If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Obvious Meet the Contenders for Earliest Modern Human, created 6,000 years ago   (blogs.smithsonianmag.com) divider line 72
More: Obvious, Cro-Magnon, craniums, early modern humans, technology and society, University of California at Berkeley, fossils, subspecies, magazines  
•       •       •

3449 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Jan 2012 at 11:44 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2012-01-12 11:07:16 AM
When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining to consider the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshapen tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave, hunched over like an ape. There is no way that science can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-12 11:46:16 AM
Did you forget to switch alts, Bevets?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-01-12 11:51:27 AM
static.flickr.com
 
2012-01-12 11:56:13 AM
Kar98: Did you forget to switch alts, Bevets?

CDP always does this, writes like Bevets, but leaves a huge clue that he's joking with a completely contradictory image/graph/whatever at the end.
 
2012-01-12 12:00:52 PM
capitulating fromage masticating simian: Kar98: Did you forget to switch alts, Bevets?

CDP always does this, writes like Bevets, but leaves a huge clue that he's joking with a completely contradictory image/graph/whatever at the end.


So Fark's very own Colbert then.
 
2012-01-12 12:03:17 PM
So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.
 
2012-01-12 12:07:22 PM
Nice try science! But where are the transitional species?
 
2012-01-12 12:11:01 PM
CDP = Colbevets?
 
2012-01-12 12:15:56 PM
raerae1980: So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.

I believe very heavily in evolution, but I disagree with this. But you put 'created' in quotes so I have no idea what underlying meaning you're shooting for.

Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life. The conversation probably went something like.

God: 'Okay, so billions of years ago I created proteins and put 'em on the earth to let 'em run wild.'
Early man: 'Um, how does that work?'
God: 'Alright, imagine we named one protein Adam and one Eve, and when no one was looking, they did some special hugging."
Early Man: 'So gay people are an abomination?"
God:
 
2012-01-12 12:16:33 PM
"God: (facepalm)"
 
2012-01-12 12:17:07 PM
The primitive traits in this population might have been the result of interbreeding with Neanderthals, which also lived in the region at this time.

And what exactly do you mean by that?
 
2012-01-12 12:19:42 PM

This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?
 
2012-01-12 12:23:50 PM
naz-drala: capitulating fromage masticating simian: Kar98: Did you forget to switch alts, Bevets?

CDP always does this, writes like Bevets, but leaves a huge clue that he's joking with a completely contradictory image/graph/whatever at the end.

So Fark's very own Colbert then.


It astonishes me that he still gets bites.

/Have expressed this sentiment before.
//Will again in the future
///golf clap for CDP
 
2012-01-12 12:28:54 PM
Kar98: Did you forget to switch alts, Bevets?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-01-12 12:30:59 PM
s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?


A friend of mine currently is in a bible study group. This came up, and then I got talking to him about it. I asked, isn't it based on the genealogy of the characters in the bible? But my friend wasn't sure. It just occured to me that I haven't heard back from him.
 
2012-01-12 12:36:56 PM
Nick the What: s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?

A friend of mine currently is in a bible study group. This came up, and then I got talking to him about it. I asked, isn't it based on the genealogy of the characters in the bible? But my friend wasn't sure. It just occured to me that I haven't heard back from him.


The assumption there is that everything stated in creation is literal (which is not the stance of all bible-based religions) and then the lifespan was fairly standard for all the names listed.
 
2012-01-12 12:41:31 PM
INeedAName: raerae1980: So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.

I believe very heavily in evolution, but I disagree with this. But you put 'created' in quotes so I have no idea what underlying meaning you're shooting for.

Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life. The conversation probably went something like.

God: 'Okay, so billions of years ago I created proteins and put 'em on the earth to let 'em run wild.'
Early man: 'Um, how does that work?'
God: 'Alright, imagine we named one protein Adam and one Eve, and when no one was looking, they did some special hugging."
Early Man: 'So gay people are an abomination?"
God:


Life started completely by accident, there was no God who made the decision to begin/create life.
 
2012-01-12 12:45:08 PM
INeedAName: Nick the What: s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?

A friend of mine currently is in a bible study group. This came up, and then I got talking to him about it. I asked, isn't it based on the genealogy of the characters in the bible? But my friend wasn't sure. It just occured to me that I haven't heard back from him.

The assumption there is that everything stated in creation is literal (which is not the stance of all bible-based religions) and then the lifespan was fairly standard for all the names listed.


Granted thats not such a stretch for the Genesis story. But doesn't the interpratation (literal vs metaphor) of the genealogy become extra important when one considers the blood line of Jesus (for Christians only). How can a genealogy be a metaphor?
 
2012-01-12 12:47:03 PM
Is this the thread where we generate pageviews by having evolutionists decry religionists decry scientists?

Any spare popcorn?
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2012-01-12 12:48:42 PM
s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?


Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
jvl
2012-01-12 12:50:49 PM
s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?


You add up the boring genealogy. It's nearly as much fun as reading the lists of people who participated in the Iliad.

But as a Christian let me say this: Genesis talks a lot about who made the world, what is good in the world, and what we are meant for. It says almost nothing about how the world was made, how animals were made, or how we were made. Any first grader will ask "who did the children of Adam marry? Where did they come from?" and already you've gone flying past what is actually written.

Or as someone once put it, Genesis is basically a bunch of old Mesopotamian myths. They are rewritten to say "this is how God would have done it if he had created the world this way." Instead of stuff being made by accident as in the original myth, things are made on purpose. Instead of accidental things which are not inherently good or bad, the rewrite says they are good.

Put another way, on the list of things people need to know about God that should be put in the first chapter, a complete explanation of cosmology, planet forming, and evolution just don't make the list. We can figure that stuff out ourselves.
 
2012-01-12 12:53:58 PM
CDP: Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !!

For those interested in the history of this particular calculation, see Ussher's Chronology (new window). It's been around a while.
 
2012-01-12 12:59:38 PM
INeedAName: The assumption there is that everything stated in creation is literal

Genesis 1 makes no mention of 1-6 days of creation. It mentions a whole bunch of stuff happening, including events leading up to the formation of "days" and starts counting time on the 6th day(with no mention of how much time had passed prior).

CDP: Beginning

Nope. That is insufficient.
 
2012-01-12 01:01:57 PM
jvl: We can figure that stuff out ourselves.

I read this answer and saw that it was good.
 
2012-01-12 01:09:32 PM
s2s2s2: Genesis 1 makes no mention of 1-6 days of creation. It mentions a whole bunch of stuff happening, including events leading up to the formation of "days" and starts counting time on the 6th day(with no mention of how much time had passed prior).

Yes and no. The Hebrew word "yom" is literally translated as "day," but can also be a synecdoche for an age or indeterminate period of time, which is where a lot of the conflict arises. However, Genesis 1 most certainly does start counting "days" right after "let there be light."

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.


...etc...
 
2012-01-12 01:12:19 PM
INeedAName: Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life.

I have a hard time with this. You can believe that Bible writings are a metaphor for something else, but you can't accept the premise that the Christian Bible is not some human made writing explaining creation and a world they did not not understand? That God is an evolutionary character himself?

There are far too many religions with their own creation stories to believe your creation story is right or even a metaphor. What's a metaphor and what's "The Word of God?" And who has the right to make that decision?
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2012-01-12 01:18:28 PM
s2s2s2: Nope. That is insufficient

The young earth creation perspective is the result of a literal interpretation of the description of creation in Genesis 1. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days with the many life forms required have a functional ecosystem. Subsequently a genealogy from Adam to Jesus can be used to easily calculate the age of the world. According to this Biblical chronology, the universe and the earth were created approximately 6000 years ago.

The language of the Bible is quite specific about the age of the world. We must also remember that God created time and language, and described the creation period in terms we could correlate to our definitions of time. The description of the creation very specifically defines the work performed during the length of time we equate to a solar day, and confirms the amount of elapsed time on each occasion with the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day".

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Exodus 20:11, 31:17)

Although there are a great many Christians who have accepted the secular scientific communities assessments of the age of the earth, the majority of creation scientists are young-earth creationist. Other than the interpretation of the "days of creation", the other major point of contention between young and old-earth advocates is the global flood of Noah. The Bible says there was a devastating global flood that is most likely responsible for the layers of sediments and fossils known of as the geological column. Although some try to interpret these passages as describing a local flood, the text clearly states that all the high mountains were covered to a depth of more than 20 feet. The catastrophe was so devastating that nothing could survive without supernatural intervention via the ark. This event can simply not be interpreted by a naturalist, but instead the conclusion has been drawn that the deposits from the flood accumulated slowly and gradually at a rate that the animals alive today could have survived naturally.

Genesis 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Our earth has the appearance of great age because it was created fully mature, and subsequently experienced a devastating flood. The history of our world cannot be correctly interpreted from physical evidence without recognizing it has experienced acts of supernatural intervention. Today, the scientific community is largely atheistic and adamant that natural processes alone must be used to explain the earth's history. Do not so quickly accept an interpretation from someone who, although intelligent, can not see the evidence of intelligent design all around them.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-12 01:22:38 PM
See, this is what I was wondering.

Jesus was there to fulfill the prophecy (no dispute on that). In fact, Matthew commits his first chapter attempting to establish that. Which means, Jesus has to be related to King David. But if King David is only connected to God through metaphor, than....?
 
2012-01-12 01:34:00 PM
INeedAName:
I believe very heavily in evolution, but I disagree with this. But you put 'created' in quotes so I have no idea what underlying meaning you're shooting for.

Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life. The conversation probably went something like.


Or, you know, it's all a story made up by some Neolithic sheep farmers to explain weird lights in the sky and why bad things happen to good people. The only reason you talk about Jesus, Moses, Elijah etc. instead of Enki and Gilgamesh or Jupiter and Apollo is because of the caprices of history. Doesn't mean you're not a good or smart person, but you created God, not the other way around.
 
2012-01-12 01:41:48 PM
CDP: The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days

Where?
 
2012-01-12 02:24:13 PM
INeedAName: Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life.

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-01-12 02:29:17 PM
INeedAName: raerae1980: So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.

I believe very heavily in evolution, but I disagree with this. But you put 'created' in quotes so I have no idea what underlying meaning you're shooting for.

Garden of Eden was a metaphor for the earth over which we were given dominion and Adam and Eve were the building blocks of life. The conversation probably went something like.

God: 'Okay, so billions of years ago I created proteins and put 'em on the earth to let 'em run wild.'
Early man: 'Um, how does that work?'
God: 'Alright, imagine we named one protein Adam and one Eve, and when no one was looking, they did some special hugging."
Early Man: 'So gay people are an abomination?"
God:


More like

Early man: Hey, I've just figured out how to capture and use the Scary Hot Stuff left behind after lightning hits a tree. This is kind of a big deal, and people really look up to me now. They want explanations. I guess I could make shiat up. I'll throw some turtles in the story. I like turtles.

God:

Early man: Holy crap they believed me! I wonder if they'll buy it if I tell them that Big Sky Dude wants sacrifices to be thrown into Scary Hot Stuff, with me getting the spoils.

God:

Early man: Wow. Dumbasses. Big Sky Dude now demands virgin sacrifices. All virgins who sleep with me are exempt, of course.

God:

Early man: Man I hate skrimps. No one can eat skrimps anymore! All you homos are banned too. I love you God!

God:
 
2012-01-12 02:54:36 PM
No Such Agency: INeedAName:


Or, you know, it's all a story made up by some Neolithic sheep farmers to explain weird lights in the sky and why bad things happen to good people. The only reason you talk about Jesus, Moses, Elijah etc. instead of Enki and Gilgamesh or Jupiter and Apollo is because of the caprices of history. Doesn't mean you're not a good or smart person, but you created God, not the other way around.


I suspect Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome under Constantine had quite a lot to do with that.
 
2012-01-12 03:20:04 PM
raerae1980: So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.

Being the creation of random chance in a process that started billions of years ago and being the only life form known than can quantify that knowledge, I think it makes us very special actually.
 
2012-01-12 03:29:59 PM
burning_bridge: raerae1980: So incredibly fascinating. I love this subject! Having a Masters in anthropology also helps. Anyway, I pity those that refuse to accept evolution. We are not special, we were not "created" by some special entity most refer to as God. Deal with it.

Being the creation of random chance in a process that started billions of years ago and being the only life form known than can quantify that knowledge, I think it makes us very special actually.


I can agree with that.
 
2012-01-12 03:43:41 PM
Wishes to see more proof:

cache.deadspin.com
 
2012-01-12 04:34:17 PM
As far as I know, the first TRULY modern human was Andy Warhol.
 
2012-01-12 04:36:28 PM
Nick the What: s2s2s2: This is the question scientists should be asking Christians:

Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?

A friend of mine currently is in a bible study group. This came up, and then I got talking to him about it. I asked, isn't it based on the genealogy of the characters in the bible? But my friend wasn't sure. It just occured to me that I haven't heard back from him.


Yes it's based on the literal years in the geneologies. I know it was calculated by a catholic church leader but I don't remember the time frame or the leader's name/rank. I'm also too lazy to google it.

There are tons of obvious problems with this of course. Not everyone's age is given from Adam to Jesus. Jesus's birth date has been miscalculated by at least 4 years. The number of years given is most likely a mis-translation or mis-interpretation. Then of course it all relies on those words being literal in the first place.
 
2012-01-12 05:54:15 PM
I had always heard that ALL humans came from Africa in the beginning...and assumed that the smart ones got out early and now only the dumb ones were left there.
 
2012-01-12 09:02:34 PM
anusofuranus: I had always heard that ALL humans came from Africa in the beginning...and assumed that the smart ones got out early and now only the dumb ones were left there.

Actually the weak, dumb ones got kicked out of Africa. Africa was pretty nice as there were ice ages going on outside.
 
2012-01-12 09:36:37 PM
s2s2s2: Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?

Where in the Bible does it say, "Bible"? Where does it say, "Trinity"?
 
2012-01-12 09:40:16 PM
jvl: Put another way, on the list of things people need to know about God that should be put in the first chapter, a complete explanation of cosmology, planet forming, and evolution just don't make the list. We can figure that stuff out ourselves.

No. Originally, you all thought that was the way it was and the way it needed to be understood.
THEN we figured out for ourselves the way it really happened.
THEN you say that that part wasn't really important anyway.
 
2012-01-12 09:54:53 PM
0Icky0: s2s2s2: Where in the Bible does it say "6000 years" in relation to the age of the earth?

Where in the Bible does it say, "Bible"? Where does it say, "Trinity"?


YES! Whar whards? Whar?

/srsly.
 
2012-01-13 04:41:47 PM
copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll copypasta with no purpose other than to troll

Link (new window)

encrypted-tbn0.google.com

hey gaiz watz this thread?
 
2012-01-13 04:46:18 PM
oops sorry left the trollbot on autopilot again, here let me sneeze out a half assed post for ya:

5. The film appears to have been shot within the walls of Cambridge University UK, with interviews taking place in the Sedgwick Museum, or around colleges such as St John's and King's College. Some think they perceive some blue highlights around the faces here, suggesting blue-screen shots in which the Cambridge settings have been imposed later. Whether real or false, this gives to the film a wholly spurious authority; rhe impression of a forgery.

Link (new window)

verybadfrog.com
 
2012-01-13 04:50:42 PM
4. The film makes another common mistake. When Darwin referred to the need for many small steps in evolution, he did not say whether these steps had to be either fast or slow. Small steps can be made very quickly indeed - as with virus evolution today.

Link (new window)

imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-13 05:12:04 PM
3. The first great mass extinction took place about 520 million years ago, during the Botomian and Toyonian Stages - well before the Burgess Shale. A rich diversity of reef building animals disappeared forever. These included archaeocyathan sponges and many small shelly fossils. But there is no mention of this. Did the film producers suffer amnesia at this point in the story? Or did that great prankster - the Intelligent Designer - make some big mistakes? If so, why call Her intelligent?

Link (new window)

4.bp.blogspot.com

#winning
 
2012-01-13 05:19:07 PM
2. A rich fossil record of early animal remains has been discovered from near the end of the Ediacaran period at about 545 Ma to the appearance of calcified trilobites and echinoderms in the Chengjiang biota, some 520 Ma ago. This transitional period, variously known as the Tommotian or Fortunian Stage, contains examples of transitional forms. For example, Halkieria and Maikhanella are probable stem group 'molluscs' with multi-element shells; Eccentrotheca and Camenella are taken to be stem group 'brachiopods' with multi-element shells. Dozens of scientists have been writing about these materials in recent years. Some 20 million years of evolution has thereby been ignored. Or censored.

Link (new window)

commentarista.com
 
2012-01-13 05:24:29 PM
1. The film makes a familiar mistake. There is a misplaced fixation upon beasts of the Burgess Shale. So antiquated is this view that the screenplay for this film could have been written by teachers in 1954, or even by Mack Sennett at Keystone studios in 1912, just after the Burgess Shale biota was first reported by Walcott. It needs to be remembered that the Burgess Shale appears far too late in the fossil record to tell us much about emergence of animals. Modern data shows that the explosion of modern phyla was beginning by about 545 Ma ago, with forms like Cloudina and Sabellidites. Since the Burgess Shale is a mere 505 Ma old, this gives us palaeontologists some 40 million years to play with. What a gift!

Link (new window)

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-01-13 05:42:46 PM
Farker Soze: More like

Early man: Hey, I've just figured out how to capture and use the Scary Hot Stuff left behind after lightning hits a tree. This is kind of a big deal, and people really look up to me now. They want explanations. I guess I could make shiat up. I'll throw some turtles in the story. I like turtles.

God:


so then you believe in God? that's good, at least it's a start...

s2s2s2: CDP: The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days

Where?


in Genesis, now let's wait and see how CDP defines a "day" and then we can judge whether or not his posts are clever, and just for kicks if he's interested i'll play the devil's advocate while he proves to us that the universe wasn't created last thursday...

/if he is indeed clever, this won't be much of a challenge for him
//if not, then silence is golden

Nick the What: But if King David is only connected to God through metaphor, than....?

so even if Adam/Eve are metaphorical beings, then therefore there was no first man/woman?? you lost me

how is creating Man through some dust/wind any different than creating Man through organic evoluton, etc..?? does that make God and his connection with Man any less significant?

srsly i haven't the foggiest clue what you are pondering, may i have a hint?
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »