lpetrich

That is correct if one looks at the OVERALL appearance. But there are legions of smaller details that biologists are careful to notice. And similarities in numerous features are too much to be reasonably considered coincidence.

But I doubt that Randman is willing to engage in the study of comparative anatomy; he much prefers to wave around carefully-selected quotes.

Synaesthesia

I think humanity will produce more Hitlers, Stalins, witch hunts, superstition and unpleasantness in general. Whether or not we solve our problems has precious little to do with whatever idol we bow before- be it communist doctrine or a bloodthirsty God.

Randman,
Let’s see what the book written by God has to say about this idea:

2 Thessalonians 1:8
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:”

Tolerant indeed!

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for “she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

Truly, God is merciful and loving of all his children.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

2 John 1:7-10
“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:”

2 Peter 2:1
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Brother in Bibilical Tolerance,
Synaesthesia

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Dr Rick

Good point: when evidence previously accepted is found to be flawed, the assumption(s) that arose from it or were thought to be supported by it need to be re-assessed...

<strong> Randman just slipped in some more dishonesty.

Randman's position boils down to this: since a small percentage of the evidence in palentology has been flawed, misinterpreted, and rarely even faked, All of the evidence from all of science consistent with evolutionary theory must now be ignored and substituted with Bible belief. To this end, and because the amount of evidence that has been flawed, misinterpreted, and faked to support evolution has been so small, he has taken to misrepresenting some of the remaining solid evidence that still supports evolution and just plain ignoring the rest of it. For instance, randman has misquoted several scientists such as Gould and completely ignored excellent posts on this thread and elsewhere refuting his nonsense.

Randman either does not understand science or is deliberately misrepresenting it. We don't disregard a theory because a bit of evidence is wrong unless the theory was based only on the flawed evidence and so is left with no supporting data.

For example, several years ago it was revealed that some NIH-sponsored HIV research had been "altered;" reasoning as randman does, the errors would have forever nullified all HIV/AIDS research and be clear proof that AIDS is not caused by a virus. Of course the flawed and possibly faked research was not seen as reason then or now to disregard the evidence that HIV causes AIDS as the questionable data did not affect all of the other data previously and subsequently collected.

The scientific evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming; so is the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, for that matter. There have been and probably will continue to be mistakes made in researching both areas, but each of these theories will not be discarded as long as the evidence continues to support them, no matter how much the randmans of the world squeal in protest.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

randman

"2 Thessalonians 1:8
“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:”"

You need to read the whole passage.
What Paul is actually stating is not to take vengeance oursleves but to love our enemies since God will one day take vengeance upon those that reject God. It is the exact opposite of what you are stating it says. Jesus Himself says similar things. That is the message of the New Testament. Too bad you choose to ignore that.

Now, I know for you it may be important to force agreement in thought, which is actually a form of insidious intolerance, but the tolerance the New Testament teaches is to tolerate those that you disagree with their thought on. By tolerate, it doesn't mean agree with. It means not to try and force them to obey the truth.

Now, one poster does have a point in that it isn't ideology on it's own that makes men bad.

pseudobug

Close, rbochnermd. If you will substitute and for or in the sentence above, you will have the entire rantman fiasco distilled to a single sentence.

Also note the irony in rantman's response to someone giving him scriptual quotations--he reverts to wailing about context.

That takes a lot of nerve--or stupidity--or both, given his performance here in the last two weeks.

Oolon Colluphid

Folks folks folks.... fun as it may be (to the masochists amongst us) to keep playing Chase the Randman, it is totally pointless. We already know that. But put it in perspective. This guy is not on a school board, nor does he have any public platform beyond a few message boards. So the exercise is not just pointless, but worthless. Even the lurkers must have seen enough by now.

Up to you, but till he responds to my posts, my personal cladistics identifies his 'kind' as Tempoprodigalus phallocapitus.

In other words, DNFTT

Oolon

RufusAtticus

What do mean context? It says what it says. The fossil record doesn't support evolution--opps, I mean Christians should exterminate unbelievers.

-RvFvS

Coragyps

Oh, Randman..........Randman? You regurgiquoted, again: And you have already been presented, on this board, with the full quote which plainly is talking about ONE FRIGGING BONE, not a whole creature as you implied. You are persistent, but not at all amusing - you're too predictable. Please go away until you find a fresh quote mine.

I agree with Oolon: DNFTT!

MrDarwin

Here is the full article citation:

McHenry, H.M. (1975), Fossils and the mosaic nature of human evolution: Science 190:428.

Two points: first, this would be considered a very old article with respect to human evolution since a huge number of important fossils have been discovered since 1975; but more importantly, the concept of "mosaic evolution" is that different part of an animal evolve in different stages or at different rates. I don't have the article in front of me but from the line quoted, I strongly suspect the researcher is suggesting that the creature had some characteristics that were similar to modern humans, but others that were not.

Troll Hunter

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Given his history on this board, this is the funniest thing randman (trollus quotitatus) has ever said.