Originally posted by KellyJayI saw a book and called it the bible, it is proof, I saw a lunatic and called it the pope it is proof. You want something to be true, so you go looking for excuses to believe. It is the way it is, the Neanderthals are all gone, killed by the biblical flood Lmaoooooooo.
I saw a bone and called if Fred, it is proof, I saw a fossil and called
George it is proof. You want something to be true, so you go looking
for excuses to believe. It is the way it is, what about the Neanderthals?
Kelly
Originally posted by frogstompThe difference between and I in our comparisons, I never asked you
I saw a book and called it the bible, it is proof, I saw a lunatic and called it the pope it is proof. You want something to be true, so you go looking for excuses to believe. It is the way it is, the Neanderthals are all gone, killed by the biblical flood Lmaoooooooo.
accept the Bible or the Pope who I do not accept. You however think
you know the reality of the universe by looking at some fossils as
proof for your beliefs and push your thoughts on fossils as proof.
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerDo you really think that is what archaeologists do? They find a bone and then just imagine what the creature looked like?
Finding part of a bone in the ground and using artistic genius to construct a wierd looking creature from it isn't going to help much.
You can do better than that.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
I've been following this thread in its entirety since its inception and frankly I find the ignorance shown by some people here hilarious.
Some of you have tried to make obviously misguided attempts to show how you feel your view point is valid, but all you have done is shown your ignorance and your deep misunderstanding of what you are trying to refute.
I'm talking to you dj2becker.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll try it one more time Kelly ...
The difference between and I in our comparisons, I never asked you
accept the Bible or the Pope who I do not accept. You however think
you know the reality of the universe by looking at some fossils as
proof for your beliefs and push your thoughts on fossils as proof.
Kelly
science is not about 'knowing' the reality of the universe, since - as I've said before - any scientific explanation is contingent, that is it is just our best explanation, not 'the' best, not 'the' truth.
This is the difference between your explanation, which you assume to be the truth, and a scientific explanation, which is not.
Now of course, the problem is that many scientists and people who accept scientific explanations, argue them as if they were 'the truth'. You'll have to forgive this - human foibles ...
Originally posted by KellyJayJeez, you sound like you woke up on the wrong side of the rock ,this morning.
The difference between and I in our comparisons, I never asked you
accept the Bible or the Pope who I do not accept. You however think
you know the reality of the universe by looking at some fossils as
proof for your beliefs and push your thoughts on fossils as proof.
Kelly
Originally posted by frogstompExcept, of course, for the universe itself... and evolution itself... and the laws of physics themselves... and the body of evidence itself. Other than those isolated and minor four areas, evolution is iron-freakin'-clad.
The bottom line is, NOTHING in or out of the universe has contradicted the huge amount of evolutionary evidence.