Iceveela

yep, as well as everything you have posted, and everything everyone else has posted. why am i here? well, why are you here? and you will respond to me. i know the psychology of trolls, they can never stay away.

I guess no one knows anything about it? here is another clearer picture of it. http://www.gather.com/viewImage.action?fileId=3096224746909715

that one also does not mention anything... But I did find a source that does combine axons with gray matter! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_matter "Grey matter (or Gray matter) is a major component of the central nervous system, consisting of neuronal cell bodies, neuropil (dendrites and both unmyelinated axons and myelinated axons)" of course, it still does not mention much at all...

LOVE the article, has no mention of grey matter though. what? did i really just ask what something is.... i could not understand the rest. I do not think "what something is the say that you" is correctly written. "Did you really just ask what something is just to say that you don't see the evidence for their existence in grey matter?"

against people in a message forum, why should i be serious? its not like me being serious will change anyone life. everything posted on here is pointless. and that "contesting" you did. the fact still remains that you didn't. but of course, argueing with you would be useless, because apparently people on your own profile page also seem to be arguing with you, so i will not waste my time. PS. oh, by the way, what are Axons? according to one of your commenters he is contesting you on Axons in grey matter being non-existant, and to be truthful I do not see any sources for axons in grey matter either. ??????? I am sorry, but i fail to see neither knowledge or fact in anything that you just wrote... besides a few, one is that this thread ID based n false dichotomy, and also that one can only speculate on the origin of life. i would love for you to explain how exactly I am religious... this reminds me... why are we all debating about biology in the earth science section?

I am not sure whether or not to reply anymore... I see very little science being mentioned in the criticisms of my comments... YAWN!!! i will just sit here and see how it goes. I hate it when everyone fights on a message forum over something so stupid as personal beliefs... common ancestry vs creation science... if you want to debate religious science, as least E-mail each other...

is this a trick question? I know about small changes in animals through time working usually in deterioration of the animal and beneficial in a restricted environment. I know about breeding and I know about Speciation, I also know about cell adaptation to many antibiotics in a restricted environment and in a deterioration sort of way. I have been studying science for over 4 years now and i am a firm believer in the scientific theory. I trust many of the Creation Scientists arguments AS WELL as many of the Evolutionists arguments. but at the same time, I believe this question is highly misleading because it states that you cannot believe in evolution and be religious at the same time. so i hope to clear up some things here. First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor. Second, there is a big difference between small scales changes in animals, or just pure change over time, and ancestry between all animals from the beginning of life. please make sure to distinguish between them. that way you do not confuse the people on this thread. "Creation" represents solely religious implications, not letting anyone know the actual data and the scientific inquiry that creation scientists go through and actually bring up very goods points and well as HIGHLY accurate scientific facts. yes, I have seen some facts that are false, I see them with creation scientists, i see them with evolutionists. for the most part please cross-reference your sources and do not take information from biased sites like Talkorigins and Dr dino. the best sources are the original data from sites like national geographic and dailyscience.com, and no, not the scientists interpretation of the data in the article, no quotes, quotes prove nothing but hearsay, but the original data from the articles. But just please make sure you do not confuse your readers with bias. A better Title would be "Common Ancestry, or Creation Science?". that way it is less biased, and more professional. YES! All of the Links on this reply are from articles posted by me. There is nothing wrong with quoting yourself, unless you can give me a viable logical reason how it IS wrong... if you are interested in reading more of my articles on science, click HERE

When reading a 40 year old "Life: nature library" book on earth i discovered a picture of what is labeled a "spiral of flame". it is where lightning ignites chemicals in the sky and has the appearance of a twisted cloth. this is supposed to be extremely rare. but i cannot find any information on it AT ALL, not even on the internet. i provided some links to the actual picture provided in the book. can you tell me the actual name of this phenomenon and if possible, links and references to where it may be found at? http://media-files.gather.com/images/d914/d902/d746/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg http://media-files.gather.com/images/d915/d902/d746/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg