did/does discovery of new fossils make you/or those around you doubt the creation version of things?
| evolving from a salamander doesnt make sense |
Whether you mean evolution in general, or human evolution specifically, what part doesn't make sense to you?
You say the reality is probably neither. Wouldn't you expect the reality to agree with itself at least, i.e. with the abundance of evidence we see around us?
did/does discovery of new fossils make you/or those around you doubt the creation version of things?
| No, I never did believe in evolution. I am a firm believer in God creating everything. |
Why do you believe that evolution and God creating everything are mutually exclusive?
did/does discovery of new fossils make you/or those around you doubt the creation version of things?
| If you want to believe you came originally from an ugly monkey, perhaps you did. I am a firm believer that mankind was a distinct creation unto themselves. |
I read this, and I imagine a guy bent over, with head and arms buried in the grounds, fingers in ears, chanting 'Im special because my God told me so, Im special because my God told me so'. Lol.
ugly... sub-species... ugly (again)... ugly (third time)... do you have an inferiority complex when it comes to monkeys?
In what year was mankind created?
did/does discovery of new fossils make you/or those around you doubt the creation version of things?
| No not at all. I believe in creation. NOT creationism with all those restictive time frames trying to make the Bible account work. I cannot accept that such a varied and incomprehensible universe exists by chance. |
So you would accept that an unvaried and comprehensible universe could exist by chance? Why the difference?
| Nor can anyone show us how matter can arise from nothing, I mean what started it all? |
That argument doesnt stand up too much... errrr... who designed the designer? Who started God? Don't you see that that argument applies equally to your own views?
last night, my wife went to a community meeting, in which a new supermarket is moving in.
this market is called testco (sp?).
according to what she told me, this store is british based, so i was curious what it was all about, and whether or not it was good, bad or indifferent.. please give me your feedback.. thanks..
As far as I know Tesco has never been linked with unethical work practices... but that is in the UK, they might behave very differently in the US. A member of my family works for Tesco in it's distribution chain: Tesco bought out the distribution chain company last year, and his wage and work conditions rose considerably as a result.
I dont buy the idea that somehow local shops, who are not specialized enough to survive generalized competiton from big supermarkets, have some special right to survive... that's nonsense unless you subscribe to some kind of communist view of the world. No-one has a right to run a shop, if you cant make a job of running your shop, go work for Tesco.
I can maybe understand the nostalgics who just think something is better because it's 'how we used to do things'. I can understand them, but I dont agree with them. I get annoyed with people who want to force me to have to travel to small high streets with inconvenient parking, moving from shop to shop to try to find what I want - a pointless waste of my time when I could do it all faster, easier and quite possibly cheaper at a successful supermarket. If someone establishes a useful business that serves its customers well, they should be rewarded with success. The only place a line needs to be drawn is at monopoly.
last night, my wife went to a community meeting, in which a new supermarket is moving in.
this market is called testco (sp?).
according to what she told me, this store is british based, so i was curious what it was all about, and whether or not it was good, bad or indifferent.. please give me your feedback.. thanks..
What's bad about Wal-Mart? (I'm not trying to make the point that there isn't something, I just don't know what it is)
london (reuters) - a 3.3 million-year-old skeleton of the earliest child ever found shows the ancient ancestor of modern humans walked upright but may also have climbed trees, scientists said on wednesday.
they found the well-preserved remains of a three-year-old girl of the species australopithecus afarensis -- which includes the fossil skeleton known as "lucy" -- in the dikika area of ethiopia, 400 kms northeast of the capital addis ababa.. "it represents the earliest and most complete partial skeleton of a child ever found in the history of paeleoanthropology," said dr zeresenay alemseged, of the max planck institute for evolutionary anthropology in leipzig, germany.. the skull, torso and upper and lower limbs, including the hand, show both human and ape-like features.
the state of the ancient bones suggest she was buried in a flood which may also have caused her death.. the remains provide the first evidence of what babies of early human ancestors looked like.
The 'girl', pictured here, has been named 'Selam'.
Selam is around the B or C position (both australopithecus afarensis) on this chart of transitional fossils in homind evolution:
Source of chart/info
- (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
- (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
- (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
- (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
- (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
- (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
- (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
- (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
- (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
- (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
- (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
- (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
- (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
- (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
london (reuters) - a 3.3 million-year-old skeleton of the earliest child ever found shows the ancient ancestor of modern humans walked upright but may also have climbed trees, scientists said on wednesday.
they found the well-preserved remains of a three-year-old girl of the species australopithecus afarensis -- which includes the fossil skeleton known as "lucy" -- in the dikika area of ethiopia, 400 kms northeast of the capital addis ababa.. "it represents the earliest and most complete partial skeleton of a child ever found in the history of paeleoanthropology," said dr zeresenay alemseged, of the max planck institute for evolutionary anthropology in leipzig, germany.. the skull, torso and upper and lower limbs, including the hand, show both human and ape-like features.
the state of the ancient bones suggest she was buried in a flood which may also have caused her death.. the remains provide the first evidence of what babies of early human ancestors looked like.
| And I will say this : If anyone thinks for one second that they came from |
Why?
Wowsers - Is this kid some kind of child prodigy, or could any 4 year old be taught to do that?
...i cant believe that this guy is in allowed to run a science department at a college.
.
.
...I cant believe that this guy is in allowed to run a science department at a college.
