who cares....

we were made by the evoulution not by some miracle intervention. If u think that god created adam and eve, well when did he create them because the dynosaurs were here before humans..

Did he create dynosaurs first then killed them off beacause he wanted humans??/

I think thats ludicridious to think.. Science has been proven and thats fact, so stop ur whineging.

apparently dinosaurs died in the 'great flood' and were represented in the bible as 'dragons'... hehe

science is win, u need evidence to prove something, and even then it's not 'true' but can be always be disproven. religiong takes the opposite stand. we are correct and any evidence to suggest otherwise is blasphemy.

ahh, the missing link in evolution!

Do you recall Lucy - the ape like creature? discovered in 1973 by Carl Johanson. discovery of the Laetoli Footprints in 1978 by Mary Leakey. It suggests that the missing link for us is that we originated from primates.

They based their case on the fact that A. afarensis fossils were also found at Laetoli, and that the only fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot was arched, and hence compatible with the Laetoli Footprints. Thus, for over twenty years we have been told, both in the scientific and in the popular literature, that Lucy was bipedal and that she is what our evolutionary ancestor

Finally, a report in the August 2005 Scientific American suggests that there was a problem. W.Smith (American Museum of Natural History) and C.E. Hilton (Western Michigan University) challenged Lucy’s crediablity. They claim that the fossil reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot is based on a mixture of fossils. Anyway, hey conclude that A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli.

So here we have another exmaple where evolutionist have got it wrong, or where the paeliontologists (spelling?) decieved? It is certainly a striking example of the failure of evolutionists to inform the public regarding the actual state of the evidence in the most important ‘alleged event’ of human evolution.

to quote from http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm

dude i got that deleted becoz i was wasnt sure if what i was saying was correct. I was simply quoting what i got told from a whole bunch of things that involved all that stuff. So excuse me

I later corrected myself. and sent you the proper link to the evidence i was talking about...how about you send that too !

Bloody keyboard warriors these days hahahaha

it's quite amusing and apparent when u take quotes from certain theological texts and make them out as ur own thoughts tode.

in every facet of society there are ppl who will do the 'wrong thing' for personal gain - as that researcher in Korea was caught out doing a few weeks back.

so if this was the case with this particular paleontologist, its quite irrelevant that his personal quest for fame has anything to do with the greater grand scheme of evolution. as supporters of evolution will no doubt tell u, bi-pedal or NOT, evolution works in wondrous ways. different socities and races will progress slower or faster than others. they do not progress at the same speed. so identifying their age (via C-Dating which u so adamantly deny actually works, possibly since u have no foundations of scientific knowedge) and associating their age with human evolution is somewhat a murky process in any case. nothing can be proven at all, we can only base these hypothesis on facts and what is left for us to analyse. we can then disprove these theories if any facts are presented that show otherwise.

the reason i posted up that log was to show everyone ur failure to understand what basic principles u were trying to argue agaisnt that is regarded as common knowledge. that skin pigmentation was in fact a result of Sin to God's will?? lol, rather than pigmentation from evoution over many years dictated by the environment around them?

the article u showed me tries to explain that we are all from adam and eve. if we are from that gene pool of only two ppl then surely we would be ravaged by disease and all look the same. so what do they so? they try to argue that the only different between .. say asians and anglo saxons is by the amount of skin pigmentation and fat around the eye. this is absolutely rediculous! i can tell u for one thing, the shape of the eye is differetnt, heights are different, skin colour is different, entire facial features are different !. hell, civilisation in china has shown they existed before Noah miraculously picked up EVERY one of the animals on this planet (including the hundreds and thousands of documented insect species) today and somehow -in a few days-he fit them all onto his humble wooden boat. even animals that soley existed in different continents and countries, he managed to catcg - what a feat!!!

back to that report tode. they then try to use basic theories of evolution to say we developed from the sons and daughters of adam and eve. what a laugh !! over 7000 years we've come so far havent we?!! is that really pausible or does it seem like a vain attempt to explain something which is rather very difficult to explain !! the irony is quite funny tho, using the principles of science to explain religious events and texts. lol

Religion: 2000 years of chinese whispers.

__________________
MY93 Impreza GX 1.8L, 0hp, 0nm

There's a passage I got memorized,
seems appropriate for this
thread: Ezekiel 25:17. "The path
of the righteous man is beset on
all sides by the inequities of the
selfish and the tyranny of evil
men. Blessed is he who, in the
name of charity and good will,
shepherds the weak through the
valley of darkness, for he is truly
his brother's keeper and the finder
of lost children. And I will
strike down upon thee with great
vengeance and furious anger those
who attempt to poison and destroy
my brothers. And you will know my
name is the Lord when I lay my
vengeance upon you."

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with several hoaxes over the years. Like I said, those that try to con the general public (and their peers) are eventually found out and exposed.

Shit, at least the thinkers are actively trying to weed out the scumbags making legitimate research look bad.

There's no single 'leap', or missing link. It's been a long and steady process, but "missing link" looks a shitload better on paper when you're looking for money to fund further research and it looks even better in newspapers. They use language that works to further collective knowledge, instead of burying, destroying or burning factual records in order to try and further your own twisted record of events, something several organised religious groups have done over the centuries.

Hell, someone shot at me that taking "the big bang" theory seriously was nuts as nobody was around to observe it, but taking the bible, a book crafted by the hands of man (many different men, over many different translations) and believing it to be the 'gospel truth' makes perfect sense? Where's the logic behind that? Common sense would suggest that over such a long period of time the writings of a collected series of stories are very likely to have changed and each writer will put their own spin on things (never mind mistakes in translation), and yet looking at new information and research results provided by the greatest damn thinkers on the planet is somehow *not* a good idea?

Nutbars, "god" damned nutbars, I'm starting to remember why the churchies drive me completely insane...