What is your interpretation?

[AV1611VET]

Not hardly - you then proceeded to shoot your mouth off about things that are way beyond your ability.

And I'll continue to 'shoot my mouth off' too.

I don't need to learn the ins and outs of evolutionary philosophy to teach its antithesis.

 

[Cabal]

Rememer what I was addressing?

Remember what you actually SAID?

Y'know, what you're desperately backpedalling away from now?

A dozen teeth, you said - eat crow, you were wrong. There is a lot more than that.

(Although thanks for posting the quote - seems like matthew said nothing about complete skeletons, that is entirely your misconception that identification of a species requires a complete skeleton. Thanks again for making this all too easy )

 

[Cabal]

And I'll continue to 'shoot my mouth off' too.

I don't need to learn the ins and outs of evolutionary philosophy to teach its antithesis.

Glad you think so. So no-one needs to learn what the Bible says before they teach against it?

Way to support your own side there, AV

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

And I'll continue to 'shoot my mouth off' too.

I don't need to learn the ins and outs of evolutionary philosophy to teach its antithesis.

You do if you want to be taken seriously.

If you want to be laughed at then sure don't bother learning anything. Just squeal erroneously about things you don't understand. No worries. It is great fuel for FSTDT. Your misinformed ramblings provide some great laughs.

 

[Tomatoman]

I can assure you, I spend more time correcting you guys, than you guys spend time correcting me.

I'm just honest enough to admit that I don't know square about science.

You flatter yourself again. You only quibble about semantics, and you only do that in an attempt to draw attention away from your own half-witted opinions.

You "don't know square about science"....what do you know about, AV? I haven't seen any evidence that you know very much about anything at all to be honest. Tell us, AV, what do you actually know about?

 

[sandwiches]

I can assure you, I spend more time correcting you guys, than you guys spend time correcting me.

I'm just honest enough to admit that I don't know square about science.

In your hubris, you're mistaking our humility in accepting our errors for your superiority. I'm afraid that just because you don't want to accept that you've been shown to be wrong, doesn't make you right.

Oh... and here's a list of 18 Neanderthals found, one of which is this one:

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh... and here's a list of 18 Neanderthals found, one of which is this one:

Fair enough -- count me surprised.

... I'd be surprised if they even had a complete skeleton of anything.

Maybe they did find King David?

 

[Split Rock]

Hi, I'm curious how does a creationist interpret those Archaic Homo sapiens, and other ape-like creatures within 6,000 years of earth history? And I also like to know from an evolutionist stand point within the millions of years range as well. One interpretation I heard from someone is that humans evolved from those ape-like creatures in an accelerated pace in the past, and then somehow they stop evolving since. But this is not a sufficient explanation either, so I'm looking for a plausible explanation from both sides in the hope that I'll become educated on this area. Thanks!

Hi there

I'm not sure where you get the idea of an "accelerated pace" from. Evolution does not necessarily follow a constant rate, but I'm not sure why you think human evolution was accelerated in the past. We are still evolving, but our evolution today is greatly influenced by our technology.

 

[matthewgar]

Remember what you actually SAID?

Y'know, what you're desperately backpedalling away from now?

A dozen teeth, you said - eat crow, you were wrong. There is a lot more than that.

(Although thanks for posting the quote - seems like matthew said nothing about complete skeletons, that is entirely your misconception that identification of a species requires a complete skeleton. Thanks again for making this all too easy )

Precisly, not all skeletons are complete but enough that we can reconize the features in partial skeletons. Plus some finds are found with more then one skeleton, one of the last neanderthal finds *history wise* was a cave found with more then one.

And with Lucy's species, we have more then one skeleton.

You creationists need to update your claims if you ever want to be taken seriously.

 

[Greg1234]

They were, at one time, men and women who were contributing members of society -- just like you and I.

At one point in their life, they contracted a disease that altered their bone structure dramatically.

I believe that if they found the bones of King David today, he would be portrayed as a Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon.

Fish walking on land for the first time having to get its food from the sea turns into a man. A deer does it, and it turns into a whale. Anything goes.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Fish walking on land for the first time having to get its food from the sea turns into a man. A deer does it, and it turns into a whale. Anything goes.

Yes, anything goes.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, anything goes.

So what you're saying is that fish walking onto land for the first time and having to catch its prey in the water (because thats where the food is) will become more land dwelling.

While a deer or a hippo (whatever animal is being asserted today) who does the same thing, has to catch its prey in the water, turns into a whale.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So what you're saying is that fish walking onto land for the first time and having to catch its prey in the water (because thats where the food is) will become more land dwelling.

While a deer or a hippo (whatever animal is being asserted today) who does the same thing, has to catch its prey in the water, turns into a whale.

You said it.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

The first creature able to spend brief periods on land would have a massive advantage over the rest of the creatures isolated to the oceans. To be able to move to an area that your predator can't follow you to strikes me as exceptionally desirable.

 

[Greg1234]

The first creature able to spend brief periods on land would have a massive advantage over the rest of the creatures isolated to the oceans. To be able to move to an area that your predator can't follow you to strikes me as exceptionally desirable.

Hunting would take place in the ocean though. This is also were predatory pressure would be most influential.

On land, no desirable features would be needed against predators because there is no real threat. But in the water, where you spend most of your time getting food, having to evade predators, well, you heard the one about the whale.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Hunting would take place in the ocean though. This is also were predatory pressure would be most influential.

On land, no desirable features would be needed against predators because there is no real threat. But in the water, where you spend most of your time getting food, having to evade predators, well, you heard the one about the whale.

Read "Your Inner Fish," it may help clear up some things in your mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read "Your Inner Fish," it may help clear up some things in your mind.

Wow --

By examining fossils and DNA, Shubin shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins...

 

[Split Rock]

Wow --

Yes, AVET.... wow! They actually do! Have you read the book? I also recommend it to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, AVET.... wow! They actually do! Have you read the book? I also recommend it to you.

I have not read the book; and thank you, but I'll pass on said activity.

(You know what they say about "perusal", don't you?)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Wow --

"One bone, two bones, bunch of little bones, and five fingers..."

Obviously you might benefit from reading it too.

BTW, any idea where hiccups come from, AV?