Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neanderthals
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 159 (53146)
09-01-2003 1:54 AM


Where are they now?
Can someone explain to me why none of the "in between" species of the whole "monkey to man" thing, exist today? Why do we have monkey's, and humans.... Yet evolutionists believe there were a whole bunch of other species in between "evolving" to where we are today. How is it that non of them survived? If we come from monkeys.... It's odd that they still exist, but none of the other half-man/half-monkey things in between are around.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Karl, posted 09-01-2003 7:24 AM rabair has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 09-01-2003 8:25 AM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 159 (53240)
09-01-2003 2:24 PM


Where are they now (again)?
Okay, I posted this in the Neanderthal thread, which I got 2 mumbo jumbo replies to before the thread was closed. Can someone please tell me where all the species between monkey and man, are today. How is it that monkey's are around, and men are around, yet there aren't species of hunched over nuckle dragging guys around. Where are like the previous 2 or 3 versions of man? I find it hard to believe that they would somehow go extinct completely. Don't give me this "we didn't come from extant", or whatever. If you have a real answer, tell me why none of them are here today.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 09-01-2003 4:20 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 159 (53270)
09-01-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
09-01-2003 4:20 PM


Re: Where are they now (again)?
sorry admin, I had posted that message in a different category when I thought the neanderthal thread had closed completely, and when I was informed that it had just moved, I just copied my message from the other thread and placed it here. When I said "mumbo jumbo" I wa talking about the 2 replies I'd gotten in the original neanderthal thread, which didn't give me any real answer to why the other species died, not directed at the closing of the thread. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 09-01-2003 4:20 PM Admin has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 159 (53273)
09-01-2003 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
09-01-2003 2:25 PM


But why did they die?
You aren't explaining what caused us to survive, and them to die? I mean, being that the evolutionist view is that it was such a gradual evolution from monkey, the couple previous "versions" of "man", or very similar to us... So being that there were only slight differences, why did they not survive along side of us. I mean, yeah there are some people with bad posture, and shorter arms than legs.... But there should be many. And I don't understand why if the basic apes could survive extinction, why is it they (the apes) and us are the only ones to survive? That just doesn't make any sense. Also, I am under the impression evolutionist belief is that we took our current form or whatever like a million years ago. Really? A million years? And it took until the past couple thousand for advancements like building shelters, then towns, and governing towns, and boats, and traveling and starting new countries and technology. Why is it if the world is so old, that almost everything has happen just in the recent thousands of years? I seed that the technological and scientific advancement get bigger and more every year.... But it seems hard to believe that for hundreds of thousands of years, there wasn't much going on other than just layin around in the jungle not doing much of anything to advance life/technology/whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 09-01-2003 2:25 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 4:55 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 20 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 5:41 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 46 by John, posted 09-01-2003 10:16 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 159 (53288)
09-01-2003 5:58 PM


evidence?
Why are none of you giving me evidence? Cashfrog, what is this? You're just guessing it sounds like... "That would be natural selection. Either we were sufficiently adapted and they were not, or else we were just lucky." And this "After all, without language, everything you know dies with you", is probably the lamest thing I've heard if I'm reading it right. Not to mention, based on what you say, how could we have ever evolved if our ancestors just all died off? There wouldn't be man at all by your logic. I don't understand how we develop a "complex, sybolic language" things took off.... You basically say that the ancestors just kept dying off without such a language, how would they devolope one when they're dead. I'm just baffaled because I don't understand how you could use that as an answer. I could see if you stated it as if it was a guess, but you portray it as fact, but if you actually read it, it's basically your guess.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 159 (53289)
09-01-2003 6:07 PM


now, dc85
hey, dc85.... I don't know why you think that I think you don't think humans are special. To be honest, if you've been in this discussion, I haven't read it, I just got on here yesterday, and they moved the neanderthal thread to here. So I don't think anything in particular about any of you. I didn't read anything else, I just want to read people's answers to my questions... Anyway you're missing the point. I'm not saying there would have been cities millions of years ago... But the common evolutionist belief (from what I hear) is basically that we've taken our current form for like a million years... But what, it took over 990,000 years to do anything? And to begin recording history? And you haven't really addressed the issue about neanderthals. The point is, if you look at that ridiculous evolution pictures starting with monkey and going to man... Well the previous couple species before today's man, were still very similar... Why did they not stick around. I mean, there are a couple random people today that bear a resemblance out of bad posture and longer arms (caused by genes), by why aren't there a whole species of them in un-civilized areas in the world? If the last 1 or 2 variations of man were so much like us, why wouldn't they just live along side us? Please provide evidence if you want to answer me, because I don't want to discuss opinions. I just posed a question. If you feel that you have proof of things, then I'm interested....
you seem to think that we don't think Humans are spacial. that is completely the Opposite. I think Humans are amazing animals(yes animals) our family tree is the first to Evolve this form of intelligence (that we know of) so Of course there couldn't be cities a million years ago we where still a new species (not our exact species) and Our numbers where so low we had a hard time finding creatures of our on species. so how do you expect them to advance as fast as we are now? as For why
Neanderthals aren't alive with us today. couldn't it simply be them competing with us for food space etc.. and we won? it could have very well turned out the other way but it didn't

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DC85, posted 09-01-2003 7:05 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 159 (53300)
09-01-2003 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 6:08 PM


Re: evidence?
Well, crash, that clarified what you were saying a little more. Now that you used the word "individual" it makes a little more sense. But you still didn't address what I was mainly referring to with the evidence. Your first reply to my first post was just complete guessing. I mean you straight up gave 2 options for something in your first line which I provided as an example last time. You state:
"That would be natural selection. Either we were sufficiently adapted and they were not, or else we were just lucky." How can you be acting like what you're saying is fact, when you are leaving multiple choice statements? But the main point is that no one is really explaining why the closest to man "versions" of today's man are completely gone. I mean, because we baked bread differently 1000 years ago, it doesn't mean that any advancements to where we are today can't be done. Because we make bread a certain way now, doesn't mean that we can only make it the original first way it was made, or the current way... But none of the ways in between. That is about how stupid what you've said about why any of the in between monkey and man species exist. If all of our previously evolved forms died off, why not the monkey's too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 7:27 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 159 (53313)
09-01-2003 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 7:27 PM


pointless
Well, crash, it's clearly pointless to discuss this with you, so I guess I'm probably done here.... It's funny how you're saying "it doesn't matter why" and stuff like that.... I don't know why you ever chose to reply in the first place, because that was what my question was. If you just want to ramble then ramble. My question was why they supposedly all went extinct. You chose not to answer it, but to reply, with totally different things. And it's not like it's fact that there were all these species. You may think so, but it's strange that there aren't thousands, or millions of skeletal remains from all these levels of man evolving. I'm sure you'll "guess" at why it is that there aren't tons of more remains, but it's funny how everything with the theory of evolution seems to be guessing and chance.... and I thank you for stating that in your last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 7:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 9:55 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 159 (53357)
09-01-2003 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
09-01-2003 9:55 PM


dodging
You must be a democrat, because you refuse to adress the main issue still. I'm not going to retort all of the stuff in your last post, simply because I don't have time to keep doing this... But the main issue is that if the previous versions of man were so much like us, with just slight differences (hunched a little, and longer arms/torso, whatever), why are they not still running around. I mean, with just minor things, they wouldn't have gone extinct because they are enough like us that they would still be right here with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 9:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2003 10:18 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 48 by John, posted 09-01-2003 10:19 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 52 by Pogo, posted 09-02-2003 3:19 PM rabair has replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 159 (53532)
09-02-2003 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Pogo
09-02-2003 3:19 PM


Re: dodging
Okay, first of all pogo... Lighten up... That democrat comment was clearly just a little joke to everyone but you.... Second of all, you are probably the BIGGEST out of all the hypocrites on this site. I don't like to call names like the few angry people from your side generally do, but how can you be so dumb as to to tell me that I am labeling people. When about 60% of your post is talking about me reading the bible or "books/tracts/sites written by people that attempt ot explain it way"..... And you go on to talk about Jesus, blah blah blah..... I usually don't get angry on here, but I am a bit now....... But please tell me one time I've ever talked about my religion or given points of view from any bible or religious source... I mean I can't put into words how ridiculously obvious it is how angry you are with Christianity and religion (for what reason I don't know), that for some reason you decide to imply that anything I've said has anything to do with it. Maybe if you actually read my posts... I've done exactly what you're trying to TELL me I should do. I've just asked questions, and I've barely given any contradictory opinions, I've just wanted straight answers if anyone wants to give them. It's funny to me how in many debates such as this, it is the non-believers, that tend to bring religion in and blame others for using it as a crutch, when infact it was previously not mentioned. Priceless Pogo. Not to mention Pogo, my main point that has been evident from my first post, isn't anything that I've heard argued, or seen anwhere else. It was just something I thought of over the past year, and no one has ever given me a real answer without "maybes" or "it could have been thats".... Whatever, maybe when you actually react to things I've said you should post again Pogo, instead of asserting that I'm a Jesus Freak with NOT ONE drop of evidence to show that in anything I've written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Pogo, posted 09-02-2003 3:19 PM Pogo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 6:07 PM rabair has replied
 Message 56 by Pogo, posted 09-02-2003 7:22 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 159 (53555)
09-02-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
09-02-2003 6:07 PM


Re: dodging
The difference is, recorded history as we know it, may not be 100% correct... But it's far from a guess, as is what you imply you are doing when you say "maybe" or "it could have been that"..... Recorded history may be only 99% correct, or even 50% (but probably more like in the 90s), but still, it is more fact than it is theory, because while we may not have observed it, it was observed and recorded. But to base stuff on "maybe"s is sketchy at best. Let me just point out one thing. Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds thought the world was flat? And it was the radicals who believed otherwise and turned out right? I'm sure most of you know that this has happened with many things throughout "recorded history"... The people thought to be the smartest and everything, turn out to be completely proven wrong by the "radicals." Just something to chew on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 6:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2003 7:28 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 58 by docpotato, posted 09-02-2003 7:32 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 159 (53610)
09-02-2003 11:41 PM


here we go...
Again you people with the bible references. Again, I point out how non-believers like to bring religion into the debate, and blame others for using it for there history book. (I'm referring to where you say "They certainly didn't look it up in a 3000-year-old book...."
Let me just side track to Pogo for a minute. I never said I'm not a Christian and that I don't believe The Bible. My point was your post paints me as using that for my basis of what I've said and it clearly has not for even one word in any of my posts. I'm not angry at religion or christianity, I still submit that you have issue with it because you pulled it out of thin air to start arguing against. I think it's clear that you have an issue with something when you argue against it when it isn't even there.
Anyway, crash you aren't as bad about bringing religion in and trying to put it on me, I just wanted to adress Pogo there.... but you did mention the bible in this post (whether you say it's name or not, you know that's what you referred to)
But aside from that, you go on to say that basically it doesn't matter if you guess at how something happened if you know it happened (extinction of neanderthals and such.)... Well, I have to take issue with that, because I don't believe you can really know that something happened for a fact, without knowing how it happened. Let me give a simple example. If you tell a 5 year old, who doesn't know any math, that 13 X 5 = 65. He can be like "okay", but he doesn't actually "know" that to be true. He was just told. He can't actually "know" that it's true unless he can see how/why it's true. He would need to understand multiplication, and maybe lay out in simple form for proof 13+13+13+13+13. Then you can say, oh, that is 13, 5 times.... So that makes 65. That's why 13 X 5 = 65. You see, you need to show how/why things happened to show definitively that they happened. Anyway, that's my opinion on why I feel that the "why"s and "how"s are extremely relevant.
Now back to Pogo
Number one, you feel warranted in your immaturity because of my "acidic attitude." I didn't start out with any attitude until you came along. I was having a discussion and seeking certain responses from people here, and it has been a journey trying to get straight answers. But you come along as I said, you side tends to do, and bring religion into a place it wasn't, and doesn't neccessarily belong, and try to put it on someone else. And I know, you acknowledged you shouldn't have done that, but then you lie and say your post only had one sentence to do with religion or whatever. Number one there are actually 2 sentences... One you mention "bible" the other "jesus christ. And the one which mentions the bible is like most of your first paragraph, and runs on and ties everything from the first paragraph together. It is your subject sentence.
Now, you want to know how you're a hypocrite? I think I made it pretty clear... But here it is again... And this ties into the above. You originally responded to my post in which I made that "democrat joke", that again I point out, everyone else just ignored cuz it was clearly just a little joke... But in that post, you repremand me by saying "labels are just pointless.... blah blah blah"..... When you then go on to basically call me a bible toter. And that brings me to another thing, I know you didn't use the phrase "Jesus Freak", but when you base your arguments against me by basically saying it's all religously based, it's clear that's basically what you're getting at. Anyway, back to you hypocracy.. You want to condemn my labeling (which again wasn't really labeling, I just made a joke).... Yet you want to label me with religion, and with absolutely no evidence of that. 1-2-3-Hypocrite. Pretty simple. Let me just point out... It isn't all christians, or even just religious people in general that oppose the idea of Evolution. You notice this site isn't called "religion versus evolution". Just something to think about...... But then again, speaking of opposing, you say that is what I've been doing here. Again, you are in a sense labeling me by saying that, because if you actually read, I really haven't opposed evolution, I have just pressed for answers from the evolution side. I have done very little on "opposing" evolution. I think that's very evident if you aren't blinded and close-minded coming on here. You can't really be taken seriously after your first post because you came in making total assumptions.
Now, Pogo, as I review your last post, I see that you may not buy my 13 X 5 analogy above... because it's math, and that is one of the few things that you say is an absolute. Well how about this. If there are 3 people. 2 are a man and woman who live in one cabin in the woods. One (another woman) lives in another cabin next door, and they're the only ones around. Now, if the woman of the couple is pregnant, and she tells the woman who lives alone one day, but she doesn't tell the man she lives with. So now, the woman who lives next door knows, and the man who lives with the pregnant woman doesn't. But that day the man is talking to the neighbor woman, and she tells him that the woman he lives with is pregnant. Now, when he tells the woman he lives with that he knows she's pregnant, the pregnant woman KNOWS (doesn't think "maybe"), but KNOWS that he talked to the neighbor. Again, she can only be certain because the they are the only 3 around so he must have heard it from the neighbor. If you want, pretend they are locked in one big cage on an island, so you can't think maybe someone snuck in and overheard a conversation and blah blah blah, implying uncertainty. The point is, absolutes do exist. Tempurate is an absolute. The fact that I see that my kitchen light is on is an absolute. I don't think I need to explain "WHY" or "HOW" I know that, but I do. How about this, I'm looking at my parakeet right now. He has wings. Are you telling me that isn't an absolute because it isn't math? I think I've made my point......

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 12:27 AM rabair has replied
 Message 87 by Pogo, posted 09-04-2003 9:44 PM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 159 (53622)
09-03-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
09-03-2003 12:27 AM


interesting take...
that's an interesting thought (not sarcasm, seriously), and does seem to argue what I was saying at first glance.... But if you think deeply enough about it, it's totally different. Because while yes you DO know it's broken, but don't konw exactly how.... But, you don't know that one of the two kids broke it. It could have been when you slammed the door when you left, or perhaps thunder shook the house. So you can't look at it as just "broken" there is uncertainty about whether "it was broken carelessly" or was "unaturally broken". So I'm not calling you wrong crash... I'm just saying there's another way to look at it, and if you look at it like that... I know it seems to just side with you, but if that's all you get out of it nevermind, but the point I was making in my other post was that you can be certain of things. Pogo said that math is the only thing that is absolute. And I was simply saying that isn't the case... As I showed with those examples in that post.... Actually wait, THIS JUST IN..... In thinking about your example of the broken teapot, I have something very important to say... It is what I was trying to get at kinda before, but I lost my train of thought.... Anyway.... You DO know the teapot is broken. I seed that. But! You are prepared to say that it was because one of the kids broke it. If you were writing the history of the teapot, you would say "clearly one of the 2 kids broke the teapot".... But as I stated above.... Not neccessarily... could be a very small earthquake only felt for a couple seconds in an isolated area, easily could have been thunder, could have been a slamming door.... So your version of history isn't fact. Besides it's not the same as saying something as huge as extinction took place, but having no absolute "how's or why's" for it. I mean, at least in your example you've got a pretty good shot.... But with evolution, you're talking about things that happened millions of years ago.... Again, I'm not saying you don't make a reasonable point, but I don't really buy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 12:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 09-03-2003 1:40 AM rabair has replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 10:31 AM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 159 (53630)
09-03-2003 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by roxrkool
09-03-2003 1:40 AM


Re: interesting take...
point taken roxrkool, but if you notice I pointed out that it seems to argue crashes point, but you need to think of it in a different way. I was basically saying that instead of looking at the teabot has "having gotten broken", you could look at it that way or "getting broken by something unavoidable." So the statement that the teapot "got broken." Isn't as true as it's face value, it could have just gotten broken by thunder knocking it to the floor. So you can't look at it as "it was broken." I don't know, I guess you don't get it, and it makes me dizzy trying to explain... But back to the issue (away from teapots for the moment)..... Number one I'm not talking about just neanderthals, I'm referring to the whole monkey to man spectrum of species of man. I see very little evidence that they existed in mass. I don't think anyone denies microevolution, such as longer necks, etc. But when you have very few skeletal remains of all these different eras, it's hard to believe that that was the way all "man" used to look. I mean, we have deformed people today too. I mean, have you ever seen the guy they call "Beatle Juice" on Howard Stern. LOL, imagine his skeleton being discovered one day. But off the topic for a minute.... Have you heard of that very seemingly Plesiosaur carcass that japanese fishermen caught off of New Zealand? It doesn't get addressed by those believing in evolution, because it's contradictory to the evolutionary "science." I mean, it was a carcass, not bones... It hadn't been dead for that long... Certainly not millions of years, not by a long shot. And if you're a true evolutionist, I'm sure you'll try to say it's a basking shark, but those who've seen it and if you yourself look at the pictures, it's pretty clear that it bears an incredible resemblance to the Plesiosaur, and not nearly as much to a basking shark. It's just another thing that calls into question the age of the planet because what get's called scientific fact isn't always the case. Another example of this might be that a lot of people, infact most people in the general public, are under the belief that Global Warming is a factual thing. When actually that's not true at all. It's not to saying Global Warming isn't real, but it's certainly not fact, but most people don't know this... I don't know what to tell you, I just don't feel that there's enough evidence that we evolved from apes, I just don't see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 09-03-2003 1:40 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 10:38 AM rabair has not replied
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 09-03-2003 11:05 AM rabair has not replied
 Message 68 by John, posted 09-03-2003 11:11 AM rabair has not replied

  
rabair
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 159 (53728)
09-03-2003 3:53 PM


real but not fact.... what are you children.
Don't take things out of context and try to say something I didn't say. I was simply saying that we don't know if if Global Warming will one day be proven to be real... So NO, I won't say it's not real, but it is certainly not fact, which is how it is passed off. I'm not saying it is REAL, but I'm not going to say it isn't either, there just isn't enough information to prove either way. Therefore I stand by my statement.... Here's how the sentence was written:
"... Another example of this might be that a lot of people, infact most people in the general public, are under the belief that Global Warming is a factual thing. When actually that's not true at all. It's not to saying Global Warming isn't real, but it's certainly not fact, but most people don't know this..."
Now, as smart as all of you scientist types who know all about everything that happened millions of years ago are, I think you'd be able to figure out what that means. I mean do I have to spell it out like you're childredn? I'm not saying it's not real or is real. There isn't enough evidence to say... But overall the general public has been led to believe it is fact. Which calling it "fact" is far from the truth.
Now, about the Plesiosaur... I have known of the Plesiosaur finding for a number of years now, and it's difficult to find an un-biased article or web page or anything about it. MOST, lean towards the "basking shark" theory. However, you make the claim that DNA tests were done to prove this... But I don't see that anywhere nor have I even once. It's easy for you to say things like this because here amongst your friends you can all make blanket statements and hope they won't get argued. And if they do, then you all jump to another explanation. More and more guessing. Then your friend goes on to mention some bologna about amino acids, but doesn't point out the rest of the findings.... The scientist giving these findings also finds them to be inconclusive, but I guess we'll take this other guys word for it because he read it on a biased web site somewhere, so he's much more of an expert than the scientists who actually studied it. Not to mention the carcass
s defined spinal column, lack of a dorsal fin, and it's not like it juste had a skull... It has a small HEAD. An actual head, not just a skull that could compare with a shark. If it were infact a basking shark.... Would your experts not have just compared the bones and said, there it is, it's a shark? Why wasn't that done to prove you right. Not to mention... because it's amino acids "match" that of a shark, who's to say they don't match that of a Plesiosaur? Have you tested another Plesiosaur to find out. Again, you "Conclude", when infact you haven't proven.
Now the difference with the teapot and evoloution: The teapot is something that you can prove happened so it's really a totally different case than evolution anyway. I tried to go with you on it... But it's really not relevant. I'll go back again, and mention my only point with my, I think, 4 examples was that there are absolutes outside of math, which someone tried to say wasn't true. Someone, said there weren't absolutes except in math, and I said I can see that my kitchen light is on.... and so on. But again, teapots and evolution are different. My point was you needed to show how/why evolution happened in order to show that it did infact happen. And I say, sure you don't need that "how/why" for the teapot, I'll give you that. But teapots are a lot different then extinct species of pre-historic man. Something like this, with little evidence towards the actual occurance, needs that supporting evidence to prove it even happened. And the fact that everything you have is an absolute guess.... That doesn't cut it for people who don't just drink your cool aid.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by zephyr, posted 09-03-2003 4:55 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 72 by Zhimbo, posted 09-03-2003 5:20 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 09-03-2003 6:03 PM rabair has not replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2003 7:21 PM rabair has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024