One of the Marx Bros.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Yes Ralph,Ralph B_rg said:Ken Brunt said:
I gotta couple extra paint brushes..........your welcome to join the fun........;)PS…Ralph, your last name shows up here as B _ R G …is this a computer glitch or are you making some kind of statement?
No.
I googled my name one day and had to wade through a ton of LSC posts. So I’m trying to see if this will keep it from expanding.
For those that don’t remember, it is an “E”
Ralph
If you don’t want to wade you could read this to get a better understanding.And then this to dig in the evolution of the Net. I know, I know, Al Gore created the Internet, there was no evolution!
HJ,
I’ve read all about it. I know about Web crawlers, meta tags etc.
I have a web-site for a small business I’ve been working on.
It shows up on Google and MSN Search. Does not show up on Yahoo search.
So I tried a little experiment.
Why all the inuendo?
For the record, I am squeeky clean. Never been arrested. Perfect driving record for over 30 years.
I can vote, legaly posses and own firearms.
I’ve never been accused of a crime.
If it were not for running my mouth here on LSC, I would be the perfect political candidate. Because there is no dirt.
If you have some reason to believe otherwise, please produce it.
Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
Nice try David.But, you still have not answered the question:
Just who were those forebears and where did they come from?
If you don’t want to answer or simply cannot, no problem.
I do not understand your question.
Yes Joe.
But which one?
Is this with whom you agree? “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes” Karl Marx
Deleted
What interest? It sounded as if you offered it as a way to disparage those of faith. If that is not accurate, all I can say it that was how it appeared.
I still do not know what your question was that you say I did not answer for you.
Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of “living fossils,” where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
- wholesale change of organisms through time
- primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly’s aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
Ralph,
Getting your website up in the rankings is like doing research on anything else: on a wing and a prayer won’t cut it! You have to do the reading and then the work.
BTW none of my business how squeeky clean you are, I just go on what you contribute here. 
Bob McCown said:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/photo3.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/
A flounder has no eye on one side of its body.
Are we related to a Flounder?
Again, these pictures are indeed possibilities. They still offer no definative proof. This is still speculation.
Show me proof of the big natural “accident” that started the chain.
Humans evolve. We are now taller than we were just a few generations ago.
Anything beyond Homo Erectus is subject to debate. A hand full of fossils covering 3.5 million years is not enough.
Come up with a DNA link and it advances beyond speculation.
Ralph
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,BTW none of my business how squeeky clean you are, I just go on what you contribute here.
Well HJ,
Running my mouth on LSC is my “dirt”.
I don’t see anything I contribute here that justified the inuendo.
Ralph
Right Ralph, as is seeing/perceiving innuendo when there is none.
On the rest of this discussion … hmmmmm … how about this for a solution?
Some have evolved
AND
some have been created.
No need to explain evolved, is there?
On created: many things are created, then they are improved i.e. they evolve.
TonyWalsham said:
[b]"Genesis 1:27 & 2:22 alleges the creation of two human beings — Adam and Eve.In Genesis 4:1,2 we are told that the couple had two children — Cane and Abel. Cane kills Abel and is driven out of Eden.
In Genesis 4:16 Cane ends up in Nod on the east of Eden where he meets his ladylove. She conceives and, according to Genesis 4:17-22, begat Enoch who begat Irad who begat Mehujael who begat Methusael who begat Lamech and so on ad nauseam. Interestingly all the descendants’ names are recorded but not that of Cane’s wife.
Accurate history? As there is no mention in the Bible of God creating human beings other than Adam and Eve, doesn’t this brief account imply that other beings existed (specifically Cane’s wife and her forebears) at the time God allegedly created the first humans? * [/b]
Would anyone care to reply to this interesting hypothesis?
Just who were those forebears and where did they come from?
Genesis 1:27 does not necessarily refer to Adam and Eve. They were created after the creation of Eden, as described in 2:22. I take this to mean that God created people as well as all the other animals. When this was up and running, he created Eden and then created his special people, namely Adam and Eve. This would explain why Cain was able to go out into the land of Nod and find a wife.
I think also, but I’m no bible scholar, that A&E begat Seth as well as Cain and Abel.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:HJ, If I was being paranoid...why didn't you just say so? I perceived it as such, others may as well. I've had a lot of experience lately......saying one thing and it being perceived otherwise. This time maybe the shoe is on my foot. Ralph
Right Ralph, as is seeing/perceiving innuendo when there is none.
TonyWalsham said:Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
SNIP Tony,The quote has been translated a few times and the mileage differs.
Well it was written in German, so that should explain the variances.C’mon y’all, put on your thinking caps.
Or you can take the easy way out and Google it?
Was it one of the Marx brothers?
Bob McCown said:That is a start. Any DNA sample from the past helps. But even this was contaminated with human DNA. Decisions are made in the process that are subject to error. Ralph
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02nean.html
I mistated what the DNA evidence suggested and removed it.Sorry for the error
Deleted