Archaeologica.org

as i said before, right now i am done talking with evolutionists, especially when they keep dredging up the same old insults.

dang.

i keep on telling everybody that the sun revolves around the earth.

just get up in the morning and look!

jeez, stupids.


john

More of that damned evolutionary "evidence" that keeps popping up!


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 213820.htm

The results of Kingsley's efforts make his departure from the routine worthwhile. He found that in almost every case, the left pelvic bone outweighed the right. Although seemingly trivial in difference--the average left pelvic bone is a mere10 percent larger than its right-side partner--that difference carries big weight in evolutionary significance. It suggests that mutations in the same gene may be responsible for the evolution of leglessness in animals as distantly related as 1,000-pound manatees in Florida and fish smaller than an index finger living in lakes and streams around the world.

"It's striking that evolution might use the same mechanism over and over," said Kingsley, professor of developmental biology at the Stanford University School of Medicine and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. His study appears in the Aug. 28 online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 175927.htm

The study focuses on 60 species within the vole genus Microtus, which has evolved in the last 500,000 to 2 million years. This means voles are evolving 60-100 times faster than the average vertebrate in terms of creating different species.

unless you guys start putting up definitive proof and not the speculative conjecture you hold as evidence, my arguments remain the same and so i doubt if i will particpate too much here.

by definitive proof i mean actuall proof that what is being proclaimed is true and demonstratable that it is really that and NOT what you want it to be.

No one cares about your bible-based arguments.

No one cares about your bible-based arguments

i know that but that is what discussion is all about an exchange of ideas, concepts, examining different points of view.

Maybe on a fairy tale board. This one is about archaeology.

Point of view, is one thing. Rigid acceptance of ancient folklore is something else...especially when it has been disproven time and time again.

[quote="archaeologist"]unless you guys start putting up definitive proof and not the speculative conjecture you hold as evidence, my arguments remain the same and so i doubt if i will particpate too much here.

by definitive proof i mean actuall proof that what is being proclaimed is true and demonstratable that it is really that and NOT what you want it to be.[/quote]

We could say the samething about you and your Bible. There's no proof. Was Moses, the supposed writer, there when God created the world in only seven days, was he there when Adam and Eve did their bad in the garden, was he around for the fabled flood. Since you say we're wrong because no one was there to prove it, neither does the Bible. In fact Moses wasn't even alive when the Bible was written, so what proof do you have that HE wrote it?

Yes, our arguments are the same, we have scientific evidence. Your arguments are the same, you do not believe in science therefore our evidence is invalid.

tooshay, leona!

we have scientific evidence

you have bupkis, it is all fill in the blank conjecture that passes for 'scientific' study.

Your arguments are the same

of course they are the same. the truth does not change.

whereas your theory changes with the slightest change in popularity, fads, political leanings or the latest fossil and so on. it is nothing you can trust in. next we will be hearing that pigs used to fly but lost their wings because they liked to roll in the mud.

take a close look at what you are advocating and ask yourself honestly: 'can i really accept this or believe it?' or 'are my children nothing more than a descendent of sterile process and there is no hope for them?'

think seriously about it and examine your motives for accepting the theory of evolution over creation.

[quote="archaeologist"][quote]we have scientific evidence[/quote]

you have bupkis, it is all fill in the blank conjecture that passes for 'scientific' study.

[quote]Your arguments are the same[/quote]

of course they are the same. the truth does not change.

whereas your theory changes with the slightest change in popularity, fads, political leanings or the latest fossil and so on. it is nothing you can trust in. next we will be hearing that pigs used to fly but lost their wings because they liked to roll in the mud.

take a close look at what you are advocating and ask yourself honestly: 'can i really accept this or believe it?' or 'are my children nothing more than a descendent of sterile process and there is no hope for them?'

think seriously about it and examine your motives for accepting the theory of evolution over creation.[/quote]

First, what truth. Has anyone been able to prove that it is the truth. NO!

Second, changes in belief are not affected by popularity. They are affected by new finds in science evidence. Politics are only important to the ultra conservatives who believe like you and expect everyone else to follow suit.

Third, my children are NOT the offspring of a sterile process and I have a great deal of hope and expectations for my grandchildren, all five of them. The world is theirs.

Fourth, I have given evolution serious thought and it sure makes more sense than the hokus pokus religious leaders would have us believe.

The church has been telling scientists that they are wrong for two thousand years. So far the scientists have been correct on all points. The church doesn't have a very good track record in this department

But you just keep trying to invalidate science, at least it should keep you off the streets.

So far the scientists have been correct on all points

i think you want to re-phrase that.

Maybe on a fairy tale board. This one is about archaeology

typical fallback argument when you don' want to discus the issues. by the way, evolution doesn't fit here if that is the case.

But you just keep trying to invalidate science

i am not invalidating science, far from it, i am invalidating the conclusions, the theories that they come up with and are false. science is a wonderful tool, if used correctly.

i think you want to re-phrase that.

They have your bible thumpers beat to shit.

i am not invalidating science, far from it, i am invalidating the conclusions, the theories that they come up with and are false. science is a wonderful tool, if used correctly.

to be qualified to invalidate something you do actually have to live in the real world Arch
you don't
so you aren't