OUG, I might have missed it, but how old do you think the world is and also, can you explain how it is that scattered around the world, in every continent except the Antarctic, there are people of very different colours and appearances.

David

davidv/quote..""OUG,..how old do you think the world is""''its old..very old...but in its first few millions of years..it was just a hot lump..thrown off the sun[satan]...from the deepest hell[the sun]

but thats too much for you to take in
so i will say its millions of millions of years old

but days are a measure of change[not clock nor calender time
so i 'see'..the first 'day'..as a set phase
[when the hot blob was cooling]..then to when
it became the water planet..[as day two]..even so..its trillions and trillions of day..[gods 'day measure might span the time betwen each new genus creation]

regardless...no one can know
nor confirm..but heck..the mother earth
is old..[older than 7000 years..ok?]

""can you explain
how it is that scattered around the world,
in every continent except the Antarctic,..there are people of very different colours and appearances.""

the creationists theorise..that noahs sons
and wives scatterd to the wind's..that their gene genome
genetic groups reflect the races..but also our inter-relatedness

those thinking to decend off the abrhamic branch
well thats only one truth..[only one of the many beliefs of gods many children]

anyhow...given time it can all be explained...with honest looking at the facts[and maybe an occasional accepting of spiritual guidences]

as this is all still at refuting bad science
its not off topic trolling..i do feel great pains..of those missing seing the gifts of gods amasing creation

[and dispair in that no-one saw the worth
of gods gift..[our joined share of gods inheritance

[the 'leaves' of the true tree of life..ie rev 22..

as explained..in my referances re the wikiseed/wikigeld...
to wit that biblical 12 fruits tree..[who's leaves are for the healings of nations]..

not the faux destraction of the
[tree of life projest]..[project]
linked too earlier

anyhow i love explaining

but more need to expose
the frauds of science..
[the 7th seal]

once we chose to unseal our minds eye

OUG,

This frequent claim of yours, that you’ve studied evolution in depth, is either a lie or says a lot about your comprehension skills. And no, reading http://www.answersingenesis.org does not constitute studying evolution.

If you had studied evolution - or any science at all for that matter - then you would understand that a theory in scientific terms is not just a hypothesis as you keep claiming it is with your incorrect use (and capitalisation) of the word “theory”. Even creationist websites advise that their ignorant followers don’t use the “Evolution is just a theory” argument… http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

I suppose gravity, cell theory, germ theory and black hole theory are just hypotheses too?

You repeatedly ask for falsifiables (as if they needed to be a physical item), then when you’re given (to paraphrase) “reasons as to why evolution is falsifiable”, you shift the goal posts like a typical creationist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#173151)...

<<lol...THIS IS YOUR EVI-DENSE>>

No, it wasn’t “my evidence”, it was something that would falsify evolution.

Another “falsifiable” is the complete lack of any mechanism preventing genera splitting off into several different genera; something you claim is impossible and yet are unable to come up with a reason as to why (instead, opting to raise the obvious point that no-one has ever witnessed it before their very eyes, when witnessing it would actually disprove evolution). With what we know of DNA and mutations, along with the lack of any such mechanism, it would be impossible for multiple genera to not have evolved over such a vast amount of time. The only argument you could possibly present would be to claim that the world isn’t old enough, yet everything we observe says otherwise.

A static fossil record would also falsify evolution and thus the fossil record is yet another “falsifiable”. Not only does the fossil record show genera splitting off into several different genera, but with our understanding of DNA now (an understanding that creationists are forced to brush-off as “common design”), we don’t even need the fossil record. It’s just an added bonus.

So there’s another “falsifiable” for you: DNA.

aj..you talk of fossils as evidence
please educate yourself with phenotype/versis genotype
[pheenotype means looks like...and mate just cause a fossil looks like[dont mean it is]

take the archioptrix[bird lizard thing..a so called m issing link
as previously posted it was [proved fraud..because it included modern day chiken feathers]..so looke like isnt any proof its geneticly reklated[genotype]

then there is that 'small issue'
where cold blood fish..'evolved'..into warm blood furry critter
so show me this warmblood fish..or this cold blood mammal[missing link mate]

huge gaps..that critter that walked from the seas..
didnt have shoulderblades..nor hips
so couldnt have walked

your link..it sems to go to a previous post of mine
[im not seeing what that ''evri-denser'' quote relates to]

but lets face it in your mind
you see a cat evolve into a dog
even if their closest genetic link diverged away from eacxh other long ago[according to your own theory]

mate its the complete lack of transitionals..that speaks volumes
my search found less than 10..and none was completly fasulsifyable[most based on mere fragments

anyhow here
i put ya theory on trial
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?t=3225
[and you can vote on the jury]

aj rote/quote...""you shift..the goalposts
like a typical creationist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#173151)...

<<lol...THIS IS..YOUR EVI-DENSE>>

No,..it wasn’t..“my evidence”,
it was something..that would falsify..evolution.""...lol

cool it led..to my words
and i know..*it dont faulsify anything

look at the durn werds...[what means faulse..
to those ignorant..of science terminology]..
faulsify to most..means..to lie

but in truth
the word defines..the facts
that..*if proved faulse
invalidate..the theory

so i ask for..these faulsifyables
KNOWING EVERY SCIENCE..*NEEDS THEM TO.."BE"..A SCIENCE
evolution THEORY..*dont got em..[thus isnt a science]

i note again..you didnt present any
only linked back to me...lol

"""Another “falsifiable”..is the complete lack
of any mechanism..preventing genera,[from]
splitting off..into several different genera;""

lol thats so funny
so..lol...*not having a preventative mechanism..lol for it?
dont mean..that it dont have a corerctive mechanism..THAT PREVENTS IT*!

dna repairs itself..[cause its in matching-pairs]
and thus..any change or mutation
readilly aborts..negative mutation..thus any attempt to lol..evolve..live [outside its genus]

your now claiming
lack of a preventative mechanism..
validates the impossable?

you have no idea..what your saying ol son

""something you claim is impossible""

because the cell mechanism..self repairs

""and yet are unable to come up..with a reason..as to why""

just did..ol mate

""(instead,..opting to raise the obvious point
that no-one has ever witnessed it before their very eyes,
when witnessing it would actually disprove evolution)."""

there you go
how the heck..can witnessing a thing
verify..*lol..*its impossable...

[its a sad point
you fail to make..ol mate]

""With what we know..of DNA and mutations,
along with..lol..the lack of any such mechanism,""

well dna gets repaird
so point..not made

""it would be impossible..for multiple genera
to..*not have evolved..over such a vast amount of time.""

lol

""The only argument
you could possibly present
would be to claim that the world isn’t old enough,""

as i repeatedly said
its plenty old enough..!

mate the earth is slowing down

[every 'day'..will be longer than the next]..

so one..''day''..on the first day..[earth rotation]
might have lasted one second..

till in time
a..[rotation] [day]..now =24 hours

mate so why so despirit.,.

if you got fact
name names..present ya faulsies

if you..lol..ahemmm
got em..lol..present em

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/140

An interesting read.

If one had indeed studied evolution then you would have read:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" Charles Darwin.

You may add that to my previous statement that identifying fossils of the homo genus alongside those of the Eoraptor genus. I could list falsifiables all day.

However, can you list a single falsifiable for your theory?