[katana]

Thanks. That's a thorough a rebuttal to the "facts" I recall reading, I think in Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. I'm still not at all convinced that the extrapolations anthropologists draw from a very few scattered bones make an airtight case for their concept of human evolution. But I appreciate learning that some things I'd read many years ago aren't necessarily so.

Some of the points made, though, do seem to be straw man arguments. The word "hairless" is used as if it implies completely bare skinned. Even the skin of dolphins and whales, which are universally accepted as mammals fully adapted to an aquatic environment, contains hair follicles. But it did blow holes through a number of things I assumed were true.

[Boogieman]

No problem, I’m glad I could clear a few things up for you. Was “blow holes” an intentional aquatic mammal pun? :)

[djf]

Problem is,the Biblical accounts describe the increasing complexity of life on Earth, culminating in man.

Nothing about evolution contradict that.

And I have NEVER read any scientific speculation that life did not start in the oceans or at least the tidal pools.

Genesis, Ch. 1, V 20.

“And God said, let the moving waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life...”

I get the same feeling when I think about what would happen if you had a disease or something and went to a doctor. He would give you a prescription, and tell you to do X,Y, and Z.
But if instead, you went to some kind of witch doctor, or holy man or shaman in a primitive society, they would wave a chicken bone over you and tell you to do something.

In a weird way, it’s like they are telling you the same thing, but are simply speaking a different language.

Just my opinion!

;-)