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.
There's not question that darwinists and atheists can be every bit as dogmatic as any (other) religious fanatic. I'm with you there.
But what does that have to do with the question I asked?
"If there wasn't legitimate problems with TOE none of us would be wasting our time on these threads."
List legitimate problems with ToE here:
There is a difference between being dogmatic and knowing.
Science means knowledge. Creationism is just a scam.
Just for my own information, what exactly is wrong with this? Are we supposed to let the militant Muslims take over unopposed?
You must be confusing me with someone else. If you read my other posts, you will see that I do not preclude the possibility that evolution was the means God chose for creating the variety of life we have now.
By implying that anyone that does not agree with your simplistic take on Scripture is less a Christian than you or an atheist is just plain ridiculous.
I don't think you have any idea what my take on scripture is. Or if you do, maybe you can tell me what my view is in a sentence or two.
And there is nothing ridiculous or insulting about your rhetorical question about "why do have creationists when we have people with brains?" What your response to me has to do with Dennis Prager's point (he is a practicing Jew) escapes me.
The arrogance of you people is amazing.
Again I refer to you calling creationists brainless. This is not arrogant?
I post under my own name so you can be sure that any flames I deserve come to me. See my post at 208 if you want to my my real take regarding the Religion/darwin controversy.
The attempt by writers and would be social engineers to misapply the theoretical directions of evolutionary biology to attack the under-pinnings of western society is really the issue. Most scientists in the field just want to study and experiment, many of them think religion and evolution can fit together real fine....seeing evolution as as a process by which God weaves his magic.
But there are ax grinders who take evolution as a whole world view, and who are not necessarily scientists in the field,seek to remake society along Marxian utilitarian principles. They use Saul Alinsky type power principles to isolate, personalize, ridicule and demonize, those who disagree with their world view. These folks have set science and religion against one another when science and religion can really complement one another. (The earlist scientists and mathematicians, at least from the 1400's onward had religious world views or were influenced by them, these folks formed the theoretical frameworks that science now operates from.)
It's a cring shame really!
"Again I refer to you calling creationists brainless. This is not arrogant?"
If truth is arrogant, then I admit to arrogance.
you're welcome, glad I could help.
I am a Christian and know that evolution is a fact. What is your problem?
You will never convince me that misinterpreters of the Bible are really Christian
You are not a Bible believing Christian. And that is your problem. If you were, you would believe this:
26
4 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
27
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
Ochen's razor....."the simple straightforward path is often the correct path".
You accuse me of limiting God....me? A created thing? At best I have but a feeble glimpse of his marvelous creation.
I don't who you are accusing of limiting God....but it ain't me!
Ochen's razor....."the simple straightforward path is often the correct path".
You accuse me of limiting God....me? A created thing? At best I have but a feeble glimpse of his marvelous creation.
I don't who you are accusing of limiting God....but it ain't me!
Who are you talking about....I don't think I have lied about my own subjective views?
Communism, atheism. We're too stupid to raise our children so they, (the State) will do it for us
You see I disagree with you, Genesis 1 is the overview of creation Genesis 2 gives us the details. There is nothing in Genesis that would indicate that it is not to be taken literally. In context it is quite literal. God cannot contradict Himself and Jesus speaks to creation. It is quite simple so anyone can understand and yet if we allow ourselves to study the text the depth is incredible. God is awesome.
I believe that. I probably don't think it means what you think it means. I might point out that making male and female together directly contradicts the Adam segment.
The basis for ID.
Intelligent Design is about explaining the complexity of life's information and structures that Darwinian evolution has not and cannot scientifically prove. The scientific assumptions logically line up with ID not TOE.
Read up on supervolcanoes to discover how TOE fails in relation to our reality.
Amen to all of that!
Gen 2:4 insists the translation of "yom" be indefinite period of time. You can't have a 24 hr day without the Sun. It wasn't created until the fourth "yom".
You are misinterpreting the Bible if you think that the Adam segment pagan myth is related in any way to the scientifically more accurate Gen 1 account.
I believe the Creator of the sun knew that He would make days be 24 hours!
I think one could make a valid arguement that up until day 6(or the 6th dynamic evoltuionary period or whatever)...the term (and God said "let there be" and "let the Earth bring forth" speaks of God standing back and commanding a thing be done...with evolution being the studied(per darwinists) process by which life happened.
However, on day 6, God says "Let US MAKE MAN in our own image". This denotes a much more personally involved and direct action on God's part, the processes of which can't be explained by darwinian evolutionists!
You see what I'm saying? Per Genesis: For most of the creative time period, God is saying "Let there be...or let the Earth bring forth" But when it comes to man...God says"Let us create man in our own image" God commands but isn't as totally involved in terms of direct emotional focus in the first 5 days(or periods) of creation but on the 6th day, God is intensely involved in a much more personal way in Man's creation!
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.