More manipulation of fossils

Discussion in 'Politics' started by peilthetraveler, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. Ida is the missing link! Ida is the missing link! Its ok...we only manipulated the fossil a little bit....Hey! Stop looking at those modern animals we found next to Ida, it will blow our attempt to disprove the bible!

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
  2. Wow, that goose didn't run very long....

    Did u watch the video, stu?


    :D :D
  3. It is perfectly acceptable to view the Genesis creation stories as NON-LITERAL prose. There is truth in them in that they reveal the thoughts of those living in a pre-scientific age.

    That said, those who interpret the Genesis creation stories as LITERAL SCIENTIFIC TRUTH have not a leg to stand on. Simply put, if all of life had been created around the same short period of time, the evidence would support that. It doesn't.

    The same goes for the flood of Noah. Without a doubt, it is loosely based on the Epic of Gilgamesh and supported by zero scientific evidence. It is a cute story--nothing more.
  4. stu


    Keep your wig on Gann. The faulty fossil finding film freak is just lashing out because science wouldn't buy his own "original talking snake from the garden of eden fossil" you see there.

    More obvious though is how little confirmation you seem to need to judge things scam or no scam.
  5. I think so...apparently the guys that found it just sat on it for a while until they sold it 2 years ago. Then I guess the evolutionists needed 2 years to manipulate it a bit and really get their stories straight about this thing. (opps, i mean they needed 2 years to "study" it and put their "evidence" together)
  6. The hardest non-literal part of the genesis account is the definition of a day. In one part of the bible it says that to God, 1,000 years is as quick as a day and a day is as long as 1000 years. Obviously God exists outside of time for this to make sense and a day could mean anything.

    Also i dont know if i mentioned this before but the hebrew word for "in the beginning" is Berasheet. "rasheet" which was translated as "beginning" but in reality its definition is "an expanse of undetermined time" So if you read the first line of Genesis, it should read "in an undetermined expanse of time, God created the heavens and the earth"

    Also...God didnt give Adam & Eve "garments of skin" until they were kicked out of the garden of eden. So as far as we know they were not human like we know humans today. Maybe they were some kind of spirits before they were kicked out, or it was just there souls roaming around? I dont really know though.

    So basically the world could be millions of years old...we dont know how long Adam & Eve were in the garden of eden. But its safe to say that Man as we know it is about 6000 years old. Goes nicely with the first writings by humans only showing up 5500 years ago according to science.
  7. stu

    stu other words, you only need produce some misinformation, create false controversy about missing links, pretend there are no human fossils nearly 200,000 years old , then "filter" some gobbledygook written in a ridiculous story book so that it doesn't say what it says and means anything you want it to.... and voila. You have a religion.
  8. Could be?
    Are you trying to suggest, that people who had language but no formal writing were sub-human apes, crummy unsophisticated hunter gatherer types?

    They traded in beads and beans, so they weren't modern humans?

    What about the overwhelming evidence of Australian aboriginal occupation, going back, quite plausably, scientifically, dating to 10,000-40,000 (potentially much, much more) years ago?

    Man, some cro-magnon guy would spear your ass, if he was around to hear you trash talking him like that.

  9. I didn't judge it scam or no scam. I am merely curious as to what ur rebuttal to this video is.


    Do some animals evolve, and others not? Why is there no evolution of the serpent?

    And just where are those other transitional animals that would show the shortening of our tails?

    The ape that was found is older than Ida was, how is that explained?

    Curious minds want to know!
    #10     Jun 30, 2009