Originally posted by robbie carrobiecavemen are a fictional absurdity of scientific dogma masquerading as empirical science.
1. you are confusing immortality with everlasting life, they are not one and the same
although i dont expect you to know the difference, unless you have researched it.
Its another common misconception to make the two synonymous.
2. i have explained why its absurd.
3. i dont think its tasty even cooked in regge regge barbecue sauce, cavemen ...[text shortened]... ed this and you have
nothing but a speculative nothingness with which to attempt to refute it.
RING-A-DING-DONG!!!!!
Just when we thought it wasn't possible for you to become anymore insane you top the lot.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobits true, those fictional depictions of half men half ape are a nonsense. ZING a DING NEEEEXT!
[b]cavemen are a fictional absurdity of scientific dogma masquerading as empirical science.
RING-A-DING-DONG!!!!!
Just when we thought it wasn't possible for you to become anymore insane you top the lot.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillPlay That Funky Musicwhy did god give animals such short lives?
Define "short".
why did god make homosexual animals if he dislikes it so much?
I don't know hardly anything about "homosexual animals". I may have seen some science discussion to the effect that certain animal behaviors were reminiscient of human homosexual actions.
...[text shortened]...
were adam and eve vegetarians or vegans?
They were conservatives.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo how do the rather large and intriguing amount of artifacts found in various caves throughout thr world fit into your scheme of things?
depictions of the so called missing link, like this, which are clearly fictional depictions,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/tv_radio/wwcavemen/
Originally posted by stellspalfiethe animals may be born homosexual, but they choose to be homosexual because they are evil and haven't found god. every time a chimp with a penis gets funky with another chimp with a penis, they are consciously choosing to do EEEVIL!!!!!
why did god give animals such short lives?
why did god make homosexual animals if he dislikes it so much?
did god make beef tasty before humans could eat it or did it become tasty later?
why did god not give animals souls?
were adam and eve vegetarians or vegans?
Originally posted by stellspalfieYou must be one of those Hindus that worship cows. Don't worry you want be reincarnated into an animal and especially not a holy cow. 😀
why did god give animals such short lives?
why did god make homosexual animals if he dislikes it so much?
did god make beef tasty before humans could eat it or did it become tasty later?
why did god not give animals souls?
were adam and eve vegetarians or vegans?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobplease answer the point, is the depiction fictional or is it not? Its naught but
So how do the rather large and intriguing amount of artifacts found in various caves throughout thr world fit into your scheme of things?
scientific hocus pocus masquerading as empirical science, the article states, the first
upright ape, Lucy. Its a piece of speculative nonsense engineered by scientists (I
use term loosely), there is no way they could have observed Lucy walking upright,
in fact, they give the impression that she was something other than simian, not
true! This kind of unobserved phenomena palmed off as empirical science belongs
in the fiction department, not science and as for the, 'rather large and intriguing
amount of artefacts', just how large and extensive are these?
'Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man
hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology.
. . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often
so fragmentary and inconclusive', New Scientist,
“Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThese Atheists keep lying by telling us they have mountains of evidence for evolution. However when you exclude adaption within kind, they do not even have a mole hill. 😏
please answer the point, is the depiction fictional or is it not? Its naught but
scientific hocus pocus masquerading as empirical science, the article states, the first
upright ape, Lucy. Its a piece of speculative nonsense engineered by scientists (I
use term loosely), there is no way they could have observed Lucy walking upright,
in fact ...[text shortened]... Scientist,
“Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802
Originally posted by RJHindsI dont think its deliberate RJH, not at all, but empirical science and speculative
These Atheists keep lying by telling us they have mountains of evidence for evolution. However when you exclude adaption within kind, they do not even have a mole hill. 😏
depictions of fictional beings are not one and the same.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieplease answer the point, is the depiction fictional or is it not?
please answer the point, is the depiction fictional or is it not? Its naught but
scientific hocus pocus masquerading as empirical science, the article states, the first
upright ape, Lucy. Its a piece of speculative nonsense engineered by scientists (I
use term loosely), there is no way they could have observed Lucy walking upright,
in fact ...[text shortened]... Scientist,
“Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802
No. Whether an animal can walk upright or not can be determined by looking at it's pelvis or it's femur, you don't need to watch it walking.
Your quote was no doubt correct in 1981, we're now in the 21st century. Yet again you're reduced to providing 30+year old quotes when discussing the history of man. Neeeext!!
Check out Hinds Cave in Texas -
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/hinds/artifacts.html#peri