Archaeologica.org

bandit wrote:If the first beings were molded out of dirt, mud, clay ect. why did they have belly buttons??

and why only humans? I can't think of any animal that has one...

If humans were fashioned after his image, did he have one? and if so
who were his parents?

to inflate them.


john

this might be the source of the ancient drinking toast " here's (to) mud in your eye".

i think we are getting closer to God's Awful Truth.

splat! damn, there goes another one. etc.


john

I personally believe we were altered from an already evolving type of ape....manipulated "in their image" It makes so much more logical sense.

manipulated by whom or what?

who's the they in "their image" the ape?

I saw that movie.

just a couple of comments, not looking for a debate or a discusion:

here is why evolution cannot be taken seriously---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060829/sc_ ... inosaur_dc

Brazilian paleontologists have discovered a new giant dinosaur species based on fossilized fragments of the herbivorous reptile that lived 80 million years ago.

(bold print mine) not even knowing if they are even close tot he truth, they take fragments and build a whole theory out of them. it is laughable because they can't prove if they are right or not.

AND

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060829/sc ... eaustralia

An Australian fossil find may mean living creatures left the world's oceans for the land much earlier than once thought, rewriting a small part of mankind's evolution, scientists said.

Her Macquarie colleague, Professor John Talent who found the rocks, said the fossilized lung fish -- or coelacanth -- sets back the timeline for when marine animals made their first excursions on to land.

how can they be sure? they can't nor can they know that this fossil actually tried to go on land? it may have been ot in some catastrophe or landslide.

there is no way of knowing what happened or to tell what the fish was doing because iot took place sans written record. thus to stake position solely on conjecture is just ridiculous.

this is why i am taking a break from evolutionary discussions, because they are so unrealistic and incapable of presenting the truth.

When you come up with even a fragment of Noah's ark then you can complain about someone else's evidence.

You have NONE. They have SOME.


They win.

You have NONE. They have SOME

they have fragments of something but their interpretation is what is off. i don't need noah's ark or a fragment of it because no one would believe it to be authentic.

i do have many, many sites where the bones and the land show the results of the flood, so i guess i would win by that logic.

We've been through this before.....you have cited sites for floods...not THE flood.

yes and that is whyi am trying to avoid more evolutinary discussions. i have been through it all before and i do not want to read the same insults all over again.

yet as you notice in those articles i linked up, it is a common failing of those who believe in evolution (or support it) to take the most miniscule discovery and build it into a mountain when they have no further evidence to support such pontificating.

doing it without any ancient written record is also just foolishness (saying that this was done pre-writing is just an excuse and a justification for failing to produce any evidence to back up the theory).

with creation ( and ultimately intelligent design) we have both the written record, and the result of creation to provide as proof. we also can throw in the myriads of copies of the written record contained in the myths of those civiliations that did not continue with the genesis account.

to take the most miniscule discovery and build it into a mountain when they have no further evidence to support such pontificating.

Some evidence is better than no evidence. Reliance on religious texts is simply bizarre.

No religion ever announced "Hey, Fuckers....we worship a rock. We are totally full of shit but do what we say and give us money anyway." That's not what the religion scam is all about, arch.


And they are all scams.

what also makes evolution false is the time definition given to events, as if they are trying to put any date on the event just so it won't coincide with the biblical record:

A 30-mile maze canyons in Antarctica was carved out of bedrock by the catastrophic draining of subglacial lakes during global warming between 12 million and 14 million years ago, according to university researchers who warn a similar event today could have serious environmental consequences

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_ ... _labyrinth

another prime example are the mutliple theories of the mass extinctions, or the fossil record.

This is rather long but imo worth it.

archaeologist wrote:just a couple of comments, not looking for a debate or a discusion:

here is why evolution cannot be taken seriously---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060829/sc_ ... inosaur_dc

Brazilian paleontologists have discovered a new giant dinosaur species based on fossilized fragments of the herbivorous reptile that lived 80 million years ago.

(bold print mine) not even knowing if they are even close tot he truth, they take fragments and build a whole theory out of them. it is laughable because they can't prove if they are right or not.

AND

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060829/sc ... eaustralia

An Australian fossil find may mean living creatures left the world's oceans for the land much earlier than once thought, rewriting a small part of mankind's evolution, scientists said.

Her Macquarie colleague, Professor John Talent who found the rocks, said the fossilized lung fish -- or coelacanth -- sets back the timeline for when marine animals made their first excursions on to land.

how can they be sure? they can't nor can they know that this fossil actually tried to go on land? it may have been ot in some catastrophe or landslide.

there is no way of knowing what happened or to tell what the fish was doing because iot took place sans written record. thus to stake position solely on conjecture is just ridiculous.

this is why i am taking a break from evolutionary discussions, because they are so unrealistic and incapable of presenting the truth.

So to summarize then: Your rejection of evolution is based on a childlike understanding of science.