I can read above a 12th grade level, no problem reading what you posted.
The Bible errors, contradictions and villainy.
- Thread starter u2scram
- Start date
I can read above a 12th grade level, no problem reading what you posted.
Marie888
I don't know for sure how he'll answer, but I would answer that a bird is still a bird (from chikadee to eagle), a cat is still a cat (from domestic house cat to cheetah), a fish is still a fish, (from minnow to tuna), a horse is still a horse (from pony to zebra), grass is grass, trees are trees, and so on.
I will add that Darwins finches may have had different shaped beaks however they were all still birds. They never changed from being birds.
I will also add that many verses in Genesis 1 mentions this order. The Lord created the order of species and it's still the order for today - nothing has changed. Everything was made "after it's kind"....including humans. We did not come from some primordal soup.
.
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
I have news for pro-evolution theorists; if you have studied it as long as I have, and many others have, you'll see that it isn't even a theory, it's an unprovable speculation.
The idea that there is ample evidence in the fossil record to support the speculation of evolution is absurd. Seriously. There is virtually no progression that can be qualified as such, and if evolution occurred through mutation, then the fossil record should be piled high with fossils of mutations that did not succeed, as would be required by the law of averages. In the common parlance of other scientific fields, we otherwise call them "birth defects". Unless evolution moves to our advantage in a way that is somehow supernatural, thereby defying the law of averages, in which case you can give up the essentially worthless "fossil record' and get back to God.
The supposed 'advances' promoting the speculation of evolution are well-covered by the media, but never the mistakes, errors or counter-arguments. As an example of how entrenched thinking remains entrenched, despite new evidence, it took 30 years and someone as esteemed as secular paleontologist Robert Bakker to state that a meteor impact did not kill the dinosaurs to extinction even though the evidence he cites - no dinosaur fossil graveyard along the KT impact layer boundary (in which a thin layer of sediment, apparently from an asteroid collision, is the evidence of the event ) is manifest and irrefutable. Science is replete with examples of one-sided and lazy thinking, in which convenience overshadows intellectually honest extrapolation. And even with Bakker behind the notion, which is so clear and obvious a conclusion , the larger scientific community has yet to accept the obvious fact, even though besides the impact sediment layer there is no manifest evidence either way - except that evidence that supports Bakker's conclusions - no fossil graveyard exists. But still the scientific community at large persists in claiming a meteor-induced dinosaur exinction because scientists are often extremely egotistic, and cannot accept that they devoted so much time and passion and reputation into something wrong. We're seeing precisely the same thing with the speculation of evolution - only on a massive scale.
Evolutionists like to claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So if that was such a terribly good idea, being based on simple observation of skeletal structural similarities, as it mostly is, why did it take 100 years for the scientific community to accept the idea, since the theory is mentioned in a national geographic article about dinosaurs from an issue that dates back to the late 1800's (not online theory - I have the issue) and it was accepted on the same basis that it was proposed; simple comparative observation?.
I'll bet most people here never heard of professor of microbiology at (I forget which) University Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" (the black box analogy meaning when someone sees one, they imagine whatever is inside it without knowing the actual contents, if any, and in time regard what they imagine to be fact) which poses a brilliant though difficult to slog through theory called 'irreducible complexity", which means that some microorganisms are both too simple to have evolved from anything more simple, and yet perform a function necessary to life, without which, the life required for those organisms to exist could not have sprang into being.
Basically, reduced to a nutshell, Behe has answered the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, and the answer appears to be that the question is irrelevant, because either one needed to be a product of designed creation because neither could have evolved, because too many of the microbiological components that make up both the chicken and the egg could not have existed without already having existed. This obviously makes the speculation of evolution an impossible catch 22, and therefore renders the speculation an absurdest fantasy - discounting all the rest of the weight of evidence against evolution, which is substantial.
And as for scientists making mistakes, try this out for being basic: brontosaurus is now called apatosaurus because the entire paleontological community of well- regarded scientists had the wrong skull on the primary skeletal model for over 70 years! Now they think that three-horned triceratops, (after 100 years of understanding metabolism, is finally allowed to be warm-blooded - not cold-blooded like a reptile - so he can actually square off in those old duels with T-rex), may not be anything more than a young monoclonius (or styracosaurus, one of those) who may have shed it's upper horns as it grew to maturity and it's small nose horn grew to more the proportion of a rhino, like the model of monoclonous and styracosaurus!
And people who say birds evolved from dinosaurs are, 1. never answering whether the feathers evolved slowly or quickly, which is critical to the concept and, 2. never speculate on the mechanism by which a brain wired for a bipedal, flightless dinosaur became re-wired for flight, which is a gigantic change. Instead you get such brilliant, pithy college textbook explanations such as, "When feathers evolved, flight happened." Right. I wonder if they put their dentures under their pillows at night for the tooth fairy. "Flight happened" is not an explanation, yet for all the proposed imaginary scenarios, that's what the answer essentially remains.
I could write a book here on this, and maybe someday i will, somewhere, but evolution is not only unproven, it's utterly, conceptually implausible with even a cursory look at the facts, to which evolutionists respond with more brilliance such as, "well, we're still learning."
Evolution is not the foundation of future science given to us by a brilliant scientist, it's an intellectual bump in the road embraced by a hedonistic Victorian Europe which grabbed onto an idea postulated by essentially a loser of a naturalist who himself simply lifted ideas from philosophers dating back 2000 years and re-packaged the presentation in the perspective of his experiences on certain primitive islands. You will note that Darwin's most vocal and 'respected" supporters of the time were absolutely rabid anti-God secularists, who seemed from their writings to by far hate God more than love evolution. Can you spell, a-g-e-n-d-a?
No one was more gradually shell-shocked by the slow accumulation of the facts than was I, I assure you. I would have never have guessed that this conclusion was possible. But facts are facts. You either follow them wherever they lead or consciously decide to live an ignorant life. I choose the facts, and the preponderance of the manifest evidence, and the slim as a microbe explanations to these questions by pro-evolutionists, which usually end, eventually in, "We don't have all the facts, yet(!)" and "We're still learning" (alas, were that only the case!), suggests very, very obviously that the origin of the Species and the volumes of papers written on the subject thereafter aren't worth the bindings that hold them together - and those bindings are about the only things that do hold the "theory' together.
Evolution was a concept spawned 2000 years ago, and reawakened in the Victorian age to the convenience of anti-God advocates. The Victorian age is where it needs to be left. This is the twenty-first century and the 'theory' of evolution simply doesn't hold up to a degree that is both sad and laughable, a situation I would describe as 'frustrating".
The idea that there is ample evidence in the fossil record to support the speculation of evolution is absurd. Seriously. There is virtually no progression that can be qualified as such, and if evolution occurred through mutation, then the fossil record should be piled high with fossils of mutations that did not succeed, as would be required by the law of averages. In the common parlance of other scientific fields, we otherwise call them "birth defects". Unless evolution moves to our advantage in a way that is somehow supernatural, thereby defying the law of averages, in which case you can give up the essentially worthless "fossil record' and get back to God.
The supposed 'advances' promoting the speculation of evolution are well-covered by the media, but never the mistakes, errors or counter-arguments. As an example of how entrenched thinking remains entrenched, despite new evidence, it took 30 years and someone as esteemed as secular paleontologist Robert Bakker to state that a meteor impact did not kill the dinosaurs to extinction even though the evidence he cites - no dinosaur fossil graveyard along the KT impact layer boundary (in which a thin layer of sediment, apparently from an asteroid collision, is the evidence of the event ) is manifest and irrefutable. Science is replete with examples of one-sided and lazy thinking, in which convenience overshadows intellectually honest extrapolation. And even with Bakker behind the notion, which is so clear and obvious a conclusion , the larger scientific community has yet to accept the obvious fact, even though besides the impact sediment layer there is no manifest evidence either way - except that evidence that supports Bakker's conclusions - no fossil graveyard exists. But still the scientific community at large persists in claiming a meteor-induced dinosaur exinction because scientists are often extremely egotistic, and cannot accept that they devoted so much time and passion and reputation into something wrong. We're seeing precisely the same thing with the speculation of evolution - only on a massive scale.
Evolutionists like to claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So if that was such a terribly good idea, being based on simple observation of skeletal structural similarities, as it mostly is, why did it take 100 years for the scientific community to accept the idea, since the theory is mentioned in a national geographic article about dinosaurs from an issue that dates back to the late 1800's (not online theory - I have the issue) and it was accepted on the same basis that it was proposed; simple comparative observation?.
I'll bet most people here never heard of professor of microbiology at (I forget which) University Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" (the black box analogy meaning when someone sees one, they imagine whatever is inside it without knowing the actual contents, if any, and in time regard what they imagine to be fact) which poses a brilliant though difficult to slog through theory called 'irreducible complexity", which means that some microorganisms are both too simple to have evolved from anything more simple, and yet perform a function necessary to life, without which, the life required for those organisms to exist could not have sprang into being.
Basically, reduced to a nutshell, Behe has answered the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, and the answer appears to be that the question is irrelevant, because either one needed to be a product of designed creation because neither could have evolved, because too many of the microbiological components that make up both the chicken and the egg could not have existed without already having existed. This obviously makes the speculation of evolution an impossible catch 22, and therefore renders the speculation an absurdest fantasy - discounting all the rest of the weight of evidence against evolution, which is substantial.
And as for scientists making mistakes, try this out for being basic: brontosaurus is now called apatosaurus because the entire paleontological community of well- regarded scientists had the wrong skull on the primary skeletal model for over 70 years! Now they think that three-horned triceratops, (after 100 years of understanding metabolism, is finally allowed to be warm-blooded - not cold-blooded like a reptile - so he can actually square off in those old duels with T-rex), may not be anything more than a young monoclonius (or styracosaurus, one of those) who may have shed it's upper horns as it grew to maturity and it's small nose horn grew to more the proportion of a rhino, like the model of monoclonous and styracosaurus!
And people who say birds evolved from dinosaurs are, 1. never answering whether the feathers evolved slowly or quickly, which is critical to the concept and, 2. never speculate on the mechanism by which a brain wired for a bipedal, flightless dinosaur became re-wired for flight, which is a gigantic change. Instead you get such brilliant, pithy college textbook explanations such as, "When feathers evolved, flight happened." Right. I wonder if they put their dentures under their pillows at night for the tooth fairy. "Flight happened" is not an explanation, yet for all the proposed imaginary scenarios, that's what the answer essentially remains.
I could write a book here on this, and maybe someday i will, somewhere, but evolution is not only unproven, it's utterly, conceptually implausible with even a cursory look at the facts, to which evolutionists respond with more brilliance such as, "well, we're still learning."
Evolution is not the foundation of future science given to us by a brilliant scientist, it's an intellectual bump in the road embraced by a hedonistic Victorian Europe which grabbed onto an idea postulated by essentially a loser of a naturalist who himself simply lifted ideas from philosophers dating back 2000 years and re-packaged the presentation in the perspective of his experiences on certain primitive islands. You will note that Darwin's most vocal and 'respected" supporters of the time were absolutely rabid anti-God secularists, who seemed from their writings to by far hate God more than love evolution. Can you spell, a-g-e-n-d-a?
No one was more gradually shell-shocked by the slow accumulation of the facts than was I, I assure you. I would have never have guessed that this conclusion was possible. But facts are facts. You either follow them wherever they lead or consciously decide to live an ignorant life. I choose the facts, and the preponderance of the manifest evidence, and the slim as a microbe explanations to these questions by pro-evolutionists, which usually end, eventually in, "We don't have all the facts, yet(!)" and "We're still learning" (alas, were that only the case!), suggests very, very obviously that the origin of the Species and the volumes of papers written on the subject thereafter aren't worth the bindings that hold them together - and those bindings are about the only things that do hold the "theory' together.
Evolution was a concept spawned 2000 years ago, and reawakened in the Victorian age to the convenience of anti-God advocates. The Victorian age is where it needs to be left. This is the twenty-first century and the 'theory' of evolution simply doesn't hold up to a degree that is both sad and laughable, a situation I would describe as 'frustrating".
Last edited:
If mutations did not succeed, how would you get fossils "piled high"? That only happens with mutations that DID succeed. I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense.
[/QUOTE]The supposed 'advances' promoting the speculation of evolution are well-covered by the media, but never the mistakes, errors or counter-arguments. As an example of how entrenched thinking remains entrenched, despite new evidence, it took 30 years and someone as esteemed as secular paleontologist Robert Bakker to state that a meteor impact did not kill the dinosaurs to extinction even though the evidence he cites - no dinosaur fossil graveyard along the KT impact layer boundary (in which a thin layer of sediment, apparently from an asteroid collision, is the evidence of the event ) is manifest and irrefutable. Science is replete with examples of one-sided and lazy thinking, in which convenience overshadows intellectually honest extrapolation. And even with Bakker behind the notion, which is so clear and obvious a conclusion , the larger scientific community has yet to accept the obvious fact, even though besides the impact sediment layer there is no manifest evidence either way - except that evidence that supports Bakker's conclusions - no fossil graveyard exists. But still the scientific community at large persists in claiming a meteor-induced dinosaur exinction because scientists are often extremely egotistic, and cannot accept that they devoted so much time and passion and reputation into something wrong. We're seeing precisely the same thing with the speculation of evolution - only on a massive scale.
Evolutionists like to claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So if that was such a terribly good idea, being based on simple observation of skeletal structural similarities, as it mostly is, why did it take 100 years for the scientific community to accept the idea, since the theory is mentioned in a national geographic article about dinosaurs from an issue that dates back to the late 1800's (not online theory - I have the issue) and it was accepted on the same basis that it was proposed; simple comparative observation?.[/QUOTE]
You're trying to have it both ways here. You say evolutionists are in lock step, but then admit it took a 100 years for an idea to be accepted. That doesn't sound like lock step to me.
[/QUOTE]I'll bet most people here never heard of professor of microbiology at (I forget which) University Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" (the black box analogy meaning when someone sees one, they imagine whatever is inside it without knowing the actual contents, if any, and in time regard what they imagine to be fact) which poses a brilliant though difficult to slog through theory called 'irreducible complexity", which means that some microorganisms are both too simple to have evolved from anything more simple, and yet perform a function necessary to life, without which, the life required for those organisms to exist could not have sprang into being.
Basically, reduced to a nutshell, Behe has answered the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, and the answer appears to be that the question is irrelevant, because either one needed to be a product of designed creation because neither could have evolved, because too many of the microbiological components that make up both the chicken and the egg could not have existed without already having existed. This obviously makes the speculation of evolution an impossible catch 22, and therefore renders the speculation an absurdest fantasy - discounting all the rest of the weight of evidence against evolution, which is substantial.[/QUOTE]
Everyone knows the egg, a single-celled entity came first, just as evolutionary theory says that single-celled organisms came first. Look at it this way. Whatever layed the egg may not have been a chicken, but what came out of the egg was.
[/QUOTE]And as for scientists making mistakes, try this out for being basic: brontosaurus is now called apatosaurus because the entire paleontological community of well- regarded scientists had the wrong skull on the primary skeletal model for over 70 years! Now they think that three-horned triceratops, (after 100 years of understanding metabolism, is finally allowed to be warm-blooded - not cold-blooded like a reptile - so he can actually square off in those old duels with T-rex), may not be anything more than a young monoclonius (or styracosaurus, one of those) who may have shed it's upper horns as it grew to maturity and it's small nose horn grew to more the proportion of a rhino, like the model of monoclonous and styracosaurus![/QUOTE]
Advances in our understanding of the past and the species that occupied it, doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.
[/QUOTE]And people who say birds evolved from dinosaurs are, 1. never answering whether the feathers evolved slowly or quickly, which is critical to the concept and, 2. never speculate on the mechanism by which a brain wired for a bipedal, flightless dinosaur became re-wired for flight, which is a gigantic change. Instead you get such brilliant, pithy college textbook explanations such as, "When feathers evolved, flight happened." Right. I wonder if they put their dentures under their pillows at night for the tooth fairy. "Flight happened" is not an explanation, yet for all the proposed imaginary scenarios, that's what the answer essentially remains.".[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid you're just making things up here. No one says things "just happened". Feathers don't just have to be for flight, they can also be for warmth. Flight wouldn't have to develop right away, either. First, there would be jumping with those whose feathers allowed them to glide a bit having an advantage, until much later when true flight was achieved.
[/QUOTE]I could write a book here on this, and maybe someday i will, somewhere, but evolution is not only unproven, it's utterly, conceptually implausible with even a cursory look at the facts, to which evolutionists respond with more brilliance such as, "well, we're still learning."
Evolution is not the foundation of future science given to us by a brilliant scientist, it's an intellectual bump in the road embraced by a hedonistic Victorian Europe which grabbed onto an idea postulated by essentially a loser of a naturalist who himself simply lifted ideas from philosophers dating back 2000 years and re-packaged the presentation in the perspective of his experiences on certain primitive islands. You will note that Darwin's most vocal and 'respected" supporters of the time were absolutely rabid anti-God secularists, who seemed from their writings to by far hate God more than love evolution. Can you spell, a-g-e-n-d-a?[/QUOTE]
And you don't have an agenda?!?! Since we don't have your bona fides, I'm going to have to totally reject an anonymous internet poster's characterization of Darwin as a "loser". I think you're looking in a mirror.
[/QUOTE]No one was more gradually shell-shocked by the slow accumulation of the facts than was I, I assure you. I would have never have guessed that this conclusion was possible. But facts are facts. You either follow them wherever they lead or consciously decide to live an ignorant life. I choose the facts, and the preponderance of the manifest evidence, and the slim as a microbe explanations to these questions by pro-evolutionists, which usually end, eventually in, "We don't have all the facts, yet(!)" and "We're still learning" (alas, were that only the case!), suggests very, very obviously that the origin of the Species and the volumes of papers written on the subject thereafter aren't worth the bindings that hold them together - and those bindings are about the only things that do hold the "theory' together.
Evolution was a concept spawned 2000 years ago, and reawakened in the Victorian age to the convenience of anti-God advocates. The Victorian age is where it needs to be left. This is the twenty-first century and the 'theory' of evolution simply doesn't hold up to a degree that is both sad and laughable, a situation I would describe as 'frustrating".[/QUOTE]
Anti-God advocates?!?! There are many theistic believers in evolution. That's just a dodge to try and bolster your argument, but it's completely untrue. As a matter of fact, most Christian sects don't even require that one believe creationism as a matter of faith. It's a minority position even in the theistic community.
Sorry, apparently I'm not quite getting the multi-quote thing. My responses are those between the '[/quote]' parts of the post. 
Im glad you agree that we didnt come from trees as some would lead you to believe. However, primordial soup is the only place we could have come from.
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
An interesting, absolute statement. How can you say that conclusively?
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
kONRADV,
YOUR INABILITY TO HANDLE THE BOARD'S BASICS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ANSWER YOU WITH QUOTES.
Why don't you try quoting one at a time per post so i can answer. the larger response is that every single response by you is extremely flawed. for example on the fossils of mutations that did not succeed, you left out the law of averages. We see no evolution by mutation today, so it's rare. if it's rare, there must have been many over time that did not succeed for one to beat the odds for survival, mate, have those offspring carry the trait and onward, unlike having mutations occur as a sudden, manifest group, otherwise evolution would not have moved forward, but laterally in every direction, and no special fine-tuning could have occurred through that process, hence the importance of the law of averages. A world full of birth defects does advance a species. have you studied evolution for long? No offense, but it seems not.
As far as the personal insults are concerned, let me make this quick; go **** yourself, asshole.
Happy, now?
YOUR INABILITY TO HANDLE THE BOARD'S BASICS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ANSWER YOU WITH QUOTES.
Why don't you try quoting one at a time per post so i can answer. the larger response is that every single response by you is extremely flawed. for example on the fossils of mutations that did not succeed, you left out the law of averages. We see no evolution by mutation today, so it's rare. if it's rare, there must have been many over time that did not succeed for one to beat the odds for survival, mate, have those offspring carry the trait and onward, unlike having mutations occur as a sudden, manifest group, otherwise evolution would not have moved forward, but laterally in every direction, and no special fine-tuning could have occurred through that process, hence the importance of the law of averages. A world full of birth defects does advance a species. have you studied evolution for long? No offense, but it seems not.
As far as the personal insults are concerned, let me make this quick; go **** yourself, asshole.
Happy, now?
Last edited:
The entire premise of the Bible falls flat if its foundation (creation as described in Genesis) is not true. The primary proponents of evolution know this. Certain "Christian sects" are fooled into believing that the two can co-exist. These people either;
1: don't know enough about the evolutionists belief.
2: don't know enough about the Bible.
3: don't know anything about either.
The primary proponents of evolution see these people as "useful idiots". They use them to fool people into compromising their beliefs and ultimately hinder the spread of the Gospel. See this video from the documentary Expelled. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y9mvUIzDfM"]From "Expelled" by Ben Stein[/ame] From 4:50-6:05, Richard Dawkins explains how evolution lobbyists want to "be friendly" to religious people by telling them that there is no incompatibility between evolution and religion, but he admits that they are incompatible. Regardless of what you think of the rest of the film, this segment by Richard Dawkins is pretty clear. A belief in evolution is incompatible with a Biblical belief in God.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Where did I say that? I simply pointed out, using the Bible, that God did not call for all the inhabitants of Canaan to be killed. Since, as you are quite willing to point out, the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, my point is just as valid as yours.
Or, to put it in gotcha words, you cannot use the Bible to prove anything unless you accept that it is true. Since you reject the Bible, and I do not, the burden is on you to prove that God said what you claim He said from an extra biblical source.
My job is actually easier, because I believe the Bible is as accurate as any other history book. All I have to do is use the bible to prove He did not, and I did.
You asked a question, I answered, and I backed up my position with a reference I find valid. You backed up your position with a reference you reject. Which of us is actually being silly?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Proven to your satisfaction? What a crock.What common ancestor and when did the divergence take place?
Well neanderthal might be one step back in the chain.
Or they might not be.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
which theory of gravity are you talking about? The last time I checked no one had any idea how gravity actually works. All we really know is that it works, and we can define it. That does not mean we can explain it.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
I used to read above the 12th grade level too, when I was in fifth grade. Now I read above graduate level. You completely missed his point.
Sky Dancer
Rookie
- Jan 21, 2009
- 19,307
- 1,329
- 0
- Banned
- #154
Somebody needs to clue Foxfyre in to how many Christian posters on this thread oppose evolution. Quite a few of you here.
Last edited:
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
The only possibility? IF that were true there would be no debate at all, but there is. Just an FYI thing here, but evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. You can correctly point out that evolution is all but proven, but you cannot speak to the origins of life because evolution is true.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
I have to agree with most of what you are saying here, except for your final assertion. Evolution is not about advancing a species, it is about change. Evolution does not select for advantages, what happens is that truly adverse change tends to die out. this makes it seem that a species improves, but in reality it just changes.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Do they oppose evolution because they are Christians, or because they do not understand it?
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
That could be true, except that according to evolution, in the beginning there were only random particles of the building blocks of life. if what you say is true, then that's where we'd still be, more or less. Evolution could be about change currently, but in the beginning it must have been about advancing the development of life. See how it doesn't work? One big fairy tale. Astonishing that people still hold on to it, actually.
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
Respectfully, if i can butt in, your final point is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution cannot be said to be true because it has in no way been proven. As far as any hypothesis goes, it has more holes filled in with presumption and wishful thinking than just about any theory ever devised in the last 200 years. the fact that many people believe it is true. The concept as fact is not.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,928
- 0
- Banned
- #160
Proven to your satisfaction? What a crock.
Well neanderthal might be one step back in the chain.
Or they might not be.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors
I remember when this came on the scene. The general atheist public was shocked and disappointed beyond words. The scientific community already pretty much knew it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
American Nationalism is whitecentric eventhough they claim its colorblind yes or no?- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest killed by Israeli tank fire in southern Lebanon- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 3
-
-
