Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon

In 1856 Thomas H. Huxley (ardent evolutionist and defender of Darwin) said Neanderthal bones belonged to people and did not prove evolution. Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. ("Neanderthals had Rickets" Science Digest, February 1971,p.35)Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people,not monkeys; and they provide no evidence of transition from ape to man.

---

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

I'm sure that I'm not as well read as you "intelectual" evolutionist but I have read enough to compare you with the Southern Baptist here in Tennessee. They always find some way to explain away the parts of the Bible that don't fit into their belief system. And now I read about this open system trying to explain away the Second Law of Thermodynamics in spit of what Einstein and all the physicists say!
Way to go intelectual boy you are in good company.

---

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for,the evidence of links unseen."

Edited by Volunteer, : I posted the message twice.

Did I not just bow to your intellect? And thank GOD that University research has discovered that there is no correlation between spelling and intellect because I am the worlds worst speller. However, You just won me five bucks from a good friend of mine.
I bet him that instead of answering that you would ridicule. That's a favorite tactic of most evolutionist. You have read the open system argument haven't you? Maybe you don't believe it either.The big difference with the Southern Baptists is they don't ridicule, they just sentence you to Hell when you disagree with their beliefs.With this, I will bow to the administrator, things are getting too personal. You can have the last word, I am obviously in the wrong forum.

Hey man how hard is it to call someone stupid? All I did was relate what Huxley said about Neanderthals and what Einstein said about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I was called stupid. Those were not my words so does that make Huxley and Einstein stupid? I haven't read one explanation in this forum as to why they were wrong.The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England, Just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. As far as I can determin, no scientific facts were used in the debates, at least I can't find any recorded.Out of the sixteen members in this forum most are evolutionists and are quiet pleased to agree that I am stupid for beleiving Huxley and
Einstein about Neanderthals and The Second Law. I don't see any reason to take part in this forum if nobody will give an explanation as to why these two lions of science were wrong.Now that we have established that I am stupid and we have that out of the way can someone use no more than two syllable words to tell me why Einstein and all physicists are wrong about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I'm sure with such a distinguished group of evolutionists as this I will be enlightned with more than "I'm stupid for asking".And I would like to thank the administrator for pointing out that I was being to sensitive because it dawned on me that I am in pretty good company if Einstein, Huxley and most physicists are wrong also.

Well help me understand your position. Is the Second Law correct or not? I'm sure I'm stupid for asking this question but humor me.