[_ Old Earth _] The conclusion of the matter

[noblej6]

Hi Hiedi,

I wonder if one statemnet you made means that you have a restriction of visual sight? You said in one post that your husband "read" to you...... if you have such a restriction I can understand better why you have trouble in certain things concerning skeleton remains and the origin of man.

I hope I am wrong in this assumption.

Anyway just one more time...humans are animals. End of story. Any living thing on planet earth is either PLANT or ANIMAL. Those are the main classifications of living things.

Now since you bring up the 'giants' from the OT, let's switch to some archeology finds of hominoids who are smaller than present day man, smaleer and very sloped forehead. Their foreheads will not accomidate modern mans brain size either. How did that change, Heidi and when did it change?

You mentionm a mizstake made in the aging of bones somewhere...That is not a unique occurance. Humans make mistakes evry day, what's new about that? Theere are a lot more cases thatn that one where aging has been mis interpreted. The point is they all haven't been.

Are you familiar of the dry creek bed in Texas which has dinosaur tracks in some part of it? One creationist went there, apparently, and tried to falsely inject some human footprints in with it.. Happens all the time.

SO forget that there is a few incorrect experiments out there. There are a few incorrect interpretations of the bible too. The best proof is to drive to some museum of natural history and see for yourself.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Heidi,

Go back to a thread of yours called"how many mutations,"

In my last post there on page three I said this......

No matter how long ago you feel that may be it is on your shoulders to explain the massive changes in mans ancestors that the fossilized skeletons show..fossils of these .

Homo habilis, homo rudolfenis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo heidlelbergenis, Neanderthals and us.

Please explain why there are massive changes there. Then calculate the time required to produce those changes because you say no change since recorded history.

Go ahead and deal with that situation. Also in that post I described the classification of homo sapien frpm Kingdom to species.

noble6

 

[Heidi]

Hi Hiedi,

I wonder if one statemnet you made means that you have a restriction of visual sight? You said in one post that your husband "read" to you...... if you have such a restriction I can understand better why you have trouble in certain things concerning skeleton remains and the origin of man.

I hope I am wrong in this assumption.

Anyway just one more time...humans are animals. End of story. Any living thing on planet earth is either PLANT or ANIMAL. Those are the main classifications of living things.

Now since you bring up the 'giants' from the OT, let's switch to some archeology finds of hominoids who are smaller than present day man, smaleer and very sloped forehead. Their foreheads will not accomidate modern mans brain size either. How did that change, Heidi and when did it change?

You mentionm a mizstake made in the aging of bones somewhere...That is not a unique occurance. Humans make mistakes evry day, what's new about that? Theere are a lot more cases thatn that one where aging has been mis interpreted. The point is they all haven't been.

Are you familiar of the dry creek bed in Texas which has dinosaur tracks in some part of it? One creationist went there, apparently, and tried to falsely inject some human footprints in with it.. Happens all the time.

SO forget that there is a few incorrect experiments out there. There are a few incorrect interpretations of the bible too. The best proof is to drive to some museum of natural history and see for yourself.

First of all, you're insinuating that my husband is a liar without even knowing him. There is no way that my husband could make up a story without stumbling, stopping, and inventing words that long and quickly. This shows that you make declarations about things about which you know nothing. But of course you believe scientists who admit their previous theories were untrue all the time! And I doubt that you hope you are wrong in your assumption or you wouldn't have even considered such a possibility in order to hang on to your belief that scientists are omniscient.

Humans and plants both eat, drink, and grow so a human is a plant because I say so. And since you can't figure things out for yourself, you'll just have to take other people's word for things. But it still doesn't make humans capable of mating and breeding with animals. Sorry. :wink:

I know people with a sloped forehead! If you put long blond hair on that skull, beautiful blue eyes and transparent skin, it doesn't look an different than people today! But scientists, put hair all over that skull in their imaginations and say that's what that creature looked like even though there's no wat to prove that that creature was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it. This again is how scientists try to brainwash the public by projecting an imaginary image of who they want creatures to look like. Once again, you believe a creature of your imagination.

Of course humans make mistakes every day. Therefore, believing scientists know how man was created even though they weren't around to witness it is pure folly, especially when his theory contradicts the way offspring are produced!

Again, you're believing men over God. The biblical account of creation supports reality perfectly. There are zero contradictions in it. So if you want to believe contradictory theories, be my guest. So I guess you'll simply have to wait until you die to know who is right; Christ or fallible scientists who keep changing their minds every season. You obviously have no capactiy to see which is true right now.

 

[cubedbee]

Humans and plants both eat, drink, and grow so a human is a plant because I say so.

Only if you live in Heidi-land where you get to make up your own definitions for all words. In the real word we have dictionaries, and the definitions are both clear--humans are animals, humans are not plants, because everyone who uses words says so.

And since you can't figure things out for yourself, you'll just have to take other people's word for things.

Figuring out the DEFITION of words isn't something we can do for ourselves. You HAVE TO take everyone's word, the dictionary, on what individuals words mean. That is if you want to have meaningful conversations, if you want to be understood and be able to understand others.

But it still doesn't make humans capable of mating and breeding with animals. Sorry. :wink:

Your parents are both animals, and since they apparently breeded to produce you, that statement's false.

Again, you're believing men over God.

I think you're believing yourself over anything.

The biblical account of creation supports reality perfectly. There are zero contradictions in it.

Correct, and evolution is reality, and the Biblical account does not contradict evolution.

So if you want to believe contradictory theories, be my guest. So I guess you'll simply have to wait until you die to know who is right; Christ or fallible scientists who keep changing their minds every season. You obviously have no capactiy to see which is true right now.

If you want to believe contradictory theories,be my guest. I guess you'll have to wait until you die to know who is right, Christ or fallible people who are misinterpreting the Bible and rejecting science despite their incapacity to even understand the theory of evolution.

 

[armed2010]

In fact, not too long ago my husband read an article to me in the newspaper about bones that scientists found in the Mohave desert. They dated them and said they were millions of years old Then a man contacted them and told them he thought they were the bones of his uncle who had wandered away months ago. So they did DNA testing and sure enough, they were the bones of his uncle. So once again, scientists can very easily brainwash the public simply because they have degrees. But only when people have the courage to think for themselves and listen to scientists, they can discern truth from fiction.

Could you please find or cite the article in question? Not that I find anecdotal evidence from your husband to be untrustworthy, but Id like to have the source article in question to see if something was missed in translation from him reading to him telling you.

 

[Heidi]

Hi Heidi,

Go back to a thread of yours called"how many mutations,"

In my last post there on page three I said this......

No matter how long ago you feel that may be it is on your shoulders to explain the massive changes in mans ancestors that the fossilized skeletons show..fossils of these .

Homo habilis, homo rudolfenis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo heidlelbergenis, Neanderthals and us.

Please explain why there are massive changes there. Then calculate the time required to produce those changes because you say no change since recorded history.

Go ahead and deal with that situation. Also in that post I described the classification of homo sapien frpm Kingdom to species.

noble6

And I have already explained how man can misinterpret fossils which is completely lost on you, so I won't answer this question again.

 

[Heidi]

In fact, not too long ago my husband read an article to me in the newspaper about bones that scientists found in the Mohave desert. They dated them and said they were millions of years old Then a man contacted them and told them he thought they were the bones of his uncle who had wandered away months ago. So they did DNA testing and sure enough, they were the bones of his uncle. So once again, scientists can very easily brainwash the public simply because they have degrees. But only when people have the courage to think for themselves and listen to scientists, they can discern truth from fiction.

Could you please find or cite the article in question? Not that I find anecdotal evidence from your husband to be untrustworthy, but Id like to have the source article in question to see if something was missed in translation from him reading to him telling you.

Sorry, but we did not save the newspaper. But it doesn't appear that documents are considered evidence by unbelievers, so it will be of no use to you anyway.

 

[Frost Giant]

Translation: I don't have any evidence, I just made it up.

 

[armed2010]

Translation: I don't have any evidence, I just made it up.

Not surprised. I've been looking through google using key words from what she has said about the article, mojave scientists skeleton millions uncle, and havnt found anything relating to her story.

 

[reznwerks]

copout

[q

Sorry, but we did not save the newspaper. But it doesn't appear that documents are considered evidence by unbelievers, so it will be of no use to you anyway.

Cop out. If it's in the newpapers could you tell us which one . They have an archive that is accessable to the public and probably online.

 

[armed2010]

Still waiting to see the article.

 

[reznwerks]

8pm

It's almost 8 pm and I am still waiting.