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.
Actually he made woman last...but hee heee(!) I'm just being picky!
The translators of the KJV did a good job for 1611, but it is not good enough for modern people. Too much science has occurred to think there were waters above waters and "firmaments".
We also know bats aren't birds and insects have six legs.
The Jussive tense is a third person imperative. Most of the passages you quoted are commands from God in this tense. "Let there be light" is a third person command. It means God said, "BE LIGHT!" and light "beed". ;-)
I think what you know about the Bible is not much.
possibly, but more than you
I will take your knowledge level in science to indicate that you think you know a lot more than you actually do.
I have yet to meet an intellectually curious creationist.
Forgive me if I am being stupid. Would you consider environmental pressures that cause adaptation, random. I guess you could consider environment random, but there are patterns and balancing constraints that take it from my random category.
I am not trying to tie anything together, I am in no way affiliated with AIG, I think their website is interesting, but I prefer to simply study God's Word in context. When you pull a verse out of context( Gen 2:4) of course it can take on different meanings. Look at the word in the whole context of the chapter.
If I am misinterpreting the Bible, I AM DEFINTELY NOT THE ONLY ONE. WE HAVE A COUNTRY FULL OF BIBLE COLLEGES AND SEMINARY SCHOOLS THAT TURNING OUT STUDENTS, WITH MASTERS/DOCTORATES THAT HAVE NO CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE .
That's right...third person imperative....but when it came to Man...it becomes first person self directive!(the "us" being Father, son, spirit in collaborative communion)
The third person imperitive implies that God is commanding the material universe to produce what he wants thru its various processess, though not necessarily being totally involved at every step. Many Darwinists could be happy here though they would have to grudgingly admit that man was created outside of the matter energy matrix process that originally created the world and its simpler life forms
The first person self directive implies that God actually steps in and personally fashions matter into man directly from his hands! Christians and Jews could be happpy with this premise while giving ground to the evolutionists on the other aspects of living things.
Nice tagline.
And you accuse our side of lies. Like I said to tantrum-boy, what brass. The evidence (and the ACTUAL quotations) in post #159 of this thread are all that is necessary to prove this.
Why would you post something so easily debunked? What in the WORLD do you think will be accomplished by your side by lying so obviously?
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!
God is ALWAYS TOTALLY involved in all things. To say that he isn't, is false.
I probably don't think it means what you think it means.
It doesn't matter what I think it means, it matters what the Bible says.
Well then by all means, post the entire quote then and let people read it for themselves. what are you so afraid of
Perhaps if those particular Christians didn't lie so often, that wouldn't happen.
I see you have chosen to stand with a proven liar, hypocrite, and bigot. Nice company you keep.
How DO you maintain your calm demeanor when he's next to you throwing a 3-year-old's tantrum, as he has done? I'd think that would embarass you.
Actually, since his prior behavior did not, I guess even that wouldn't.
I just sit back and think of dear olde England
I took "basic biology" in high school where we were, in fact, informed rather unambiguously that "man is in the ape family". That is pretty obvious -- we're not in the horsefly or crocodile family. Again you're taking a condescending attitude toward me even after I have repeatedly admitted my layman status and I don't know why. It is completely uncalled for.
Anyway, I'm assuming the obvious, that there were apes before there were humans. Therefore, we must have evolved from one of these ape species, correct?
I'm just a layman asking an expert like you (or anyone else in here who wants to field the question) how we got from this ape -- or whatever primate is supposed to be the ancestor of the human race -- to humans, without there still being in existence any successful species that is a descendant of this primate but still an ancestor of homo sapiens. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help thinking there must have been a bunch of such mutations that were successful at least long enough to hand the baton to the next successful mutation, and if that many mutations could have survived that long, then the chances of long-term survival -- e.g., for at least one of these species making it to the present day -- would seem to be pretty good. Not a sure thing, mind you, but maybe a better than even chance.
You are not "on trial", this is not a rhetorical question designed to trap you. You may very well have a cogent, plausible answer but so far you refuse to give one. It just doesn't seem to me such a difficult question to answer, and I'm sorry, but "Go look it up on this or that website, you stupid member of the great unwashed" does not qualify as an answer.
So since you are either unwilling or unable to give such an answer, I'll give what I would consider some plausible answers for you:
1) Mr. Zhang, successful mutations don't run on any sort of set clockwork schedule. Averages are just that, averages. You might have a half-dozen successful mutations pop up in a span of 5 minutes and not have another one for 2 million years. That nothing has popped up in the last x-hundred thousand years only means we are probably in just such a 'dry spell'.
2) Mr. Zhang, there is no evidence that there were anywhere near 100 successful mutations from the ape that was the direct ancestor of homo sapiens. Fossil evidence shows that there were at most 3 or 4, which over the span of 7+ million years, means it will probably be another million or 2 million years after the appearance of homo sapiens before the next one. It also means that the credibility of the hypothesis that all other hominids/humanoids/whatever were wiped out by homo sapiens is very high, because there were so few of them.
3) Mr. Zhang, fossil evidence shows there were in fact a lot of successful mutations, as you have suggested, between the early apes and homo sapiens. We know or at least have ideas supported by the availabe evidence about why many of them did not survive to the present, but we don't know why NONE of them did. But then again, none of the giant dinosaur species made it to the present time either, so while it may seem unlikely, there is an obvious precedent in nature (dinosaurs) that shows such an event to be far from impossible or even improbable.
4) Mr. Zhang (fill in succinct answer here):
__________________________________________________________)
***
How'm I doin'?
I'm still curious who around here is for putting Christains in concentration camps.
400
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.