Re: Missing links? Eh?
- From: eroot@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 7 Dec 2005 06:10:47 -0800
Logos wrote:
If you want to at least pretend to have a polite and fruitful
discussion, you need to use much less insulting and loaded language.
> Let's acquaint ourselves with our purported ape ancestors, shall we? You
> know the ones? The ones whose bones the atheist secularists
Start out by refusing to make this all about religion. See if you can
make a post without reference to atheists or secularists.
> like to bandy
> about like trophies?
Snide snotty language. lose it.
>
> First came this Australopithecus Africanus, of Lucy fame. Secularists
Why do you say "secularists" instead of "scientists"?
> like
> to tell us, in their own overconfident
More snide and snotty.
> way, that these creatures were
> essentially chimps that walked upright. Well, if you take a look at the
> fossils (which even those desperate atheists
Bzzt! Whining about atheists again.
> have to admit is not alot) you
> see that there are NO FEET. Friends, how can you know if an animal walked
> upright if you don't even have the feet to know whether it walked digitgrade
> or plantigrade?
Lots of ways. Look it up.
> Me, I like to think of Lucy as just another chimp, just a
> real old one.
Why would you like to think that? That's not consistent with any
theory.
>
> Then comes this paranthropus boisei guy. This guy is huge. Much bigger
> than us. Yet we're supposed to believe that during our evolution, we
> started out small, got really big, then got small again?
Why not believe it?
> That's progress?
What does progress have to do with anything? If it's useful to be
bigger, organisms get bigger. If, later on, it becomes useful to be
smaller, they get smaller.
> More than likely, p. boisei was nothing more than an African homunculus,
> perhaps a Masai tribesman that wasn't quite right.
How about holding to your own so-called standards and providing some
evidence for theis extraordinary claim?
>
> Which brings us to Homo Erectus. Friends, if that name doesn't tell you
> where the thoughts of the secular atheists lie (hint: they would appear on
> "Queer Eye") then I don't know what does.
You are mean and disrespectful.
> Frankly, the scientific,
> atheistic
There you go, whining about atheists again. At least you are finally
learning to spell it right.
> community makes a big deal about this flaming fossil, but real
> scientists tell us that these fossils fall within the natural variation of
> our own species. Same with Neanderthals.
Can you give a scientific citation where any real scientists say that?
And you can be a real scientist no matter what you religious position,
as long as you don't let what it says in a religious document trump the
evidence of the real world.
>
> So that's it. That's the little secularist, materialist's evidence.
> There's there missing links: a chimp, a homunculus and a couple old human
> fossils.
Nope. You saying so does not make it so. And homunculi don't exist.
> And then the evolutionists wonder why we get so up in arms over
> their bogus evidence.
Because we know the evidence is not bogus, and it is fascinating, in a
sickening and somewhat scary way, to see the weird contortions you all
go to to deny the evidence, and how twisted and hateful you get about
it. When you add to it the knowledge that Biblical literalists have
little sense of morality, but think it's all a matter arbitrary whims
of God, then it's reasonable to be afraid that you might start killing
people at some point if you think that's what God wants you to do.
Eric Root
.
- References:
- Missing links? Eh?
- From: Logos
- Missing links? Eh?
- Prev by Date: Re: Philosophical Difference
- Next by Date: Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- Previous by thread: Re: Missing links? Eh?
- Next by thread: Re: Missing links? Eh?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
