Skip to comments.
Skull discovery could fill origins gap
Yahoo (Reuters) ^
| Fri Mar 24, 11:02 AM ET
Posted on 03/24/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by The_Victor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 441-449 next last
To: VadeRetro
That would be an elephant seal, of course. I thought so too, but apparently now a "large sea animal, hunted for their oil and flesh" is a whale.
241
posted on
03/24/2006 6:29:43 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Have a beer (Offer not vaild in Canada)
To: VadeRetro
What do you mean it's to late is evolution not a forever ongoing process?
To: VadeRetro
We see apelike things outside the range of human variation becoming more humanlike until they fall within the range of human variation . . .When one assumes the history of primates is one from ape to human it is not difficult to make the evidence support the assumption. I know how much I do not know. I also know textbooks on paleontology take what is found in the field and present it in a manner that is in accord with evolutionist dogma; from the simple to the more complex. From an intuitive standpoint this fits nicely and is reasonable and believable.
Give me the fossil record completely and in 3D before it is removed from the field and before it is interpreted. Then let me think for myself. Unless you do this you are asking me to take other people's word for things. Rare is the observer who sets out to deceive himself and others. Common to all is the inclination to fill in the blanks in favor of initial assumptions, and thus miss the mark in determining what is objective reality.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
To: CarolinaGuitarman
you must be doing this for the lurkers
245
posted on
03/24/2006 6:34:43 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
"into what?"
Evolution is not defined as speciation.
246
posted on
03/24/2006 6:35:55 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: King Prout
"you must be doing this for the lurkers."
I'm just a masochist.
247
posted on
03/24/2006 6:37:09 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
What do you mean it's to late is evolution not a forever ongoing process? Apes trying to become human now would have the "Sorry, this seat is taken" problem.
248
posted on
03/24/2006 6:37:54 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: Youngblood; fortheDeclaration
Only if you are following the modern way of defining the various species. As opposed to which classical definition...? LOL
Must be Theodorian classification, formalized by this man:
249
posted on
03/24/2006 6:40:43 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
When one assumes the history of primates is one from ape to human it is not difficult to make the evidence support the assumption. So it's all just a figment of our imagination? Why does it look like apes slowly becoming human before our eyes? Why do we find them in the right order in the geologic column?
I know how much I do not know.
Your mistake is thinking it's evidence nobody else knows anything.
Give me the fossil record completely and in 3D before it is removed from the field and before it is interpreted.
Bring me the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West and I'll believe in Poofism.
250
posted on
03/24/2006 6:40:53 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
251
posted on
03/24/2006 6:41:15 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: All
We seem to be in "Chat" now. Link on "Your Brain on Creationism" updated accordingly.
252
posted on
03/24/2006 6:42:02 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: VadeRetro
Poofism???
BWAAAAAhahahahahaha!
253
posted on
03/24/2006 6:43:19 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: fortheDeclaration
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one. Ofcourse, evolutionists may consider themselves as such, but they would be wrong.
...therefore we're vegetable, right?
254
posted on
03/24/2006 6:45:48 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
What do you mean? The premise of evolution is that we evolved from lower life forms i.e. fish, dogs, dinosaur shit or what ever into man as we are today. If evolution is not intelligent we should still be evolving into to some other life form. It is a never ending process.
To: VadeRetro
The newest addition to "Your Brain on Creationism", is quite a gem...and as more and more posters say more and more outrageous things, we will see the list grow..."Its the gift that keeps on giving"..(Quote courtesy of Cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation, when talking about Clarks entry into the 'jam and jelly of the month' club...
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
"What do you mean?"
What I said.
"The premise of evolution is that we evolved from lower life forms i.e. fish, dogs, dinosaur shit or what ever into man as we are today."
Control yourself. No need to be vulgar in your rush to show your scientific illiteracy.
"If evolution is not intelligent we should still be evolving into to some other life form."
We are. We do not speciate in one lifetime though.
257
posted on
03/24/2006 6:51:53 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: andysandmikesmom
Yes. The Real Science has so much to tell us.
258
posted on
03/24/2006 6:53:12 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?
The premise of evolution is that we evolved from lower life forms i.e. fish, dogs, dinosaur s[---] or what ever into man as we are todaybe careful: Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
259
posted on
03/24/2006 6:55:34 PM PST
by
King Prout
(many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
To: Oztrich Boy
I thought so too, but apparently now a "large sea animal, hunted for their oil and flesh" is a whale. We're both wrong. Obviously it's an elephant fish and thus not an animal at all.
260
posted on
03/24/2006 6:57:06 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 441-449 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson