[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That's a touchy subject that usually leads to ridicule around here (ie. "No, you didn't see that, you're making it up" and "You don't have proof, so it didn't happen").

I understand, which is why I didn't want you to reveal anything. A worthwhile conversation like this really only works in RL.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Let's just say that I was agnostic and as a joke I stated a "divine challenge" of sorts, and I got called on it. Since then, my life has been far from normal.

I find it difficult to classify myself as an aethiest or agnostic, mostly because I tend to change day to day. Alot of mornings I wake up sure there is no god, and other nights I ponder existence as we know it and ask how there could not be.

It's mildly frustrating, let alone depressing.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
There is a god, why? because the bible told me so. Who wrote the bible? god did. Their logic is as kooky as a unicorn who paints hair...

Heh, and you wonder why people don't take you seriously when you try and be "logical?"

Maury

[Angus_D]

I try to keep an open mind, but when people say "creationism is true because it's written in this book which is all true because I think it is" vs "evolution is true because there is this documented evidence, and while we can't explain everything here's our current best guess at what happened", I know which I'd rather believe.

I have yet to see any valid evidence to support creationism other than conjecture along the lines of "YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT! THEREFORE THERE MUST BE SOME GREATER POWER AT WORK!!!!".

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Heh, and you wonder why people don't take you seriously when you try and be "logical?"

Maury

that "logic" is your argument for a god...next time read before posting

[gatekeeper]

Fish fossil confirms origin of nostrils

Land vertebrates can breathe through their noses thanks to an anatomical rearrangement of fish-style nostrils. That same rearrangement may explain why cleft lips and cleft palates are common birth defects in humans.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Fish fossil confirms origin of nostrils

I always wondered why I was born with gills. Thanks for that update.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Fish fossil confirms origin of nostrils

WRONG!!!!!! Humans have nostrils because they are made in god's image, and god has nostrils. God has to breathe. Even though he is omnipotent, he still has to breathe.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by dgs212:
WRONG!!!!!! Humans have nostrils because they are made in god's image, and god has nostrils. God has to breathe. Even though he is omnipotent, he still has to breathe.

and um...other things...you know...down there...but he must have the best one in america..i mean the world

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
that "logic" is your argument for a god...next time read before posting

Are you referring to: "There is a god, why? because the bible told me so. Who wrote the bible? god did."

You think THAT'S an argument for the existence of God? Spare me. The Bible didn't tell me God existed, and He didn't write the Bible.

Maury

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dgs212:
This thread is maddening.

It hinges on one very important question: Do you believe in supernatural beings?

What would make one believe in something that, by its nature, cannot be discovered or verified? Why invent untestable hypotheses when myriad testable explanations abound?

I have brown hair. I suspect that naturally, my hair is the fairest blonde. I also suspect that every night, while I'm sleeping, a unicorn prances into my room and paints every single hair on my body brown with the tiniest of paintbrushes. The unicorn is very skittish, so if I stir even the slightest bit, it uses its magical powers to disappear. I can never ever capture or confirm its existence. It cannot be recorded by video or audio tape. Yet, yet, I believe it to exist. Why? Someone told me that's what happens.

If you believe in god, why not painting unicorns?

The powers of near-universal indoctrination are astounding!

I never got this either. People scoff at the fantasies of children and lunatics, then ask them to believe in even more fantastical things, including an adult version of Santa Claus.

Humans are vain and have powerful imaginations, a deadly combination. They like to think they were put here for a special purpose and that a divine being speaks to and acts upon them. If they didn't, Benny Hinn would be selling shoes in a mall somewhere. The sad fact is that in 80 years or so, even the youngest among us will be fertilizer. There is no Magic Spirit World. Dust to dust and all that.

Life is short. Enjoy it while you can.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, I agree with you... Take a picture, it it may never happen again.

I'm a Creationist and and Evolutionist (definitely micro, perhaps even macro), the concepts are not mutually exclusive.

On the flip-side of your coin, I'm an evolutionist who accepts the possibility that the whole thing has been created.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The poll is oversimplified. We need more options.

I don't think it's possible to have enough options for a poll on this subject

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Are you referring to: "There is a god, why? because the bible told me so. Who wrote the bible? god did."

You think THAT'S an argument for the existence of God? Spare me. The Bible didn't tell me God existed, and He didn't write the Bible.

Maury

yes mommy and daddy told you first.

II Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

II Peter 1:21 "For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

although, critics say intellectuals (eliteists) wrote the bible.

[ebuddy]

What would make one believe in something that, by its nature, cannot be discovered or verified?

Macro-evolution cannot be discovered or verified. In that, you are correct, it's hard for me to buy in.

Fish fossil discovered confirms origin of nostrils? I suppose the scientific community will need a whole bunch of ($) in research grants to make sure this is so. You know, the whole ($) thing. Did someone say something about little unicorns dancing about painting hair?

*AP (Nov. 12, 2004) DEFORMED FOALS MAY BE LINKED TO UNICORN'S PAINTBRUSH
Birth defects reported among horses include hairier than normal left feet, suggesting our painting unicorn may be left-handed, reaffirmed by bulbus projection found among skeletal remains therein. Numerous instances of neurological disorders including aimless walking about may explain the Unicorn's need to travel great distances in painting everyone's head.

Oops, turns out this was actually the miracle of modern science in the prescribing of vaccine for West Nile Virus among horses. I'll probably wait for the conclusion on the fish thing then too.

[ebuddy]

BTW; that link was pretty much DOA. Does it explain how the nostrils were bene-fish-al?

How 'bout cleft lips and palates...How are these deformities consistent with evolutionary "progression"?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Humans are vain and have powerful imaginations, a deadly combination. They like to think they were put here for a special purpose and that a divine being speaks to and acts upon them. If they didn't, Benny Hinn would be selling shoes in a mall somewhere. The sad fact is that in 80 years or so, even the youngest among us will be fertilizer. There is no Magic Spirit World. Dust to dust and all that.

That's very arrogant of you, and in my experience, far off the mark. But then, that's your right, even if you're wrong.

Gotta agree with ya on a couple points though, you're correct regarding humans beng fertilizer, no one escapes physical death... and Hinn is real wanker.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ironknee:
yes mommy and daddy told you first.

II Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

II Peter 1:21 "For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

although, critics say intellectuals (eliteists) wrote the bible.

I've been inspired and moved to do some pretty outrageous things by some beautiful women. However, that doesn't mean they committed the actions, it was still my doing.

And also, Epistles... meh...

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
yes mommy and daddy told you first.

II Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

II Peter 1:21 "For prophecy came not in old times by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

although, critics say intellectuals (eliteists) wrote the bible.

You speak as one who hasn't done much study of this faith. My family played a minimal role in my discovery of a personal relationship with God. This discovery was between me and Him, on a personal level, that I won't bother to get into here. You cannot refute this, you can't truly say it didn't happen -- it did, and that's it. I'm sure you'll just say it's because I "believe" the mumbo-jumbo and you'll consider me less "enlightened" than you because I adhere to the fairy tale. If that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it.

As to the scriptures you quote, it says it best: the texts we consider Holy were written by men who were, we believe, inspired by their faith and relationship with God. God did not "write" the Bible -- His people did. The Bible is not God's text book, history book, etc. -- it's a book that gives insight into His Mind and plans for the world. We believe the writings therein are "inspired" and "holy" based upon who wrote them in relation to their life and faith as it exemplified the life God would have man live. The Catholic faith includes the Books of the Apocrypha in their Holy texts, but Protestants choose not to. Why? We don't consider them to be Holy Texts that were written under God's inspiration by a follower of God -- in the same sense the other books were. And, as II Peter says, the Bible was written as God's men spoke: "as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

It is with Him, the Holy Spirit, God personally enters into our lives, and it is He who bridges the gap of sin that separates us form the Father. The interaction with the Holy Spirit that leads one to salvation is the personal experience many of us talk about. That is the event that cannot be proved NOR refuted, and therein we see His Glory in the mystery.

Maury

[BRussell]

A question for creationists: Do you believe that Christianity demands belief in creation? What I mean is, is it impossible to be a Christian and accept biological evolution? Or is it just a belief on your part that is not central to Christianity?

The reason I ask is that, AFAIK, most Christian denominations have "officially" accepted biological evolution, and yet you still see many members of those denominations rejecting it as if it somehow undercuts fundamental Christian belief.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
A question for creationists: Do you believe that Christianity demands belief in creation? What I mean is, is it impossible to be a Christian and accept biological evolution? Or is it just a belief on your part that is not central to Christianity?

The reason I ask is that, AFAIK, most Christian denominations have "officially" accepted biological evolution, and yet you still see many members of those denominations rejecting it as if it somehow undercuts fundamental Christian belief.

Yes, a person can be Christian and believe in evolution (micro, macro, or both). Being Christian doesn't mean you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth (it's not meant to be taken literally ANYHOW, FWIW). Being Christian means you believe in Jesus as your salvation and accept the Christology established by the early Church... it doesn't even require that you accept ANY of the OT, though of course most do.

The only creation story that has to be accepted by a Christian is:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - Gospel of John 1:1

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
A question for creationists: Do you believe that Christianity demands belief in creation? What I mean is, is it impossible to be a Christian and accept biological evolution? Or is it just a belief on your part that is not central to Christianity?

The reason I ask is that, AFAIK, most Christian denominations have "officially" accepted biological evolution, and yet you still see many members of those denominations rejecting it as if it somehow undercuts fundamental Christian belief.

No, Christianity doesn't demand anything -- except that one believe that a personal relationship with Jesus is the way to restore our relationship with God. With a heart a man believes and can live a "righteous" life -- but with a tongue he confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and he receives salvation.

That is the fundamental Christian -- Protestant Christian -- belief. I can't stress it enough: this belief is a Protestant-based belief not shared to such a degree by other Christian Faiths (like the Catholic faith, for example). It's important not to lump all Christians into one group, as there are many faith practices.

Maury

[ironknee]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I've been inspired and moved to do some pretty outrageous things by some beautiful women. However, that doesn't mean they committed the actions, it was still my doing.

And also, Epistles... meh...

so if men wrote the bible and not god...

Psalms 118:8. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

why read the bible?

[mikellanes]

Edit:

[Dakar]

Well this thread has officially gone to pot...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ironknee:
so if men wrote the bible and not god...

Psalms 118:8. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

why read the bible?

Because people who are better, and more decent than us, can offer us wisdom. Why? Because they learned to listen to this inspiration and were made better for it. The Bible is a wonderful source for finding the very best and worst of what is is to be human. For example, the life of Jesus, even if not accepted as historical fact, is an incredible model to live by.

But you don't seem to have a genuine interest, so what's your preoccupation?



A person who abandons their own spirit is only living half of a life. They will die accomplishing nothing. - Rumi

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Well this thread has officially gone to pot...

Edit:

We're trying to have a decent conversation, but the anti-theists are restless.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You speak as one who hasn't done much study of this faith. My family played a minimal role in my discovery of a personal relationship with God. This discovery was between me and Him, on a personal level, that I won't bother to get into here. You cannot refute this, you can't truly say it didn't happen -- it did, and that's it. I'm sure you'll just say it's because I "believe" the mumbo-jumbo and you'll consider me less "enlightened" than you because I adhere to the fairy tale. If that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it.

first, i was raised as a protestant, when to church and got baptized_. so i know where you are...and i respect it. even if your parents didn't influence u on god, my point was did u know god before you knew there was a bible? how?

are u saying u knew nothing of christianity or the bible, before u found god?

As to the scriptures you quote, it says it best: the texts we consider Holy were written by men who were, we believe, inspired by their faith and relationship with God. God did not "write" the Bible -- His people did.

men wrote the bible then?
Psalms 118:8. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.


The Bible is not God's text book, history book, etc. -- it's a book that gives insight into His Mind and plans for the world.

men can read god's mind?

We believe the writings therein are "inspired" and "holy" based upon who wrote them in relation to their life and faith as it exemplified the life God would have man live. The Catholic faith includes the Books of the Apocrypha in their Holy texts, but Protestants choose not to. Why? We don't consider them to be Holy Texts that were written under God's inspiration by a follower of God -- in the same sense the other books were.

how can u tell one book is better than another? and does that mean u are better than catholic?

And, as II Peter says, the Bible was written as God's men spoke: "as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

kinda like elitists?

It is with Him, the Holy Spirit, God personally enters into our lives, and it is He who bridges the gap of sin that separates us form the Father. The interaction with the Holy Spirit that leads one to salvation is the personal experience many of us talk about. That is the event that cannot be proved NOR refuted, and therein we see His Glory in the mystery.

Maury

i agree here. u can't prove or disprove it...it's called faith. faith is very subjective and flimsy. i use the ol friday night football in texas analogy. both team supporters pray for a win...someone loses...i still have faith in the philadelphia flyers winning the cup...having faith in something does not make it real

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
so if men wrote the bible and not god...

Psalms 118:8. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

why read the bible?

Read my posts about the writing of the Bible.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by ironknee:
first, i was raised as a protestant, when to church and got baptized_. so i know where you are...and i respect it. even if your parents didn't influence u on god, my point was did u know god before you knew there was a bible? how?

are u saying u knew nothing of christianity or the bible, before u found god?

I'm saying I knew nothing of the Faith as a whole. yes, I knew of God and the Bible and the basic idea (The "Christmas Story," if you will). However, what I knew or didn't know did not have anything to do with the situation in which i came to realize and believe that there actually was a God.

men wrote the bible then?
Psalms 118:8. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

Come now. The Bible is an inspired book, written by men inspired by God.

men can read god's mind?

Who said that? And yes, Man can know the Mind of God -- that's why we study Him. Doesn't everyone know that about Christianity -- that we study and worship God so that we may know Him better?

how can u tell one book is better than another? and does that mean u are better than catholic?

Come now again. It's evident that you're not really interested in this topic or you'd quit twisting words and trying to find a gotcha. Further, I'll let you do your own study on how the Bible as it is today, was put together over the years (I've done my study on it already, and this isn't the place to post all of it).

Lastly, no one said anything about any faith being better than another -- so once again, you're attempting to bait a trap for some reason. Spare us.

kinda like elitists?

What?

i agree here. u can't prove or disprove it...it's called faith. faith is very subjective and flimsy. i use the ol friday night football in texas analogy. both team supporters pray for a win...someone loses...i still have faith in the philadelphia flyers winning the cup...having faith in something does not make it real.

Faith is only as subjective and flimsy as the one who puts forth that faith. Period. And as you say, faith in something does not make it real -- you're right, and your faith that God isn't what Christians believe doesn't make it so.

Once again, neither of us can "prove" nor "disprove" anything. God is personal. It's His intention that He can't be proved. Once again, therein we see His Glory.

Maury

[ironknee]

ok i tried, i can't believe it. but i tried... all the other fundies: they said men wrote the bible not god.

but i agree, men wrote the bible not god.

[mikellanes]

I have a question for the Creationists, did God create time?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I have a question for the Creationists, did God create time?

By God all things are created in some way. Ask the question you really want answered or make your point and we can go from there.

Maury

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I have a question for the Creationists, did God create time?

IMO, it's a natural by-product.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
By God all things are created in some way. Ask the question you really want answered or make your point and we can go from there.

Maury

I am asking this, and it relates to the other "atom" thread I think, where did he find the time to create time?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I am asking this, and it relates to the other "atom" thread I think, where did he find the time to create time?

What makes you think it would take time to create time? You speak of time as though it's physical thus requiring a period of "creation" in order to exist.

Maury

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What makes you think it would take time to create time? You speak of time as though it's physical thus requiring a period of "creation" in order to exist.

Maury

So did he create time as we know it today or some slower time and now it is sped up?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Did we, humans, come from apes? No, not in my world. Have we always looked the way we do now (heights, color, basic structure, etc.)?

What about all the evidence to the contrary?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
No, Christianity doesn't demand anything -- except that one believe that a personal relationship with Jesus is the way to restore our relationship with God. With a heart a man believes and can live a "righteous" life -- but with a tongue he confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and he receives salvation.

That is the fundamental Christian -- Protestant Christian -- belief. I can't stress it enough: this belief is a Protestant-based belief not shared to such a degree by other Christian Faiths (like the Catholic faith, for example). It's important not to lump all Christians into one group, as there are many faith practices.

Maury

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, a person can be Christian and believe in evolution (micro, macro, or both). Being Christian doesn't mean you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth (it's not meant to be taken literally ANYHOW, FWIW). Being Christian means you believe in Jesus as your salvation and accept the Christology established by the early Church... it doesn't even require that you accept ANY of the OT, though of course most do.

The only creation story that has to be accepted by a Christian is:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - Gospel of John 1:1

I'm glad we agree on that, because I think it's important. It's my impression that some people believe that in order to be a Christian, you basically have to deny biological evolution - as far as I can tell, virtually everyone who denies biological evolution is a conservative Christian who believes evolution is inconsistent with Christianity (though I'm sure there are exceptions). And yet the Catholic church and AFAIK most Protestant denominations don't deny biological evolution at all. Young-earth creationism and the denial of biological evolution are fringe beliefs even within Christianity. Of course theistic evolution or "God started the ball rolling and then evolution took over" isn't a fringe belief; that is the official stance of most Christian denominations, from what I can tell.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
So did he create time as we know it today or some slower time and now it is sped up?

It's irrelevant unless you can give a connection with what you're trying to ascertain. Again, you speak of time as Time, as though it's a physical Thing. To answer your question properly, we'll have to decide upon what we see time as.

Are you working from the angle that Time is something along the lines of light or volume or mass -- that Time is a physical component to the Universe?

Or, are you coming from the angle that Time is merely a measure -- a perception -- used to aid us in ordering events we're involved with?

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
What about all the evidence to the contrary?

What evidence? Lucy?

Maury

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Or, are you coming from the angle that Time is merely a measure -- a perception -- used to aid us in ordering events we're involved with?

A measure, is the the same as it was in the beginning, did god create everything we know in 6 days? 6 days as we know it 6 24 hour periods.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What evidence? Lucy?

Maury

I would pull up the evidence, but I assume you are kidding with the Lucy bit...

Anyway, what about this:

The 13,000+ year old HOMO FLORESIENSI recently discovered to be living in Flores Island

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...3183414B7F0000

How does this fit in with your same size/shape/color theory?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm glad we agree on that, because I think it's important. It's my impression that some people believe that in order to be a Christian, you basically have to deny biological evolution - as far as I can tell, virtually everyone who denies biological evolution is a conservative Christian who believes evolution is inconsistent with Christianity (though I'm sure there are exceptions). And yet the Catholic church and AFAIK most Protestant denominations don't deny biological evolution at all. Young-earth creationism and the denial of biological evolution are fringe beliefs even within Christianity. Of course theistic evolution or "God started the ball rolling and then evolution took over" isn't a fringe belief; that is the official stance of most Christian denominations, from what I can tell.

Yes. It's also important to never mix the word evolution and adaptation as they are two wholly different things that can appear to be the same. As an example -- a very basic one -- many people understand Evolution as being one established life form developing into a wholly different life form, ala "slime" to frog, ape to man. Even without my belief in God, I have issues with this as it cannot be reproduced. My parakeet will not evolve into a hawk. My tabby cat will not evolve into a panther.

Adaptation however, is one life form changing to its environment. Fish with eyes adapting to eyeless fish because they don't to see in the deep. Apes losing prehensile tails because they don't need them.

The big difference with Christianity is that we believe God made Man as a wholly separate being from what already existed on the Earth. We evolved form nothing, but we have undoubtedly gone through much adaptation over the millennia.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
A measure, is the the same as it was in the beginning, did god create everything we know in 6 days? 6 days as we know it 6 24 hour periods.

Not necessarily, no. Studying the Hebrew text even has conflicting opinions, as some see the word used as day as being both a day as it was considered to men at that time, as well as a "season" which has an undetermined length. I don't have any of my Hebrew books with me (I'm at work), so that's the best I can offer on that at this time.

But I go back to an earlier point: what are you seeking? The discrepancy of whether or not God made the universe as we know in 6 days or 6,000 years has no bearing on His existence or capacity to ignite said Creation.

Maury

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
My parakeet will not evolve into a hawk. My tabby cat will not evolve into a panther.

Adaptation however, is one life form changing to its environment. Fish with eyes adapting to eyeless fish because they don't to see in the deep. Apes losing prehensile tails because they don't need them.

Would you accept that your parakeet could (over many generations and mutations) get a stronger beak (If most of the food that was around was too hard for the parakeets normal beak?)

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I would pull up the evidence, but I assume you are kidding with the Lucy bit...

Anyway, what about this:

The 13,000+ year old HOMO FLORESIENSI recently discovered to be living in Flores Island

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...3183414B7F0000

How does this fit in with your same size/shape/color theory?

I never said we have always been the same size/shape/color -- in fact, if you read my posts, i stated the opposite. We have adapted in untold ways: size, weight, gait, all kinds of ways. There's really no telling.

As to where this skull fits into my thinking, it fits-in quite well, actually -- it shows we have adapted over the millennia like i previously posted (if it turns out to be what we think it is).

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Would you accept that your parakeet could (over many generations and mutations) get a stronger beak (If most of the food that was around was too hard for the parakeets normal beak?)

Of course -- and that's adaptation, not evolution.

Maury

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
But I go back to an earlier point: what are you seeking? The discrepancy of whether or not God made the universe as we know in 6 days or 6,000 years has no bearing on His existence or capacity to ignite said Creation.

How about 4 1/2 billion years? Anyway I am not suggesting that argument.

I was just wondering what your view was, do you think this aligns with most prodestants you know?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Of course -- and that's adaptation, not evolution.

Maury

How about stronger wings because the food is heavier or because the trees are higher to nest in?

[ironknee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I never said we have always been the same size/shape/color -- in fact, if you read my posts, i stated the opposite. We have adapted in untold ways: size, weight, gait, all kinds of ways. There's really no telling.

As to where this skull fits into my thinking, it fits-in quite well, actually -- it shows we have adapted over the millennia like i previously posted (if it turns out to be what we think it is).

so god may be shorter (ie pre adaptions), if god made man in his own image?