First of all Black, I did not qoute him for my agenda. I qouted him to be funny. You did not have to go through such great lengths to refute me. LOL.

>- conscience,will, emotion, etc., likely arose with the
>development of language - the ability to formulate &
>communicate abstract thoughts & ideas. Either way, it is
>not a "problem" for evolutionists as you put it, bc it is
>not needed for evidence of human evolution.

Response: Rolling my eyes. So again why are'nt animals or other species persons? Let me guess they have not evolved to that status yet? And can you explain why we can formulate ideas and others cannot? And language has nothing to do with conscious, that arguement makes no sense.

>
>"The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue
>skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example
>of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance
>mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the
>following information shows, however, the strange tongue of
>woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that
>found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how
>anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by
>mutations and natural selection."

Response; That is a non response. It still does not explain how it evolved? They would keep on killing themselves by the amount of force used to wack the tree. They could'nt mutate if they were dead.
>
>- an explanation for how the bombadier beetle mechanism
>could have evolved is also
>described
>here>.

Response: LOL, now this is rich. This guy is giving us "a guess" on how it could have evolved, and is not using any kind of scientific method. Ya know emperical or falsifable. All he is doing is painting a scenario, and you are using this a an arguement. Where is the scientific data??
>
>So again, like johnny_domino said, these "problems" that you
>mentioned aren't doing anything to disprove them
>scientifically. However, there are many problems for
>creationists that cannot be scientifically explained, such
>as all of the clearly reptilian characteristics of the
>'bird' Archaeopteryx, as well as the existence of the
>feathered dinosaurs Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx. And
>as I posted before, there is the problem of the sequence of
>the horse fossils:

Response: These are'nt problems because scales don't evolve into feathers. Those dinasours with feathers, don't prove that. They demonstrate a creator, who designed them. Archaeoptryx is still a bird. My article shows that.
>
>"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if
>you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of
>which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable
>sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create
>Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some
>Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the
>intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus
>and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve"
>into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create
>Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus
>intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off
>Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to
>the species that came just before and came just after?
>
>Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known
>horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is,
>without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just
>Like Evolution Happened" Theory."

Response: I explained it already. Micro evolution.

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos