Evolutionary news

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:40 pm

Genesis Veracity wrote:Good line, good night.

and also to you

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:26 am

The bible says something about going out of the presence of a man when thou percievest not in him any wisdom.

yes i should have listened to that months ago but i like discussing archaeology. i will be departing from this board eventually as i do not want to rehash old arguments nor drive those in opposition to my perspective to do something they will regret.

i will make a decision in about 2 weeks then quietly slip away if Frank can wait that long.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:25 am

will make a decision in about 2 weeks then quietly slip away if Frank can wait that long.

There isn't any long term poster here that believes that for a second. If you look at my recent posts I have said how honest you are. You have never told the truth here.

I'll post again on Oct. 5 and remind everyone of what you said. I'll quote this post also. You've said this very thing many times.

I wish to hell it were true.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:58 am

Back to evolutionary news - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:00 am

Where you going to be until October 5, Beags?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:02 am

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ol ... 0000000001

This just in.........

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:17 am

Is that evolution news, or Darwinian evolution news?

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:22 am

Is this guy like this all the time? I've been in this forum for one day and I'm getting sick of him already......

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:36 am

What you see is what you get.

Still, at times he can string two or three reasonable posts together. Puts him a few notches ahead of Arch.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:49 am

I just don't get why these guys show up in every archaeology discussion group I've seen. Probably they see archaeology as a threat to their belief system by turning up uncomfortable facts.

Anyway - back to evolution.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:56 am

Probably they see archaeology as a threat to their belief system by turning up uncomfortable facts.

They resent the loss of the comfortable relationship they had prior to 1950 when divinity students, masquerading as archaeologists, duly contrived to assign every rock they dug up to be some sort of holy relic.

Now, when archaeology has progressed to the point that these comfy little theories have been dismissed they blame science instead of the frauds who mislead them to begin with.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:02 pm

Oas, are you talking about Darwinian evolution or generic evolution (variation within gene pools)?

It's important to make the distinction because Darwinites like to say that Creationists don't believe in evolution, so don't listen to them, but we do believe in evolution, per se (variation within gene pools), so the distinction should be made, but you probably won't, because Darwinites like to say that Creationists don't believe in evolution, when in reality, we do, but we don't believe in Darwinian evolution which teaches that tree shrews morphed into humans, and reptiles morhped into birds, the same tired and absurd Darwinian bilge.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:07 pm

Well by your definition I am Darwinian goo by birth, choice and inclination ($1 to Steed in the Avengers).

Donna · Post by **Donna** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:20 pm

Hi,
I'm new to this list but was interested in your opinions on the new baby skelton they just informed the public about. Do they think this is the earliest link in the human chain or like some of the other groups a dead end on the branch? I saw a picture on the web of what it would have looked like in life and it looks like a hairy baby with a big jaw to me. I have no expertise whatsoever in any of this but find it extremely interesting and it seems so many new finds are being made.
Donna

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:24 pm

Hi Donna - I was new yesterday!

As I understand it the new skeleton is of the same family as the Lucy skeleton. What makes this one interesting is that it is of a child. Not many are found.