Archaeologica.org

how doyou think i came to the point to reject evolution/ i saw that it was impossible

Arch....you believe that God made the sun stand still in the sky so Joshua could finish his assigned quota of murders but evolution escapes you?

You are a hypocrite.

Arch
We agree genes can be manipulated by human beings .You l also have accepted that cows carry the genes of the auroch in their chromosomes ,right ?I will lead you from there by the hand ,pace by pace.Do not be afraid if you will find no divine intervention anywhere ,ok ?Ready for the next step ?After all you asked for it ,right ?But apparently you already dismissed exploring the possibilitiesof evoltution against creation on the account that random changes do not happen,correct me if I am wrong .We will take it from there .Now if you want to weasel out you just have to reject the premisses we already agreed on,remember you asked for it .

rene--don't insult me. present your side of things and let me think things through and investigate. i pointed out that you were proving creation and you let it slide also to double check i lookedup natural selection in the oxford dictioanry and it does not agree that human intervention is 'natural selection' at work.

so you have to decide which it is, a process done natrually or a process powered by an outside influence or force who thinks each step of the way and designs what they want---similar to creation not evolution.

until you can prove that something came fromnothing, you have no case upon which to stand and since the universe and the world are already here, you are basically SOL, as you cannot prove origin. which i have demonstrated with the quotes fromthe book by Tyson and Goldsmith.

Arch....you believe that God made the sun stand still in the sky so Joshua could finish his assigned quota of murders but evolution escapes you?

do you call texas a murderer when it executes prisoners for justice and punishment? i am not the hypocrite here.

Arch howdid I insult you .You are going too fast .Let us take it up from where we agree,ok ?Do you agree men have created or recreated the Auroch ,backenginering genes from different species of bovine ?Yes or no.
We wil let the rest of our arguments aside for the time being .I am not the slightest bit interested in dicussing any interpretation of words.Semantics are not the issue .

Arch I will even withdraw the interpretation of human intervention as natural selection at work just for your beautifull eyes if it makes you happy .But tell me do you agree humans have mutated animal species by manipulating genes ?I just need a yes or a no.No need to check the oxford dictionnary for that .

Little is known about the behaviour and lifestyle of Aurochs but they probably lived in small groups, under the leadership of a single individual. They would probably mate in autumn, and had a gestation period the same length as cattle of about 9 months. Although the Aurochs became extinct, attempts were made in the early 20th century to breed a herd of Aurochs using primitive races of cattle such as Highland Cattle. This was partially successful and produced animals which appeared similar in appearance as the original Aurochs

is this what you are talking about?

http://www.geocities.com/magicgoatman/aurochs.html

post a link to your subject so i can make sure i am on the same point

Yes it is .Your opinion please

do you call texas a murderer when it executes prisoners for justice and punishment? i am not the hypocrite here.

The Canaanites hadn't bothered anyone...except your precious god for committing the unpardonable sin of worshipping another non-entity.

Today, we call that sort of behavior genocide or ethnic cleansing and they don't do that even in Texas.


At least not openly.

Minimalist wrote:

do you call texas a murderer when it executes prisoners for justice and punishment? i am not the hypocrite here.

The Canaanites hadn't bothered anyone...except your precious god for committing the unpardonable sin of worshipping another non-entity.

Today, we call that sort of behavior genocide or ethnic cleansing and they don't do that even in Texas.


At least not openly.

Dude, I'm from Texas and I ain't ethnically cleansed anybody in ......years.

That's what I'm saying!

Although Bush seems enamoured of the concept. Probably learned it from reading that damned bible of his.

The man should definitely have read some other books.

Minimalist wrote:That's what I'm saying!

Although Bush seems enamoured of the concept. Probably learned it from reading that damned bible of his.

The man should definitely have read some other books.

He ain't read the bible. That's just propaganda he shovels. That stupid summitch can't read. I do beleive in the death penalty, but it ain't got nothin' to do with the bible or bush.

For a little booklet which has "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as one of its so-called "Commandments" that book suggests a lot of reasons to kill some poor bastard.

Yes it is .Your opinion please

okay, since i know we are on the same page

This was partially successful and produced animals which appeared similar in appearance as the original Aurochs

this quote here makes me conclude that they did not go back in time and re-create a lost species. they came as close as they could but failed. what they came up with was something close but not the same.

unless they have sample DNA, i don't think they can come close to comparing what they created with the extinct species of cattle. plus with the original line lost, how can two multi-generational descendents combine to create the original?

that would be like my cousins getting together and mating in hopes of re-creating my grandparents. doesn't work as there are too many genetic influences which would hinder that attempt.

what they have is just another species that descended from the original.

But tell me do you agree humans have mutated animal species by manipulating genes

until i see where you are going with this, i will concur at this time. i do know that human involvement in mating species is a necessary fact especially if it is done on a broad scale. hybrids would not exist in large numbers if that weren't the case. we know that animals do mate in the wild against kind, but it is rare and when it is done, they are sterile.

that would be like my cousins getting together and mating in hopes of re-creating my grandparents.

did your grandparents have webbed feet