No, you are here demonstrating that you have none. What, you are hiding it somewhere out in the desert?
Your myths originated in the desert. Evidence can be found in museams, try taking a look sometime.
I didn't ask you for an opinion on something you know nothing about. Long as you admit your un definitive 'sciences' are just that.
Do I need to show you the difference between opinion and logical conclusion as well?
You think I tried to assert that. I could allow for it, if the evidence was present, but don't blame the idea on me.
Humans have body hair, vestigal body hair. Unborn humans grow a full coat of hair in the womb which is shed.
As humans had clothes in early biblical time, they did not require a full coat of mammalian fur. Also, may I point out that civilisation as we know it began
after the last ice age, which is why you cannot find evidence of an ice age that doesn't pre-date the bible.
Our body hair is the remnants of what covers an ape, it is one of a number of small peices of evidence that suggests we evolved from apes.
No they were not. They were still hunted.
And your evidence is........
No need to debunk cloudy guesswork.
Unfortunatley the world doesn't work like that.
You need evidence to counter a theory.
Show me a dropstone in an area, and how you think you know it was not underwater, specifically.
First provide evidence that the whole world has been flooded - as that will be your argument
You don't know what to look for, so you are not qualified to ask about it.
So show me what rock formations occur under a massive flood that lasts 140 days - and show me where I can find them in the same strata on every continent.
No need to prove creation, since science isn't up to the task, all we can say for sure, is that there is no reason to doubt it.
i notice how you don't even try.......
I can't ignore what isn't around, save in your head.
But you ignore so much, and accept what isn't there as fact.
OK, so you want to retreat to some other defense, you think will serve you better, let's see it.
No need for me to be defensive.
So, you say things with venom are a clade. That's nice. Apparently some in that blog site you linked are less than cheer leaders for the claims.
A few details here and there on this:
First, the animal in the picture isn't a lace monitor (V. varius), but is actually a Sand Monitor / Goana (possibly V. panoptes or gouldi or flaviurus; the taxonomy of this group is utterly insane). Lacies are much prettier, IMHO (google images and see what I mean).
Secondly, they're interesting results, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the phylogeny, since if you actually read the footnotes, they only test 5 lizard species and 4 of those were from the same genus, Varanus. The only non-varanid was a lone Iguanian (the super-family, part of family agamidae). As such, it's both too early to write off most of those other branches as not having venom, and too soon to start claiming clades without knowing the extent to which convergence of these protiens has occured over the 3000 odd lizard species (in 20-some-odd families).
Another thing that leapt to mind for me when reading was "so what?", since they don't address the relevance to the ecology/behavior of the species. It's clearly not for prey capture; the lone iguanian eats insects and plants (and just crunches them and gulps them down), and varanids are among the last things needing help dispatching prey (all species analyzed mostly eat small mammals, and they can dispatch those easily; I've personally cleaned rabbit intestines off the *ceiling* of a room-sized cage).
Furthermore, the Komodo strongly indicates against the potency of these chemicals, since, if it had something even approximating useful venom, why didn't it simply enhance that (as Gilas did) to subdue prey rather than evolving a totally distinct, bacteria-based mechanism? The fact that these two took totally separate routes to the same effective end from the same starting points indicates to me that the situation is substantially more complex that it first appears.
Another question I have concerns his previous work as applied to this: if venom protiens are recruited from protiens elsewhere, shouldn't we expect a high degree of convergence, if this recruitment occurs often (which I'd argue that the diversity of snake venoms that have evolved since the Miocene indicates it does)?
Personally, it's neat that he's found these protiens in lizard species, but I think a lot more work needs to be done before forming clades and assessing the role of these protiens in squamate evolution."
(same link)
I read this, and I would be suprised if no-one had tried to pick holes in it.
It is just one line of reasoning, and doesn't prove anything.
But when other evidence is considered, a picture emerges - and it is one of common descent.
At best all your post does is accuse the guy of jumping the gun a little, of treating one piece of evidence as the whole picture.
Try a link that doesn't just tell a story as if it were true. For example, if a picture claims that everything with venom almost had a single ancestor, back it up as to why.
What is more interesting is how related species share genes for venom - whether they poduce venom or not. These vestigal traits are evidence of evolution, and not evidence for creation.
Well, if some skinks adapted after the ark, to depend less on legs, so bloomin what??? That does not make them a fruit fly, cockroach, flatworm, or canary.
If the ark event occured 50 million years ago, I might agree.
And do I really need to point out that a skink evolving into an insect would pretty much debunk evolution?
Well, if people in the churches feel some remorse, that is a far sight better than the beastly sort that have no shame. I mean, maybe you think the little old ladies in church ought to have to check their umbrellas at the door, they might be a deadly weapon??
Again, you sidestep the question so I will repeat it.
Quote:
But they pray, and they kill, and they repent..... The bible says that's ok, they'll still go to heaven. Can you bame them for playing that game?
Because He isn't a number?
And He is not required for a functioning universe.
Are you suggesting that the animal kingdom, as a whole has avoided 'incest'??
No, I merely provided an example of how moral behaviour can develop in a species with limited intellectual powers without a sky god giving explicit instructions. So is it so hard to assume that it could not have happened again?
No it doesn't, that is probably why you do not show us the calendar exactly.
Furthermore, a lot of that stuff is based on assumptions. The sothic cycle, and the dog star, for example. They actually don't really even know for sure that is was Sirius. If, for example, early Egypt was before the split, all current guesses are off.
As opposed to your assumptions?
Like this famous split, for example?
I see. So, what, you want some other country to have them, that you think will protect you?
I'd rather we didn't need to threaten anyone with total destruction, I'm suprised you don't agree with this.
Well, if the main cause of the HIV in South America, (and you brought it up) was sodomy, that is what needs to be addressed. Obviously. If you defend it, you are to blame directly.
Condom use would still be useful, but I actually referred to Africa and the Pope's line of condoms = hell.
Better than blowing up the planet, in my opinion.
And he Jews could have done that, could they?
