No. I see no profit in engaging with those who spread creationist lies, and also, I see, lies about foodstuffs.

inquisicao Jesuit reverse? a story he repeats kkkk

Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352411/

Você leu? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/

No, there are not millions of the species from which chimps and humans are descended. Modern chimps are our cousins not our grandparents. And if evolution is not true, why dowe have more than 20 fossil forms in between our last common ancestors with chimps, and us? I really want to know how you account for all the australopithecus, ardipithecus, homo erectus, homo habilis, and other fossils.

The variability necessary to intertwine taxa Family / not indefinitely eziste . The pontualismo already admitted in IT miljares articles . Fossil taxonomic Poverty reveals MORE Basic Types of suddenly arising What is varied as Current Species

Join Cambrian Explosion containing Ediacaran with The explosion Variability From Layers Most Recent , and not paleontologist fossil Statistics Kurt wise (friend Gould ), que you will begin to see new Reality.

What have I TALK About geoologia and genetic entropy AFTER . ( Berthault , crabtree , JC Sanford, jacks cuozzo, et e tal)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5393/1455.full http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/24/babylonian-tablet-noah-ark-constructed-british-museum

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_critics_of_087681.html Destaque Gerald Crabtree http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(12)00158-8

# Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orothocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999.

# Berthault, G., 1986. Sedimentology-experiments on lamination of sediments. C.R. Academie or Science (Paris), 303 (Series II, no. 17):1569-1574 (EN Tech. J., 3, 1988, pp. 25-29).

# Berthault, G., 1988. Sedimentation of a heterogranular mixture-experimental lamination in still and running water. C.R. Academie of Science (Paris), 306 (Series II):717-724 (EN Tech. J., 4, 1990, pp.95- 102).

# Berthault, G., 1986. Experiments on lamination of sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition—a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments and sedimentary rocks. Compte Rendus Académie des Sciences, Paris, 303 (Série II, no. 17):1569–1574.

# Brand, L.R. 1977. Coconino Sandstone (Permian) fossil vertebrate footprints — paleoecologic implications (abs.), American Association of Petroleum Geologists and Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Program and Abstracts, pp. 66-67, annual meeting, Washington, D.C.

# Brand, Leonard R. and Thu Tang, 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin. Geology 19(12): 1201-1204. 1989: The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 550 pp. Wise, Kurt P.

Wise teaches at Bryan College in Dayton, TN. Some articles by Wise that I'm aware of (non-creationist publications):

1981: co-authored with Thomas J. M. Schopf: Was marine faunal diversity in the Pleistocene affected by changes in sea level?, Paleobiology, 7(3):394-399.

1991: The use of fossil occurrence data to distinguish between instantaneous and stepwise extinction [abstract], Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. w/ Progr., 1991:A184.

You have not answered my question about australopithcus etc fossils. Why were these forms of intermediate brain size ever created if they are not the result of evolution? Your first reference says "British Museum expert says 3,700-year-old instructions describe how to build round boat – but he does not believe ark existed" For what it's worth, the Biblical ark was rectangular. Evolution news and Views is notorious for its errors and distortions, but I shall look at the original paper it refers to. GSA abstracts in 1999 were not critcally reviewed. After further nonsense from Snelling and RATE, this policy was changed. As you know, if you don't believe in Adam and eve, you can't teach at Bryan. I shall look at these papers to see if there is anything new there.

And I do not know why you refer to Crabtree, who describes evolutionas a fact (have you read his paper?). I quote: " One clear fact is that the expansion of the human frontal cortex and endocranial volume (Fig 1), which is thought to have given humanity our capacity for abstract thought occurred about 50,000 and 500,000 years ago [26 27] in our pre historic African ancestors. " Note the words "clear fact" and "ancestors." If you cliam that Crabrett denies evoluton, you are bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16). And now, you have wasted quite enough of my time.

University of Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks, who was not involved in the study, suggested that "we just need to find more skulls" in order to piece together humanity's past. However, a century and a half worth of digging has not been enough to uncover any conclusive evidence for human evolution, and this new find adds nothing. Hawks told LiveScience that Australopithecus sediba was "not everything the rumor mill said it was going to be. It's not a missing link."3

http://www.icr.org/article/australopithecus-sediba-another-human/

Berger, L. R. et al. 2010. Australopithecus sediba: A New Species of Homo-like Australopith from South Africa. Science. 328 (5975): 195-204.

There is controversy as to whether A. sedibas is an ancestor, or a great-uncle. There is no doubt as to its age, or the fact that it is what palaeontologists call a mosaic of features, some human-like and some older. How do youaccout for its existence and that of the many other related extinct forms with brain size betrweent hat of a chimp and a human?

Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees (Oitenta por cento de proteínas são diferentes entre os seres humanos e chimpanzés Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei, Wojciech Makayowsk. Disponivel em http://www.personal.psu.edu/nxm2/2005%20Publications/2005-glazko-etal.pdf

every protein consists of a large number of amino acids. A mutation affecting any one of these would make the proteins different. So this not surprising. You still haven't answered my question: why did God create Australopithecius and all the other kinds that I mentioned?

And bury them in the right order in the ground to mimic evolution?

Land animals with greater ability to anticipate catastrophes would logically Layered More high

So you had all these 20 or so intermediate species coexisting but the smarter ones started running uphill sooner when the flood waters rose? Is that it? And what is the meaning of that diagram you keep showing, and where did it cone from? Finally, did you actually read the paper by Crabtree that you referred to and I quoted back to you? If so, why did you refer to it,since he's on my side not yours?

remember the elephants survivors of the tsunami in asia? so pachyderms station in higher layers

Why did you refer to Crabtree? Have you read him?

This ust out: http://www.evoanth.net/2015/06/02/oldest-stone-tools-found-but-who-made-them/?wpbo_submit=done I don't think the facts fitr your running-from=rising water theory anyway. we are talking about meters of sediments.

Brain genetic entropy brings us to the genesis, as Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals

Enough of this; neithr of us is learning anything

we have to talk, even to play under the carpet is discussion and sort creationism as if it were religious and not a scientific expression of religion, does not help. Education is very encouraged in this dispute and everybody wins regardless of beliefs. Already dogmatism will lose the credibility of good stuff too.

There are homo- and homo tools in lower layers also

Lomekwian

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-find-worlds-oldest-stone-tools/

I don't see why this is evidence for creationism. If creationism is true, there wold be stone tools in the Devonian. Three ue3stions for you, which you must have answerd many times:

1) Where did the flood waters go, if they were high enough to cover Aarat (let alone Everest)?

2) If all animals are descended fromthose in Noah's Ark, why dowe only find kangaroos in Australia?

3) How do you account for unconformities, such as that at Siccar Point, which I have seen; how could strata be tilted on end and worn down, and others depositied on top of them,without deep time? https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/time-turned-to-stone-part-1-time-as-interval/

I needed to get out .but is not complicated answer. their issues have to do with recent separation of the continents and elevation rapid and recent tectonic plates (thesis develop precisely this point). isolating some species, genera, families, as well as probably small human populations, emerging biotypes of similar ethnic groups, due to the high degree of endogamous stress in their foundations. proving that it was a global catastrophe because they are occupying large geographical areas (biotypes of ethnicities similar originating from inbreeding due low populations) they are on top of fossils of distinct morphological patterns, Mongoloid upon Negroid fossils here in Brazil to Mexico, this proves the global flood, as it did not exist, the ethnic groups have dissimilar in terms of morphological patterns of halogrupos. There are the same examples in china with Caucasians and Europe fossils.

precisei que sair .mas nao é complicado responder . suas questões, tem que ver com separação recente dos continentes e elevacao rápida e recente de placas tectônicas (desenvolvo tese justamente neste ponto) . isolando algumas espécies , gêneros, famílias , como também provavelmente pequenas populações humanas , surgindo etnias de biotipos semelhantes , devido ao alto grau de stress endogâmico nas respectivas fundações . provando que houve uma catástrofe global devido estarem ocupando vastas areas geográficas (etnias de biotipos semelhantes originárias de endogamia devido baixas populações) elas estão em cima de fósseis de padrões morfológicos distintos , mongoloides em cima de fósseis negroides aqui no brasil até no México, , isso prova o diluvio global, pois se não existisse , as etnias teriam dessemelhantes em termos de padroes morfológicos de halogrupos. Existem os mesmos exemplos na china com fósseis caucasianos e Europa.

but I'll be reading more closely your questions will now read your link, and answer in more detail.

Do you have links to the negroid below mongoloid fossils in the Americas? The conventional view is that indigenous Americans correspond to waves of migration from North-East Asia. The usual explanation of Chinese over European in central Asia is mass displacement or extermination. And can I add one more question: (4) The biblical flood date matches the middle of the period during which the Egyptians were building the pyramids. Why is there no evididence in Egypt for this flood?

Lund lagoa santa minas gerais

Brasil

Have in sp and México too

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/26/science/an-ancient-skull-challenges-long-held-theories.html

https://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?noj=1&redir_esc&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=pt-BR&oe=utf-8&safe=images&tel=1&gcc=br&ctzn=America/Sao_Paulo&ctf=0&v=4.6.10.16.arm&fheit=0&biw=600&bih=999&wf=pp1&entrypoint=android-search-now-entry&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:4io7Aco2X6NNvM:scholar.google.com/

I am working through your references. Have you read them? You refer me to Par 1 of Crabtree's essay, but the next part (a page later) says "says “ Expansion of the human frontal cortex and endocranial volume (Figure 1), to which we likely owe our capacity for abstract thought, predominately occurred between 50 000 and 500 000 years ago2 and 3 in our prehistoric African ancestors, well before written language and before we had the modern voice-box to produce sophisticated verbal language 2 "and 4, but after the first tools.” The Brand and Tang article is 1991, not 1989. It is not Academie of Sciences but Academie des Sciences. Have you examined these references or are you just puling down a list? What isthe meaning and origin of the figure you keep showing with 95% marine invertebrates? Likewise the figure comparing numbers of extant and extinct families. In the Austin and Wise abstract, you misspell "orthocone"; again, have you read it? I also want to make sure I understand you, as I do not want to do you an injustice. Am I right in saying that you explain the order of pre--modern Australopithecus and Homo fossils by saying that the smartest ones started running sooner, and reached higher ground before they were overwhelmed by the flood? That the way kangaroos got from the Ararat area to Australia was by being carried on a moving tectonic plate?That these tectonic movements also account for unconformities and for sharply angled strata?

And you still haven't explained why there seems to be no evidence of Noah's flood in Egypt, although it would have occurred, if we take biblical chronology seriously, around 2350 BC, at the height of the Old Kingdom, when the Egyptians already had written records.

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Floods.html Egypt. The Egyptian flood myth begins with the sun god Ra, who feared that people were going to overthrow him. He sent the goddess Hathor, who was his eye, to punish the people. But she killed so many that their blood, flowing into the Nile River and the ocean, caused a flood. Hathor greedily drank the bloody water. Feeling that things had gone too far, Ra ordered slaves to make a lake of beer, dyed red to look like blood. Hathor drank the beer, became very drunk, and failed to finish the task of wiping out humanity. The survivors of her bloodbath started the human race anew.

Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Floods.html#ixzz3bwNr1yEg

The teacher must know that there is in the chronology of ancient kings and pharaohs much confusion of names and dates, where differences of up to 900 years are perceived. Therefore, no date without an error margin is safe.

http://creation.com/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt

Related Articles Egyptian blue How did they build the Great Pyramid?—an architect’s proposal Building the ancient pyramids of Giza Ancient Egypt confirms: Genesis is history References James, P., Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology, Cape, London, 1991; also Down, D., Searching for Moses, TJ 15(1):53–57, 2001. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, II-IX-1. David, A.R., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A modern investigation of Pharaoh’s workforce, Guild Publishing, London, p. 191, 1986. Ref. 3, p. 199.

now got work to answer .about crabtree, the central idea is that highlight the fragility of the brain front of mutations. the geochronological aspects of their work are in relation to the point at issue, virtually ignored since this is not their specialty and are likely to anchor the accepted paradigm in the scientific community. but the point focus and give highlight is that the fragility of the brain takes us for more intelligent brains. in healthier bodies (jc sanford, 2005) and longer-lived Jacks Cuozzo showed Neanderthals with the teeth indicates they have more than 300 years old.

the turbidites large-scale occurring along the slope, justify the existence of numerous trilobites in the lower layers as well as their extinction, and the families of the layers of the deep ocean, which in a global catastrophe, receive larger amount of sediment, which justifies its extinction

http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10628136

http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age

I am working through your references because I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. When I have done so, I would like to send you my summary of your claims, and of your responses to my objections to them.

Meantime, I would like to repeat just one question: we have evidence of a continuous civilisation in Egypt since 6000 BC. But there is no sign of the total disruption that there must have been, if Genesis is true, because Egypt would have been totally depopulated until repopulated by the children of Ham, especially Cush and Mizraim (I expect you know that Cush and Mizraim are the Hebrew names of Ethiopia and Egypt, and that many of the relationships in Exodus 10 can be understood if we regard the names of individuals as standing for the names of tribes and peoples).

Comparing biblical chronology with Egyptian chronology, Noah's flood would have had to happen during the building of the pyramids. Even if we allow 1000 years for chronological errors, we are dealing with well studied advanced Neolithic cultures in both Upper and Lower Egypt. Again, I expect you know that Mizraim is grammatically a dual form in Hebrew, showing awareness of cultural continuity since before these were united around 3,100 BC.

You give evidence of an Egyptian legend of an extremely powerful flood. But this does not answer my question; how come there is no physical or specific historical evidence of the utter catastrophe that Noah's flood would have been the continuous lead developing and flourishing Egyptian civilisation?

If I had to ask only one question of a biblical creationist, this would be it.

the last link that responds http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age

No

This http://creation.com/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt

as had already quoted in all Egyptian chronology and the biblical, there is a degree of uncertainty, margin of error, so for practical purposes, it is assumed prudently, our origine, flood, etc ... as events "in 10,000 throne years ".and it thins with genealogical statistics progressions such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040930122428.htm notice Paul, we work with a time and much lower error margins that scale millions of years where "everything a bit" fits, or hides

To which question are you answering "no"? Is there anything more that you would like to add before I write this up as a record of a Creationist position? I donot intend to identify you, but can you tell me something about your qualifications and amount of study you have devoted to this subject? Clearly, you have examined a great deal of material. I regret that I do not speak Portuguese (my one portuguese pubication, http://www.letraseeartes.com.br/2013/10/letraseeartes-leva-voce-as-estrelas.html, also described at https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/rebutting-creationism-in-brazil/ , was translated for me). So I appreciate your having spent so much time conversing in English.

And one final, final question: how did you hear of me?

Ei, vamos mudar para o Telegram: https://telegram.org/dl

I am theologian. when Newest lost a friend to Nietzsche, he left the church and died an atheist at age 31 using drugs. when I saw a news story involving his name on banning creationism in Scotland, contact, as 10 years ago that motion debates on the internet defending falsifiable points of religion (creationism is therefore falsifiable points studies of religion)

I understand naturalism as a sort of religion of science, or rather of atheism because science should not have official religion.

and the theory of evolution as a set of falsifiable points and infalseaveis naturalistic religion, for that while creationism refrain from explaining "how God created" naturalism is not limited, but wants to explain anyway what he calls gaps

Creationism is super humble and wise to refrain from answering the question "how God created," he, as an expression of falsifiable points of fundamentalist reality, not materialistic, not strict, which is understood by religion, finds himself limited by science itself not arbitrate in this field, as well as intelligent design stops only signs of intelligence, for more than philosophical or theological evocations are dormant.

Already marking naturalism is not humility, but the arrogance of wanting to settle and "answer" anyway on the origin of life and the universe, systematically ignoring and trampling all signs of intelligence, the philosophical and theological deductions ancient wisdoms . creationism to science comprise 1/3 of expression of reality, belongs to philosophy 1/3 and 1/3 belongs to supernatural abstractions including within the broad biblical theology.

I'm now reading his response to my friend Dr. Ruy Vieira, president of creationist society in Brazil. You should have already informed that the argument that descended from dinos aurs birds lost some strength? http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2005/01/050112_dinossauroro.shtml

s).Em Agosto de 2012 no jornal online de biologia, PLOS: Biology, Lida Xing e os colegas escrevem um artigo com o título “Abdominal Contents from Two Large Cretaceous Compsognathids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) Demonstrate Feeding on Confuciusornithids and Dromaeosaurids” (2012).

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1633

Here is the abstract of the abdominal contents paper. I do not understand how it weakens the argument that birds descended from dinosaurs (although there is strong debate about whether the ancestors of birds should be considered as dinosaurs or as close relatives). On the contrary, the paper cleqrly accepts the evolutionary changes that you deny: Abstract

Two skeletons of the large compsognathid Sinocalliopteryx gigas include intact abdominal contents. Both specimens come from the Jianshangou Beds of the lower Yixian Formation (Neocomian), Liaoning, China. The holotype of S. gigas preserves a partial dromaeosaurid leg in the abdominal cavity, here attributed to Sinornithosaurus. A second, newly-discovered specimen preserves the remains of at least two individuals of the primitive avialan, Confuciusornis sanctus, in addition to acid-etched bones from a possible ornithischian. Although it cannot be stated whether such prey items were scavenged or actively hunted, the presence of two Confuciusornis in a grossly similar state of digestion suggests they were consumed in rapid succession. Given the lack of clear arboreal adaptations in Sinocalliopteryx, we suggest it may have been an adept stealth hunter.

The article is by Kyle Butt. I have met his work before. I would warn you against taking him seriously. He has no qualifications in science, and my critique of two of his books is at https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/reviewed-young-earth-creationist-books-handed-out-in-scottish-primary-school/

I'm reading your text and see that mr. It has worked hard to refute creationist arguments and justify scientific papers in the most accepted mold of science and current paradigm. each point summarized in his full article has numerous scientific articles and debate and Mr. should know that such summaries ignore the opposite perspective and highlights the reasons and replicas in favor of the accepted paradigm today. for my part I undertook a debate with four geology teacher for 1 year and a half of absence of sedimentological evidence of a long time between the Cambrian and Pleistocene. During the debate was constantly guided by a doctor of geology was a professor at USP. I made a summary of points during the debate that took 9,000 replies and rejoinders, I filtered points for which there were no answers, and concluded the debate by winning in almost all points, the only points that have not solved, little later managed to solve.

http://www.adamsapple.com.br/2013/10/tempo-de-formacao-do-cambriano-ao-pleistoceno-i-projeto-de-pesquisa/

Do you teach theology, if so where, and how is it accredited? I fear that you will reject whatever I say that disagrees with you because I ignore the "other prespective", but perspective has nothing to so with it. The geological column was established from evidence. There is NO perspective that will explain it away in terms of a young Earth. Radiometric dating is aso established form evidence; the technical problems were resolved inthe 1940s by the isochron method, and we know the clock runs true since it is a consequence of quantum physics and if that had changed we would not have the same minerals being deposited as we can see today. Unfortunately, my software tells me your adamsapple site is dangerous, so I cannot monitor it. For a rebuttal of Berthault see http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm For a rebuttal ofthe creationist attacks on radiometric dating see Wiens (Los Alamos; one of his instruments is at work on Mars right now) http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html, and for an exhaustive and exhausting catalogue of the creationist claims that you are recycling see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

something that comes to mind tell you in particular is that it is useless to ignore the growth in quality and number of arguments and articles increasingly enhanced creationists and intelligent design, since the effect of this will be as if one could hold water a river. Sooner or later, this water will pass through the dam, if not the most conventional way, will be disastrously. So nothing wiser than science include what proves to be falsifiable and so parsimonious of creationism and intelligent design, before it becomes increasingly hateful such an attitude of ideological segregation so common in man and in history. as administrator should include standardizing activities include words in dialect, including cultures that form, or improve, anticipate their existence and legitimacy, as Gorbachev predicted in perestroika. I ask Mr. Paul, who is a gentleman, not a crusader soldier, a diplomat, not a general of Darwin, a human being, not a hooligans

algo que me vem a mente te falar em especial, é que não adianta ignorar o crescimento em qualidade e número de argumentos e artigos cada vez mais aprimorados criacionistas e do design inteligente , pois o efeito disto será como se fosse possível reter a água de um rio. Uma hora ou outra , esta água vai passar pela represa , se não for da forma mais convencional, será de forma desastrosa . Portanto, nada mais sensato que a ciência incluir aquilo que demonstra ser falseaveis e parcimonioso do criacionismo e so design inteligente, antes que se torne cada vez mais odioso tal atitude de segregacionismo ideológico tão comum no ser humano e na história . como administrador devemos incluir atividades normatizando, incluir palavras no dialeto, incluir culturas que se formam, ou se aprimoram , antever sua existência e legitimidade , como Gorbachev previu na perestroika. peço sr Paul , que seja um cavalheiro , não um soldado cruzado , um diplomata, não num general de Darwin, um ser humano, não um hooligans

Claims that creationists are winning over the majority date back to around 182o, while the Discovery Institute claimed in 1998 that ID would replace materialistic (ie naturalistic) science as the dominant mode within 20 years. Meanitme, I see no evidence of the growing numbers of scientists embracing creationism; what I see instead is a growing number of discoveries confirming and refining the standard evolutionary account. So I fear you are betting on a loser.

Oh no. May I taste a little. besides the fact that we know that whenever science changes, we see the tendency of science to approach more and more on biblical theology, there are many examples of this. as genetic entropy, the fall of uniformity for actualism in geology, the revolution of turbidites in sedimentology, shortening the time of sedimentary formation, experiments quickly lithification, rapid fossil formation, creation forecast in the book that was below function in DNA garbage undiscovered, speciation in real time bringing to the heights to divide pay of transitional fossils that extreme poverty fossil Taxonomic had given up pay (pontualismo), fine-tuned work, and countless discoveries functions and more functions in biochemistry

Etc

Darwinian dam is almost collapsing. the wise man will make this prediction, others will suffer from the accident. In Brazil where I work over 10 years, devoting 80% of my time to these discussions early in my volunteer work, was one creationist against 1000 Darwinists today is different, sometimes we have the impression that they are becoming the minority.

Interesting. One of the traditional arguments against the standard account was that no one had observed the formation of new species. Now that we have observed the formation of new species, this is suddenly being used as an argument for a young earth and hence for creationism. The conflict between uniformitarianism and catastrophism had been resolved in favour of variability by 1865 (Thomas Huxley, 1869 Presidential Address to Geologocal Society). The ideas of genetic entropy and meltdown under excessive mutation rates date back to the 1960s, with Eigen. No one outside the circle of creatioists thinks that Berthault's work on turbidity has anything to do with the formation of maor geological strata. The work on DNAhas b een widely misrepresented and you have accepted the misrepresentation, but the genome of an onion is 5 times as large as that of you and me. Is an onion 5 times as complex? Extreme poverty of fossil record? We have 28 separate families, with several species of most, in between whales and their terrestrial ancestors, all found iwthin the last 25 years. And so on.

Again I ask, are you a professional theolgian, where do you teach, and how is your institution accredited? And since you are a theologian are you familiar with the work of Henry Drummond, one of the founders of evolution theology, and of Hugh Miller, whose 1857 Testimony of the Rocks contains a critique of biblical opponents of deep time that a Christian friend of mine strongly recommends.

And since you use people like Kyle Butt and ICR publicatins as authorities, have you read the scientific papers you list yourself, or have you ust accepted the meaning that your creationist friends place on them?

the Huxley reference: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society Anniversary Address of the President Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 1869, v.25; pxxviii-liii. doi: 10.1144/GSL.JGS.1869.025.01-02.07

Yes, the modern creationism to Darwinism yielded by accepting speciation, and since 1948 with the falsifiable hypothesis Marsh, who has been developing the baraminology it has tested the limits of possibility crossings and chromosomal pairings and early embryo. creationism understood that the fixism was wider, not so wide as to transgress indefinitely. This absorption of some scientific truths and testable of Darwinism was awarded with the recent discoveries of speciation in real time, which convalidaram the creationist prediction that radiation especiativa giving immense variability current taxonomic occurred in a short period. it is strongly confirmed by fossil taxonomic poverty contrasted with 9 million of current species. and the acid test is this: we have more body patterns and the number of families in the fossil world. speciation in real time dresses like a glove to the short time creationist model and explains the fossil taxonomic contrast to the high number of current species http://sodregoncalves.no.comunidades.net/index.php?pagina=1399615641

Of course! Of we accept baraminology and pretend that we can draw firm lines round different minim (kinds), but move the lines whenever we see them crossed, we can explain anything. Except the facts, like long term cumulative change. Which can then be denied by denying the temporal sequence, as you did in the case of hominin species. So believers can remain satisfied, and no doubt blame the fact that Marsh hasn't yet got his Nobel prize in physiology, or even a paper in a real journal, on the fact that mainstream scientsts don't have the right perspective. A search in webof knowledge for baraminology gives papers only Creation Research Quartely and ournal of Creation science and theology. Except for this, which shows that if you use baraminology consistently, you end up with the evolutionary sequence anyway: Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria By: Senter, P. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Volume: 24 Issue: 10 Pages: 2197-2216 Published: OCT 2011 Find More at the University of Glasgow Library Close AbstractClose Abstract Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins ('created kinds'). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves, Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae. Each of these seven groups exhibits within-group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group's members, even according to this creationist standard.

To which wood replied (note his ast sentence, which is an admission that maybe birds and dinosaurs are the same kind, so that birds are allowed to have evolved from dinosaurs anyway): Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter's strategy revisited By: Wood, T. C. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY Volume: 24 Issue: 4 Pages: 914-918 Published: APR 2011 Find More at the University of Glasgow Library Full Text from Publisher Close AbstractClose Abstract Senter's strategy of arguing against creationism using their own methodology focused on demonstrating a morphological continuum between birds and nonavian dinosaurs using classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), a method used by some creationists to assign species to assist in the detection of phylogenetic 'discontinuities.' Because creationists do not typically use CMDS in the manner Senter used it, his results were re-examined using 'distance correlation,' a method used to assign species to 'created kinds.' Distance correlation using Senter's set of taxa and characters supports his conclusion of morphological continuity, but other sets of taxa with more characters do not. These results lessen the potential impact that Senter's strategy might have on creationism; however, it is possible that future fossil discoveries will provide stronger support for morphological continuity between dinosaurs and birds.

Final request: do you teach at any institution or school, what subect(s), are you prepared to tell me which one, and how is it accredited?

BTW, this just in from your own back yard: http://news.discovery.com/animals/prehistoric-bird-sported-feather-at-its-butt-150602.htm

the truth is that the fossil record comes from nothing or almost nothing, is in stasis and in the most recent layers, flowers, suffers immense radiation especiativa. when it does not suffer terminal extinguishing families especially low who received higher amount of sediment .This above, by itself, allows thousands of phylogenetic relationships with few candidates as fossil ancestors large and massive current variation. morphologically nothing will prevent such relationships, however, the current observation groups that do not relate, makes us infer the fossil record, the same rule.

a verdade é que o registro fóssil surge do nada ou quase nada , fica em estase e nas camadas mais recentes , floresce, sofre imensa radiacao especiativa. isso quando não sofre terminal extinção de famílias principalmente as de baixo, que receberam maior quantidade de sedimentos .Este quadro, por si só , permite milhares de relações filogeneticas com poucos candidatos fósseis como ancestrais de grande e gigantesca variação atual. morfologicamente nada impedirá tais relações , porém, a observação atual de grupos que não se relacionam , nos faz inferir no registro fossil, a mesma regra .

I noticed your interest in fossil statistics, you corresponded with Dr. Kurt wise? If you would like his email is kwise@truett.edu

Now I think I understand your method. You assume the Bible is literally true (in itself an impossibility; real biblical scholars, for example, disentangle the two separate accounts that were merged to give us our flood story). You then decide what has to be the case; in your last example, very rapid radiation. You then look for evidence of rapid radiation, find it in flowering plants; and extend that to every case where you need it, The absence of evidence for any such process in a particular group s then easily explained by separate creation. Is that correct?

Meantime you can find out all about me very quickly on line, but I know nothing about you apart from your writing name and what you have told me here. This is not fair, and I demand you identify yourself.

And say how you heard of me

I answered, I'm just a self-taught theologian who works in the internet forums. remember? "I am theologian. When Newest lost a friend to Nietzsche, he left the church and died an atheist at age 31 using drugs. When I saw the news story Involving his name on banning creationism in Scotland, contact the 10 years ago que motion debates on the internet defending falsifiable points of religion (creationism is falsifiable Therefore points studies of religion) "

If you are self-taught, you can be forgiven. If anyone has been coaching you, they should be ashamed of themselves. Goodbye.

I develop a thesis is five years, called paleontology T, simulating the taxonomic poverty throughout geologic column and the opening (rod t + t hat) representing the radiation and especiativa variability. yes, I have my assumptions based on thousands of observations, there is no pure reason and much less pure science, we are all human with feelings, pre-concepts and assumptions. I could say the same of Darwinian fundamentalism that ignores 78 prospects datacionais and clings to sieve a few high time scale elements.

Ok.