NEWSFLASH! Tards find bones!
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406093109990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001
Sorry I have to redirect to an AOL site, but thats where I found it. Scientists beanheads have discovered the missing link! Oh me, oh my! They found it in the ARCTIC, 600 miles from the North Pole--supposedly it is the link between fish and land animals. Its a fish, with proto-limbs, so OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS TO DISPROVE ABSOLUTELY EVER OUNCE OF PROOF THAT THE CREATIONISTS HAVE BECAUSE ITS A FISH....WITH LIMBS....THAT ARENT REALLY LIMBS, but THEY VERY WELL COULD BE! Here is a quote from the head beanhead:
Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
Last time i checked, Archaoepteryx was a bird. But then again, Im not "enlightened" by the glorious, pompous rays of a higher education (yet). Now, do address his supposedly rhetorical question: you find me a fossil, that is fully developed, with the flesh on it, with a big flashing sign that says "God is dead because science has disproved him" and then I will believe you. But guess what? Your postulations are just that: postulations. There is enough evidence FOR creationism to deny some skanky bones found in the Arctic (uuuuh, thats because 12 bizillion years ago, the Arctic was temperate...yeah, thats it).
And I would like to pose my own rheotrical question: If the earth could survive for 4 billion years, why is it that humans can trash it with global warming in 200? Are we just THAT good?
Sorry I have to redirect to an AOL site, but thats where I found it. Scientists beanheads have discovered the missing link! Oh me, oh my! They found it in the ARCTIC, 600 miles from the North Pole--supposedly it is the link between fish and land animals. Its a fish, with proto-limbs, so OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS TO DISPROVE ABSOLUTELY EVER OUNCE OF PROOF THAT THE CREATIONISTS HAVE BECAUSE ITS A FISH....WITH LIMBS....THAT ARENT REALLY LIMBS, but THEY VERY WELL COULD BE! Here is a quote from the head beanhead:
Dr. Novacek responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?"
Last time i checked, Archaoepteryx was a bird. But then again, Im not "enlightened" by the glorious, pompous rays of a higher education (yet). Now, do address his supposedly rhetorical question: you find me a fossil, that is fully developed, with the flesh on it, with a big flashing sign that says "God is dead because science has disproved him" and then I will believe you. But guess what? Your postulations are just that: postulations. There is enough evidence FOR creationism to deny some skanky bones found in the Arctic (uuuuh, thats because 12 bizillion years ago, the Arctic was temperate...yeah, thats it).
And I would like to pose my own rheotrical question: If the earth could survive for 4 billion years, why is it that humans can trash it with global warming in 200? Are we just THAT good?
posted by GreatBeefalo at 10:42 AM
4 Comments:
God sure has a strange sense of humor. Placing all of these fossils on the earth for us to find is hilarious.
Yeah, but here's the thing beef and what really gets me - if you could prove to me 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is how we came to be (and you can't. but if you could...) THEN IT WOULD STILL NOT DISPROVE CREATIONISM. Sorry, not trying to go all DISCOM on you, but these scientist eggheads are so hell bent (pun intended) on proving evolution because they think that in so doing they will disprove the existence of God? What a crock! God could've VERY easily used evolution to create man. After all, to God a "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day".
But truly what frustrates me is that evolution has become every bit the faith based belief that Christianity is because while they claim there is evidence - there really isn't and as science goes, it's just not a very good theory.
Gravy--thanks for the visit; honestly I cant tell if youre being facetious or not. Either way, good point.
Demo--I see your point entirely. My beef is not that they are campaigning for truth, its they theyre campaigning for truth as they want it. Big difference.
Kara. Kara, Kara, Kara. Ill discuss this in depth with you in person at the reunion, so I can use my hands and look really important.
Post a Comment
<< Home