Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin


Carbon dating isn't reliable either.

Eric Greening
-----Original Message-----
From: Serial <Serial@earthlink.net>
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin


>
>well. Based on the first paintings at lascox painted by early nomadic
>peoples which are the first ones showing actual intelligence in the form of
>art and independent thinking, They drew food in the caves. and horses and
>bulls. Their skelletons are pretty damn similar to ours today. There pretty
>close maybe they can be called the real cave men. =] They carbon dated the
>skelletons to 35 thousand years old.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Eric Greening <littlbit@txcyber.com>
>To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 6:42 PM
>Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>
>
>>
>> based on evolution
>>
>> Eric Greening
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Serial <Serial@earthlink.net>
>> To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>> Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 2:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>>
>>
>> >
>> >humans are a little over 35 thousand years old.
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: Eric Greening <littlbit@txcyber.com>
>> >To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>> >Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 4:18 PM
>> >Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Evolution supports that the world is over billions of years old but,
>what
>> >if
>> >> it were only say 5000 years old?  Then there is no way evolution could
>> >have
>> >> happened in that short amount of time.  Now, I'm going to completely
>drop
>> >> this subject, seeing that this is an assembly-89 list. Not a religion
>> >list.
>> >> Sorry for the off-topic posts.
>> >>
>> >> Eric Greening
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: David Martin <davediego@geocities.com>
>> >> To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>> >> Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 1:41 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: A89: Re: OT: darwin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >turbosoft, i remember u asking what "caused" something to grow an
eye,
>> >well
>> >> if
>> >> >the little microorganism kept swimmnig into the superheated water
>cause
>> >it
>> >> >couldnt tell wtf it was doing or going, dont u think that something
>that
>> >> could
>> >> >even remotely tell what it was doing would live longer? i sure as
hell
>> >do,
>> >> and
>> >> >all these little advancements built up over BILLIONS of years, ur
>> >> forgetting
>> >> >just how long the earth has been around, thats how evolution is sound
>> >> >
>> >> >TurboSoft@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In a message dated 12/10/99 10:56:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> >> >> AzNgUy66@aol.com writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > and i was just wondering.....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >  when has evolution been disproven?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> what l mean is how the parts of "evidence" "supporting" evolution
>has
>> >> been
>> >> >> disproven.  Neither creation or evolution fit into the scientific
>> >method,
>> >> >> anyway.  But even still, you must look at evidence supporting
either
>> >one.
>> >> >> Neanderthal man, Giraffes stretching their necks, etc. are still
>> taught
>> >> as
>> >> >> fact in some textbooks, and even a few random museums probably.  As
>> >many
>> >> >> things, such as ape-man skulls and stuff are disproven (ususally
>turn
>> >out
>> >> to
>> >> >> be an ape jaw attached to a human skull or whatever), there is an
>> >> increasing
>> >> >> amount of evidence for creation coming out in more recent years.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --TurboSoft
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Visit the TURBOSOFT HOMEPAGE:  The most current Basic and C
programs
>> >> created
>> >> >> by TurboSoft for the 89, and the most 89 web links.
>> >> >> <A
>> HREF="http://turbosoft.ticalc.org/">http://turbosoft.ticalc.org/</A>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups: