animal questions for christians

Originally posted by stellspalfie
they did find a fossilized laptop and tinfoil hats trapped in amber and simple markings scratched onto the walls that is thought to be the earliest signs of cave man trolling.

LOL

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you go to the BBC website that i cited, you will see a physically engineered and
fictional depiction of a caveman and women. Empirical means that which can be
observed, you have not observed such a being, they have not determined that it
walked upright, they have stated that Lucy was the first upright ape, unobserved,
they have given the ...[text shortened]... r not, but dont expect others to buy into your empirical
science when its nothing of the sort.

no, empirical means to be observed or deduced through experimentation. ive not argued for or against the actual truth about the examples you have given. im not saying if we have or havent evolved from the homo-group. all im saying is their are artifacts that have been discovered that by using different scientific methods which include 'observing' behavior patterns of apes and humans, 'observing' found bones, 'observing' the mechanics of these bones when reconstructed through computer programs cross referencing this with 'observed' behavior of similar existing bio-mechanics and carrying out numerous other experiments and observations to formulate a theory.............this could still make them completely wrong and million miles from the truth....but it makes their theories empirical.

going back to goosebumps, i can 'observe' that we have goosebumps, i can look around for other examples of goosebumps and 'observe' that lots of other animals have goosebumps, i can 'observe' that that the majority of them are hairy animals. i can 'experiment' to see what the connection is to hair and goosebumps. i could then formulate a theory that says we had goosebumps because we used to be hairy. i dont actually have to observe a hairy human for this to be empirical. my theory could be wrong, it would still be empirical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dont know, dont care, i have proved my point, the BBC are utilising engineered images to depict fictional beings, trundle trundle.

Don't know, don't care? What a cop out.

If cavemen are just a work of fiction who was using these caves for thousands of years?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Don't know, don't care? What a cop out.

If cavemen are just a work of fiction who was using these caves for thousands of years?

Are you going attempt an answer here or just going to disappear?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you going attempt an answer here or just going to disappear?

disappear? i have established my point, my work is done here, the BBC are clearly
guilty of hosting images of fictional creatures.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
disappear? i have established my point, my work is done here, the BBC are clearly
guilty of hosting images of fictional creatures.

im not sure exactly what you are saying. do you think the specific examples used by the bbc are fake or that the findings are misunderstood?

have a quick look at this human family tree.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

do you think they are all fake or that they existed but are unrelated to humans?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
disappear? i have established my point, my work is done here, the BBC are clearly
guilty of hosting images of fictional creatures.

You did no such thing, you made a statement to which i responded and then as per usual you haven't bothered to reply to the points i made. If you think stating a phrase twice and then refusing to answer any questions about your statement is 'establishing your point' then yes, that is what you've done.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im not sure exactly what you are saying. do you think the specific examples used by the bbc are fake or that the findings are misunderstood?

have a quick look at this human family tree.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

do you think they are all fake or that they existed but are unrelated to humans?

Just so you know, Robbie believes in a old earth interpretation of the Genesis creation account. He thinks Adam and Eve existed and that they did so about 6,000 years ago, so therefore humanity has only been on this planet for a few thousand years, hence his staunch refusal to accept anything about cavemen or human evolution.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Just so you know, Robbie believes in a old earth interpretation of the Genesis creation account. He thinks Adam and Eve existed and that they did so about 6,000 years ago, so therefore humanity has only been on this planet for a few thousand years, hence his staunch refusal to accept anything about cavemen or human evolution.

i thought that was the case. im trying to figure out if he thinks scientists have faked the findings or have misunderstood what they have found or if he thinks satan created them.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i thought that was the case. im trying to figure out if he thinks scientists have faked the findings or have misunderstood what they have found or if he thinks satan created them.

It's my view after debating him for many years now on this forum that he knows it's all true, deep down inside somewhere anyhow, he'll never admit it though. He's a man who's never read any material on the subject and who openly admits he never will, he even admitted on this forum that he is 'closed minded and ignorant' with regard to any science which contradicts his religious beliefs. If you're so sure of your position you'd happily read material which contradicts your worldview, Robbie doesn't, and that says it all.