Why does evolutionary science seem to be

Disproving the bible is a very different thing from disproving Christianity. The bible does not need to be literal and inerrant for Christianity to be true. Which is just as well as anyone supporting biblical inerrancy is fighting a losing battle. The story of Jesus does not require orginal sin. Only that humans are incapable of living sin-free lives. Jesus dies then for our sins, not for the sins of some couple who commited a minor transgression six thousand years ago. What kind of justice is it that means we are to punished for their sins anyway? That would be like jailing the children (and grand-children) of convicted thieves for their fathers (or grandfathers) crimes.

No. And No.For the first I imagine you are misinterpreting the mitochondrial eve research. This shows we all have one common female ancestor, not that she was the only woman alive at that time.We are 'kin' to the Neanderthal, although we do not seem to be directly descended from them.

Dude, leave out the unfounded accusations.I would have said, for example, that scottish wild cats and domestic cats were 'kin'. Using kin in the same sort of way it is used to describe related family member in human geneaolgy. You are correct with your definition of 'kin', I am correct with mine - no smoke and mirrors, just a difference of terminology. No, I didn't. Your statement implied there was only one couple that all humans descended from (I assume where you said 'woman and woman' you meant 'woman an man'?). This is false. All humans do indeed share one (most recent) common female ancestor and one (most recent) common male ancestor. But these two were not a couple; indeed they were seperated by some (IIRC) 70,000 years! There was not one female ancestor at the time of the common ancestor, although those other ancestors' mitochondrial DNA was not passed on this is absolutely not to say that all their DNA was lost (only that it passed through all male lines on the way).I'm concentrating, incidently, on the female side because I'm not sure how the common male ancestor is determined.

Of course! I feel rather silly now...[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 02-13-2004]

Dude,You quoted Paul and attributed it to me, I'll not expand on his answer above. I said Neanderthals were kin to us, not orang-utans. They made tools and buried their dead, apparently with some ritual - that seems pretty 'kin' to me.

I do not consider the Bible to be a history book of any sort. The bible was written many thousands of years after the Neanderthals became extinct, and there is no real evidence for Neanderthals having interbred with Cro Magnon man, so no, I don't think so.

---

"You're Green, You're Ugly and the Gods Hate You."

Because we know them from skeletons? It's not exactly hard to work out all tall someone, or something, was from its skeleton.

There's a Chinese saying which is something like:"The mark of true knowledge is to understand how little you know."