is talking about is quite slim. And if there were such errors we would be finding many of these mutations in the fossil record (since many of them would have died) - and were not!



Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltru...llanguage.html

Yes, the mutations are indeed rare! And most of them are either harmful or neutral, many you would not see. But, the ones that are left cause subtle variations upon which natural selection can act.

You do know that most animals do not fossilize, so the fossil record will always be incomplete. We aren't talking about bizarre mutations like birth defects (where are they in the fossil record?), but more subtle ones, like those that are evidenced in dog breeds. Dog breeding is an artificial selection that mimicks how natural selection acts. Given enough time, we could breed a dog that could not mate with the rest of the dogs and would branch off into a new species. In fact, God didn't make dogs, mankind made them from wolves (or alternatively, they domesticated themselves). Sure, dogs can still breed with wolves, but that's only because not much time has passed yet (only 5-10 thousand years).

 

[Anita Meyer]

new DNA information!
changes in cell function
the dog has significantly more than most
steps forward in evolution
another species!

Noodler, I see where your going with this and its not going to work!

We were created in a balanced ecosystem where everything has a purpose in the creators workings.

The question is, would random (hit and miss) processes (in the theory of evolution) create balanced proportion? Moreover, we should be questioning the odds that in all the millions of species that exists why is it that only both a male and female exists? Genesis 1:27 - So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he him; male and female created he them. Even Jesus restated this fact in Matthew 19:4 - Haven’t you read, He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.

There are only two sexes which is a clear indication of a planned framework. This would also reflect that each creature (male and female) had to develop at the same time (as well as location) so that the species could reproduce. Furthermore, one should be asking how did the first mating pair get to the mating point? This is impossible since a species would have to skip from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female and each with the capability and instinct to mate. The Bible clearly states that each creature was created after it own kind. Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 - And G-d created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[spidergoat]

There are species that do not have sex, and there are species with more than one sex. But I guess the Bible didn't mention those.

 

[sifreak21]

Noodler, I see where your going with this and its not going to work!

We were created in a balanced ecosystem where everything has a purpose in the creators workings.

The question is, would random (hit and miss) processes (in the theory of evolution) create balanced proportion? Moreover, we should be questioning the odds that in all the millions of species that exists why is it that only both a male and female exists? Genesis 1:27 - So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he him; male and female created he them. Even Jesus restated this fact in Matthew 19:4 - Haven’t you read, He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.

There are only two sexes which is a clear indication of a planned framework. This would also reflect that each creature (male and female) had to develop at the same time (as well as location) so that the species could reproduce. Furthermore, one should be asking how did the first mating pair get to the mating point? This is impossible since a species would have to skip from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female and each with the capability and instinct to mate. The Bible clearly states that each creature was created after it own kind. Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 - And G-d created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

quoting from a fiction book doesnt make it fact anita... and you speak of facts "After all He did design you and the world around you and there are many evidences for this" the problem here is there is 0 evidences reply in a qhote to this and name these evidences as such
1. evidence
2. evidence
3. evidence ect ect..

so far you have proven nothing in your posts just jibberish here and there, ignoring posts you cant debate and using the bible as a soure.. the bible is nothing more than a fiction book so DONT REFERENCE IT.. or ill reference talking spiders and use charlets web as my source..

if u missed it the chicken thing last night on discovery.. they stated and have proven that there are 8 controler genes.. the order and time which these turn on and off greatly impact what the final animal/creature will be.. turnin one off earlier would mean the chicken would have a long tail, teeth, fuzzy feathers even possibly arms instead of wings, science can prove this you can prove absolutly nothing so why do you keep at it?

P.S. i can quote from my own fiction book

book is freakystyle

freak 1:1 and the god sifreak said.. let some people believe in imaginary friends until they are adults, let them donate 10% of their paycheck to benifit the greater good of my wealth

 

[Anita Meyer]

You do know that most animals do not fossilize, so the fossil record will always be incomplete. We aren't talking about bizarre mutations like birth defects (where are they in the fossil record?), but more subtle ones, like those that are evidenced in dog breeds. Dog breeding is an artificial selection that mimicks how natural selection acts. Given enough time, we could breed a dog that could not mate with the rest of the dogs and would branch off into a new species. In fact, God didn't make dogs, mankind made them from wolves (or alternatively, they domesticated themselves). Sure, dogs can still breed with wolves, but that's only because not much time has passed yet (only 5-10 thousand years).

Spidergoat, this reeks of Dawkins again!

Yes now you put those pedigree dogs out into the wild and many of them would die especially the short hair dogs in cold weather.

There must be at least a few that fell into water, mud or covered instantly with ice that were rapidly buried. In fact we shouldn’t be finding just a few of these incomplete transitional forms, we should be finding abundantly more, since they would logically outnumber fully-formed creatures if transitions did occurred from one kind into another new kind. Yet we find none!

Also keep in mind that for evolution to have occurred it is based on “genetic change” and there is no way of studying the DNA of fossils - so we can never have any way of relating fossil organisms to one another or to modern ones genetically.


Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[spidergoat]

Dawkins was right, my dear.

These transitional forms are not half-formed, they were all fully formed well adapted creatures in their own right.

We can relate fossil organisms to each other through morphological differences.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, but they are not common - in fact very rare actually. Therefore the replication errors that Dawkins is talking about is quite slim. And if there were such errors we would be finding many of these mutations in the fossil record (since many of them would have died) - and were not!

I'm sure that the 39000 people that died of cancer in Australia in 2005 would be thrilled to hear that (1 in 500 hardly counts as rare).