Posted on 03/07/2005 3:19:42 PM PST by Truth666
A joint Ethiopian-US team of palaeontologists announced on Saturday they had discovered the world's oldest biped skeleton to be unearthed so far, dating it to between 3.8 and four million years old.
"This is the world's oldest biped," Bruce Latimer, director of the natural history museum in Cleveland, Ohio, told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital, adding that "it will revolutionise the way we see human evolution".
The bones were found three weeks ago in Ethiopia's Afar region, at a site some 60 kilometres from Hadar where Lucy, one of the first hominids, was discovered in 1974. Researchers at the site in northeast Ethiopia have in all unearthed 12 hominid fossils, of which parts of one skeleton were discovered.
How long have you been posting on these threads? I know it's against Creationist tenets to connect the dots (because it might lead to eternal damnation), but us evo types are under no such onus.
You're extremely confused.
Or maybe he just reads your posts, like this one from yesterday in this same thread:
My condolences on your tragic case of selective amnesia.
Oldest biped skeleton discovered - new evolution record, 1.2 millions added in one day
Posted by metacognative to Ichneumon
On News/Activism 03/08/2005 8:05:35 AM CST · 84 of 181
You fanatical darwinites want to shut off debate and teach children your crazy myth is dogma. And anyone who questions is automatically a 'creationist'. Well, I do believe that this universe was created. And I don't believe it built up without Intelligent Design.
And, one more thing, I don't care whether you're happy about my doubts. So lump it!
Read my initial quote about dishonesty, confusion and intolerant dogmatists.
Read my posts documenting your shameless slanderous lies (#1, #2). So speaking of "dishonesty, confusion and intolerant dogmatists", check out the mirror.
...or even remember or acknowledge what they have posted the day before on the same thread...
Carbon dating does not go beyond about 50,000 years.
Try to know something about science before posting again.
"Something other than pure apes and pure humans should have evolved in the last 7 million years (or whenever the first modern apes appeared) that would still exist today."
Humans are apes. The Family Hominidae includes all the great apes.
Your statement is so confused, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the biological process of evolution.
Go to Patrick Henry's list of links and study a bit.
Your jist trine to estabalish a theocracy lite.
Why are you posting this to me? I am not on your PING list for EVOLUTION....LOL.
Again I say WHAT???? You obviously have issues....LOL.
Yes I have the Scripture. But it is not simple. Why take the Adam account over Gen 1? Why interpret "adamah" as dust? It might mean molecules.
Taking the Bible literally makes Ch 1 & 2 conflict. This is not a very good impression of God's work, imo.
If what you "know" about what he "meant" is accurate, then why can't you provide anything which actually supports your interpretation. Why have you had to resort to fabricating bogus "quotes" so far in order to dishonestly "support" your interpretation?
Clearly, your "knowledge" of Dennett's alleged "hidden meaning" is actually based only on your own bigotry and self-delusions.
I hope this upsets you. Call more names, it hurts so good.
There's nothing quite like the spectacle of a creationist who is *proud* of shocking people with his dishonesty.
If you don't believe creation happened..where did the universe begin and organization start?
Your lame attempt to divert the subject from your own slanderous dishonesty is fooling no one.
AIG gets both the theology and science completely wrong. They do this on purpose to extract money from dupes who are ignorant of science. One thing they get wrong is young earth and interpreting "yom" as a 24 hr day. Gen 2:4 insists on indefinite period as the correct translation.
God may not change, but a comparison of the OT and NT would not confirm that if taken literally.
Nope, just trying to fight ignorance. Why post nonsense and then be cheerful about it?
How about "....we don't yet have a workable theory?"
I wonder if Dan Rather is a creationist. He seems to have all the dishonest attributes. Maybe we should think of creationism as "a Dan Rather-style report on Darwin."
It is all about complexity.
I have a running challenge to find me the name of a respected biologist regestered as a supporter of ICR, whose published research does not support evolution.
Your perspective has run amok.
Well, further information is of no use to someone who knows all the answers already...but I'm studying Bergson/Lamarck lines of thought. Although I don't avoid people like Philip Johnson or Duane Gish, as you do.
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.