If there were a giant dinosaur bird running around today there would be a white person wanting to have sex with it. Most likely it would be a Canadian.
I have read the book from cover to cover. Perhaps you should stick to what you know instead of making faulty assumptions, like many in the scientific world do.
You must have learned English in the last 5 minutes . . . Exactly. Which means at any given time, science can be wrong. Science, however, seldom proceeds accordingly, admitting that everything is just theory until it can be proven. Instead, it advances its ideas as if they are fact, and the media generally swallows whatever they say. There are so many examples of this that it would take too much time to list them all . . . You know nothing about me, and apparently very little about religion. Admitting that you are "wrong," at least in Christianity, is a very common practice, and something to be emulated. Indeed, confessing one's sins and asking forgiveness is part of the Christian creed. Gee, I'm sorry. Maybe you should take a look at your own posts.
It is not necessarily contradictory that humans have neanderthal dna but neanderthals don't have human dna. Maybe it's just the white women who slept with the neanderthals. White men weren't so interested in Raymond Felton. barfo
That's it? Because a bird has features similar to a dinosaur, it must have evolved from a dinosaur? Why is it not just as likely that the two species happen to share some common features needed for survival? "Jaws with sharp teeth?" "Fingers with claws?" Are you kidding me? ANY creature might benefit from having those characteristics, yet they are not evidence that one evolved from the other.
It's basically the same idea with "white" people and "black" people. Let's look at P. Obama as an example. His mother was white and his father was black. And yet Obama looks black. In this example the white is neanderthal and the black is homo sapien/erectus/whatever.
Well not everything is a theory. There are also Theories that are not really theories (note the capitalization). For example the Theory of Relativity is accurate for all things not in the quantum level. Would you agree that all matter is attracted to other matter, and call this gravity? Is this not a fact? If you are arguing that particle physics is not completely known, or that the half life of carbon dating is not accurate that is very different than saying "science is not very accurate." That's like saying all NBA players are bad because the Clippers are bad.
I'll take it a step further. Science, at any given time, is ALWAYS wrong, if you're looking for eternal truth. Because science is not about truth. It's about the most useful models to allow us to function in the universe (make medicines, televisions, rockets, etc). It's inconceivable that any current model is the ultimate truth about the universe. That's not what science is about. Science admits that everything is just an empirical model. Further, nothing outside of mathematics (or linguistics, computer science or other human-created systems) can be proven. I'm not mean. I'm charmingly wry.
Well, I don't want to debate you on whether birds really evolved from dinosaurs because you clearly know your stuff and put forth a rebuttal far too technical for me to respond to. However, I wasn't really arguing whether birds did or did not evolve from dinosaurs. I was pointing out that you were wrong about whether the scientific community mainstream has debunked or changed their belief about that.
Not sure. I do know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, however. I heard that in a science class once, so it must be true.
Seriously Shooter who cares if people have different believes than you do. I know that some people who go by the bible believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't agree with that but it doesn't bother me a bit that they do.
well, I do know that the earth is 6000 or so years old. I heard that in my church, so it must be true.
The Bible lists the great men and their ages. X begot Y, from whom was born Z. The ages are given in years? Or months? I forget. When I was a kid, I learned that the time unit used then may have used the same word as now (years or months), but the terms meant much longer durations. A month then may have meant a year now. Like dog years. So when the Bible says Methusaleh lived 762 years or whatever it was, he really lived 10 or 100 times as long. When you add up the years and it comes to 6000, the Bible's history of generations really goes back to whenever the first human was (e.g. 4 million years ago, when the article says we started to walk). That's how they explained it when I was little. If it was good enough for us, it's good enough for all you young punks. Everyone's getting bored because we haven't started a war lately. Busy hands stay out of trouble.
