'Lucy' lived among close cousins: Discovery of foot fossil confirms two human ancestor species co-existed

Mar 28, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new fossil discovery from Eastern Africa called the Burtele foot indicates Australopithecus afarensis, an early relative of modern humans, may not have been the only hominin to walk the plains and woodlands of what is now the Afar region of Ethiopia some 3.4 million years ago.

Researchers openly have questioned whether Au. afarensis, the species to which the famous fossil "Lucy" belongs, was the only living hominin during the late Pliocene of Africa. Lucy's bones provided evidence that she and perhaps other early hominins may have walked upright, but whether or not she was the sole hominin species in her particular geologic time scale has been the subject of much debate.

"There was indeed more than one early hominin species during that time," said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, head of Physical Anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and lead author of the findings.

Haile-Selassie and a team of anthropologists and geologists report finding the partial skeleton of a foot that belonged to an early human ancestor that was neither Au. afarensis nor another hominin called Kenyanthropus platyops, a creature that some paleoanthropologists argue was a second hominin that lived at the same time as Au. afarensis.

'Lucy' lived among close cousins: Discovery of foot fossil confirms two human ancestor species co-existed 3.4 million years ago

The journal Nature published the finding today. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences partially funded the research.

Descriptions of Kenyanthropus platyops led some scientists to dispute whether only one hominin inhabited Africa's upper regions 3.9 to 2.9 million years ago mainly due to the distorted nature of the specimen used as the basis for the original published description of Kenyanthropus platyops, said Haile-Selassie.

"Tim White, (a member of the research team who began uncovering Lucy in 1973), argued that Kenyanthropus platyops is a Kenyan version of Australopithecus afarensis and that the subtle differences between the two could be subsumed into an intra-specific variation."

In other words, he argued there was no evidence a second hominin roamed the landscape during the time of Au. afarensis. But Haile-Selassie and his team may have found proof of at least two hominin species.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

In Woranso-Mille, a relatively new palaeontological site located in the central Afar region of Ethiopia, researchers dug up a 3.4 million year old partial foot skeleton that does not match the contemporaneous Au. afarensis in form or shape.

Moreover, the skeletal remains infer locomotor adaptations more similar to an earlier, 4.4 million year old hominin, Ardipithecus ramidus, that was discovered by a research team led by White in 1992-1993 in the Middle Awash valley in Ethiopia.

"The Burtele foot differs from Australopithecus afarensis largely by possessing an opposable great toe," said Haile-Selassie, noting the Burtele toe is more like that of Ardipithecus ramidus, inferring similar characteristics for walking, running and jumping.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

"This partial pedal skeleton is unique in providing important evidence bearing on the functional morphology and proportions of several early hominin foot elements," the researchers write in their article titled, "A new hominin foot from Ethiopia shows multiple Pliocene bipedal adaptations."

Carolyn Ehardt, program director for Biological Anthropology at NSF, points out that research findings such as this foster appreciation for the complex processes that "shaped the evolutionary history of our species."

"We become increasingly aware of the fact that the evolutionary history of hominins is not unlike that of other groups of organisms in the potential for morphological and behavioral diversity and multiple adaptive pathways characterizing those life-forms during particular evolutionary time periods," she said.

The sifted dirt is carefully picked using small picking pans and each bone fragment is picked and checked for possible fragments of the partial foot. Credit: © The Cleveland Museum of Natural History

The Burtele foot has some skeletal ratios that fall within the human and gorilla distribution, but outside those of chimpanzees. In addition, the metatarsal of the fourth toe is longer than that of the second toe, a condition seen in some monkeys and Miocene apes.

"Unfortunately this ratio is unknown for both Ardipithecus and Australopithecus," said Haile-Selassie. "But, the finding could indicate the primitive condition for the human family."

The researchers say identifying and naming the species to which the Burtele foot belongs will have to await recovery of more fossils, cranial and dental elements, for example. However, they are sure it does not belong to the species of Lucy, Au. afarensis.

Said Haile-Selassie, "It is probably descended from something like Ardipithecus ramidus."

Explore further: Tooth buried in bone shows two prehistoric predators tangled across land, sea boundaries

Provided by Cleveland Museum of Natural History

4.3 /5 (11 votes)

Related Stories

Ethiopian fossils link ape-men with earlier hominids

Apr 12, 2006

New fossils discovered in the Afar desert of eastern Ethiopia are a missing link between our ape-man ancestors some 3.5 million years ago and more primitive hominids a million years older, according to an international ...

New analysis shows 'hobbits' couldn't hustle

May 06, 2009

A detailed analysis of the feet of Homo floresiensis—the miniature hominins who lived on a remote island in eastern Indonesia until 18,000 years ago -- may help settle a question hotly debated among paleontologists: how si ...

Recommended for you

How dinosaur arms turned into bird wings

4 hours ago

Although we now appreciate that birds evolved from a branch of the dinosaur family tree, a crucial adaptation for flight has continued to puzzle evolutionary biologists. During the millions of years that elapsed, wrists went ...

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

knowalot
Mar 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2012
Why does science keep regurgitating this obsolete information? Lucy is anything but a human ancestor. In fact, there isn't a shred of evidence for any ancestral link between these extinct apes and modern humans. Complete bogus story yet again.
Why do you keep regurgitating religionist lies? Are your delusions so important to you that you would lie, cheat, steal to preserve them? Of course they are.

Religionists are murdering all over the world to preserve their delusions. One sin leads to another, the nature of addiction.

Religionists would end scientific inquiry and doom the human race just to preserve their chance at immortality. You are all selfish beyond all decency.
knowalot
Mar 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aita
5 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2012
Perhaps you are the one who is seriously deluded. In an atheistic universe, it is perfectly ok to murder and rape, because there is no objective moral standard to call anything good or evil. Your rantings are pathetic and immoral, and above all irrational.


Sorry, humans were kind to one another before your religion stepped in, and in countries that are mainly secular there's far less crime and punishment than in, say, the United States or Saudi Arabia.

Most humans have this trait called empathy which defines our morality. Many religious people also follow empathy, sometimes to the point of defying the letter of their religion for what they consider the greater good. I thus posit that the nature of humans is good, both for evolutionary societal function and as a means of self-preservation.

Also, believing in something without proof is, by definition, irrational. Please do not contort common language to try to empower yourself; You only look foolish in such.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2012
Perhaps you are the one who is seriously deluded. In an atheistic universe, it is perfectly ok to murder and rape, because there is no objective moral standard to call anything good or evil.
More foul religionist lies. In any particular religion it is perfectly ok to do these things to heretics and apostates is it not? According to your own book, correct? These things are being perpetrated by religionists as we speak because their god - YOUR god - tells them it is the moral thing to do.

Morals do not originate from any god. Your religions stole natural human tribal morality so they could apply it selectively. Obviously.
your rantings are pathetic and immoral, and above all irrational.
Irrational? Your god comes in 3 pieces. Your book is full of transparent lies and amateurish mistakes. And grafitti. And you think it tells you how to live forever? And you call ME irrational??
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2012
Most humans have this trait called empathy which defines our morality. Many religious people also follow empathy, sometimes to the point of defying the letter of their religion for what they consider the greater good. I thus posit that the nature of humans is good, both for evolutionary societal function and as a means of self-preservation.
In addition to empathy and compassion, morality includes courage and self-sacrifice.

"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" Darwin, 1871, i, p. 166
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Morality is biological; we were selected for it. Religion stole it for its own uses.
knowalot
1 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2012
The genetic fallacy. Even if morality is biological, that does not prove at all that objective moral laws do not exist. Evolution might be the way in which God's moral laws are discovered by mankind.

Furthermore, to call morality a biological by product of evolution is just begging the question. That very belief would be the product of evolution, so in no way can it be validated. So far for rationality in atheism.

Without God, moral behavior would be without foundation. Biological functions are highly subjective and can never offer a moral framwork. Child rape is always evil not because it is inconvenient for survival, but because it is a moral abomination. Those values can only exist if God exists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
The genetic fallacy...Evolution might be the way in which God's moral laws are discovered by mankind.
No your holy books are they only way to discover gods ideas of morality...

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

"'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 your enemies will be the members of your own household.'" matt10

etc etc

-And of course the most important one of all:

"3 "You shall have no other gods before me." exo3

-Without which, none of the others will work will they? Nothing about THAT one in the genetic record.
knowalot
Mar 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aita
5 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2012
The genetic fallacy. Even if morality is biological, that does not prove at all that objective moral laws do not exist. Evolution might be the way in which God's moral laws are discovered by mankind.


You also discount that there are objective moral codes other than your own, many of fair weighted value that take more into consideration than your hard-and-fast rules. Take, for instance, intellectual hedonism, and play your arguments there.

So it's never whether or not objective morality exists, but rather why you think your specific brand is superior to others, and what qualifiers each has.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
Without God, moral behavior would be without foundation. Biological functions are highly subjective and can never offer a moral framwork.
Not so. Tribes whose members shared mutual trust and respect would be expected to win out over other tribes on conflict. You didnt visit the link I posted yet.
Child rape is always evil not because it is inconvenient for survival, but because it is a moral abomination. Those values can only exist if God exists.
Except that nowhere in your book is this forbidden or even addressed. In fact rape and child murder is allowed and encouraged. You should know this.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children." eze9

"Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped" isa13

etc etc
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2012
And since god doesnt exist it is left up to zealous adherents to carry these things out. This group is only one of the more recent examples of shekinah - gods will on earth:
http://en.wikiped...nce_Army
Aita
5 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Empathy and compassion constitute a poor standard for moral behavior. Christian morality would also call for goodness towards those we do not empathize with. Jesus said: love your enemy. Of course the best an atheist could come up with is morality on his own terms and conditions: it is all about me, myself and I. That is why God gave us moral values beyond what we are able to conjure up. One must respect others regardless of one's subjective feelings.


Uh... I'm assuming you've no knowledge of what empathy means, then?

Also, you're claiming a code that doesn't respect anyone who qualifies as "the other", by and large.

If you wanted to state a particular faith so you could be more directly argued, it would be greatly helpful, lest I group you into the larger fault of "Christian", which has plenty of terrible concepts of its own...
knowalot
1 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2012
Thou shall not murder says it all I guess. Your poor attack on the Bible does nothing to refute my argument. Your so called tribal morality is a hoax. It doesn't exist. It never happened. And you know that. Our objective moral duties and values exist because God as an absolute source of good exists, not because of subjective biological convenience. Murderers are not convicted because they lacked feelings of empathy, but because they commited an evil crime. No tribal mumbo jumbo necessary.
knowalot
1 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2012
"I'm assuming you've no knowledge of what empathy means, then?"

The point is that subjective feelings like empathy are a poor basis for universal moral values and duties. History has shown over and over again that empathy is first out of the window when people are put under pressure. That is when you need objective values to control impulses. But that argument is probably lost on you.
Aita
5 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
So how were humans moral to each other for hundreds of thousands of years before your book existed? Do you disagree with the concept of Social Contract? Have you read the works of Rousseau? How do you explain the crime rates in secular countries who readily denounce your god and obey only social contract and empathy as their guiding morality being so much lower than the "absolute morality" of countries that are highly religious?

The argument is that, had a murderer had empathy, he wouldn't have been able to kill another without a willing sacrifice of his own life. An absolute moral code removes personal responsibility and suppresses critical thought.
knowalot
1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2012
Please provide some evidence for all those claims. You don't really believe that nonsense about empathic murderers. Ted Bundy probably loved his victims truly, but his morality told him to kill them anyway. If empathy really was a factor in moral behavior, we would not have police patrolling every block and courts enforcing the law.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
Your so called tribal morality is a hoax. It doesn't exist. It never happened.
Funny. Your book is all about the exploits of the hebrew tribe. It sets in writing all the basic precepts of the tribal dynamic. It describes how to maintain internal trust and cohesion while traveling through a foreign land, raping and pillaging and murdering all who fail to relinquish their property to its 'rightful' owners.

The bible is a manual of the tribal dynamic. Obviously.
not because of subjective biological convenience.
Convenience. Biology determines which organisms live or die before they have a chance to reproduce. This is not something 'convenient'.
Ted Bundy probably loved his victims truly, but his morality told him to kill them anyway.
Ted Bundy was a psychopath. He felt nothing for anybody but himself. Science can give us the ability to recognize and perhaps even fix psychopaths. Religion would only make them priests and let them teach sunday school.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
History has shown over and over again that empathy is first out of the window when people are put under pressure.
Funny. The premier example of gods 'empathy' is when he and satan conspire to torture poor Lot just to test the depth of his commitment. They murder his entire family and torture the poor man, trying to make him yield. I guess this is what you would call 'tough love'.
knowalot
1 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2012
You are speaking about Job probably. Arbitralily mixing and mashing Bible quotes and misrepresenting them was always your strength.

Anyway, the greatest example of Gods empathy is not Jobs story of suffering and redemption. It was when He died on the cross as Jesus the Christ for your and my sins. The gift of grace and eternal life is free. I feel sorry for those who willfully reject it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2012
He died on the cross as Jesus the Christ for your and my sins. The gift of grace and eternal life...
Right, this is the one where god sends himself to earth to suffer unimaginable torture as a symbol of his infinite goodness and love? The event which john blamed on the jews who subsequently suffered centuries of repeated pogrom because of it? The horrible event of suffering which you remind yourselves of by wearing the torture device around your NECKS??

This is a symbol of your most severe disconnect. Being nailed to a cross to die a lingering death is not a GOOD thing. That you think of it as a symbol of goodness is a TRAVESTY.

Hey how about the eucharist? Where jesus/god hands out chunks of his own body for you to eat? Cannibalism as a religious rite also predates your superstition.

Torture, cannibalism, rapine, destruction of cities, armies, olive trees, genocide... Do you detect a theme here? 'I will do and suffer ANYTHING to live forever.' AND YOU WILL. So_help_you_god.
knowalot
Mar 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rwinners
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2012
Men must not have changed much... they would mate with anything warm.... or cold! Always have, always will.
bewertow
5 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2012
Why does science keep regurgitating this obsolete information? Lucy is anything but a human ancestor. In fact, there isn't a shred of evidence for any ancestral link between these extinct apes and modern humans. Complete bogus story yet again.


It makes me sad that people this stupid actually exist.

Also, reported for religious trolling.
Pkunk_
5 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
That is exactly what confused the Jewish priests and the Romans. Christians were even accused of incest because husbands and wives called each other brother and sister. Abraham called Sarah sister and this foreshadows the time when people are all one in Christ. Only a person with genuine love would indeed understand and appreciate the atoning death of Christ for all mankind.

The prophet Isaiah exactly predicted your response when he said: "Who has believed our report? They considered Him smitten and stricken by God and esteemed Him not". Thanks for confirming the Bible again. Atheists are just a tool in the fulfillment of all things. Be blessed.


STFU. No one wants to know about your religious beliefs on a physics forum.

knowalot has been hand fed the bible since he was 3 and it's all he knows. His ilk will take all abuse and scorn you heap on them and keep coming back for more. Because it's all they know and all they'll ever know.
MarkyMark
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
Seems Knowalot really should be call Knownothing.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Truer words have never been spoken:

"humans were kind to one another before your religion stepped in" -Aita

"So how were humans moral to each other for hundreds of thousands of years before your book existed?" -Aita

"it's never whether or not objective morality exists, but rather why you think your specific brand is superior to others" -Aita

"Most humans have this trait called empathy which defines our morality" -Aita

"I thus posit that the nature of humans is good, both for evolutionary societal function and as a means of self preservation" -Aita

"believing in something without proof is, by definition, irrational" -Aita

Bravo/a!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
Ho ho, a living creationist! They are about as obsolete as A. afarensis, yet their fossil ideas litter the comment sediment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2012
Abraham called Sarah sister and this foreshadows the time when people are all one in Christ.
A fanciful interpretation, but wrong. Abraham was only trying to save his ass:

"11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well"
The prophet Isaiah exactly predicted your response when he said: "Who has believed our report? They considered Him smitten and stricken by God and esteemed Him not". Thanks for confirming the Bible again.
Funny. I thought you rejected the Law but it seems you are willing to pick out the parts you agree with eh? This smells like sacrilege.

As the jesus/osiris/mithra et al myth is an old old one, and as much of the OT is stolen and adapted from such earlier sources, you should not be surprised to find this messiah reference here.
panorama
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
You are speaking about Job probably. Arbitralily mixing and mashing Bible quotes and misrepresenting them was always your strength.

Anyway, the greatest example of Gods empathy is not Jobs story of suffering and redemption. It was when He died on the cross as Jesus the Christ for your and my sins. The gift of grace and eternal life is free. I feel sorry for those who willfully reject it.


Silly troll, ghod is actually a wooden statue in my kitchen. He hangs out next to my banana hanger.

Also, http://i.imgur.com/va5oz.jpg

Also, http://www.youtub...xwKFKxZ4

All questions are now Vanswered. Thanks Craig.
knowalot
Mar 29, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
panorama
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
Jesus simply said: go and sin no more.

He also said that all the crazy shit in the OT still applies to everyone.

Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fullfill them."

So I'm heading up to Canada to get some slaves this weekend, anyone want to join me?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
I am not inconsistent. The law is different from the prophets. Jesus fulfilled every letter from the law.
According to you. And to those who share your unique interpretations. According to the majority of others, your views are heretical. Do you care?
That is why He is sometimes called the corner stone.
According to you,
Anyone who then is courageous and humble enough to put his faith in Him, will receive life and is no longer under the law.
According to you.
All those who reject Jesus will carry their sins into death and will be subject to the law.
According to you. And your cohorts.
Jesus simply said: go and sin no more.
Jesus also said:

"19 Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." MATTHEW 5

You teach heresy. Where does that place you in that long line at the gates?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
Thats another thing that galls me about you religionists. You go on and on about 'perfection' of gods word but you are all arrogant enough to concoct your own conflicting variations of dogma and then expect everybody to believe that yours is the only possible correct version.

This is the same level of arrogance which leads you to believe without doubt that the creator of the universe favors you and your fellows above all, and that because you know best how to tickle his fancy, he will be more apt to grant all your wishes and let you live forever.

It is the same level of arrogance which compels you to reject science of the plainest, clearest, most obvious sort, and to DEMAND when you get the opportunity that others reject it as well. Not because it doesnt make sense, but because it conflicts with your peculiar fantasies.

This level of egocentricity is indicative of a DEFECT. The fact that it is very common does not mean it is not pathological.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
Not according to me, according to the Bible. The apostle Paul called Jesus the corner stone, after the prophet Isaiah. The purpose of the law is to point to Christ. That is not some personal interpretation, but an echo of the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 8. In Gal 3:24 he calls the law a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.

You have misunderstood the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is not about self-righteousness or good works. I can be sure of my eternal peace because of who Jesus is, not because I am a good person.

In fact Jesus never came for decent people. He came for the sick and the sinners, to save them from eternal death. Those who think they are ok are not the ones Christ died for. As He said, the whole do not need a doctor, only the sick. In reality the whole of mankind has a defect. That sickness is called sin. The only cure is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
Not according to me, according to the Bible. The apostle Paul called Jesus the corner stone, after the prophet Isaiah
So? According to islam muhammad was foretold in the bible:
http://www.islami...ible.HTM

-According to judaism isaiah does not describe jesus, as he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the bible. Which, if you consider the description in total, is certainly the case.

He came and went; but he did return from the dead but then he left AGAIN. Oh well.
You have misunderstood the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is not about self-righteousness or good works blah
Yes a long line of religionists has been refining the dogma for millenia. You xians have had centuries to fine tune your various definitions to depict the very penultimate being of goodness and perfection.

This includes all the ways of dodging criticism and avoiding the obvious. Your god was invented to make you jump through hoops. Obviously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
-And according to the great doctor augustine the law is inextricable from the jesus creature. Which the creature himself confirmed, as I and panorama showed you.

You are in violation of the code of jesus. Unless you dont think you are, in which case, youre not. Right? As long as you have your own building and a bunch of pamphlets.

Where is a jesuit when you need one? All over in rwanda fomenting another massacre I suppose.
He came and went; but he did return from the dead but then he left AGAIN. Oh well.
I forgot - jesus did promise to return within a generation but he never showed up -? But of course your theologians came up with the appropriate, if implausible, explanation for that eh? Jesus was only literal when it is convenient for YOU guys, not him.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
Initially the Jewish rabbi's did consider Isaiah 53 to be a Messianic prophecy. Only after Christianity emerged did they change their opinion and interpret the suffering servant as Israel. Anyone reading the chapter can see for himself this view is hardly supported by the text. Israel (as a people) did not suffer and die for our sins and Israel did not heal the world.

The muslims of course have their own agenda with the Bible. Any verse that does not fit the koran is considered "changed", but without proof. It is very implausible that one man 600 years after the events presents the only true version of Jesus based on a vision only he was privileged to experience in a cave.

The Christian doctrine of salvation was not fine tuned over hundreds of years. Since the beginning Jesus is considered Son of God and the only way to salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith and the new birth. The oldest Christian sources confirm this.
mcausal
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
Initially the Jewish rabbi's did consider Isaiah 53 to be a Messianic prophecy.[...] Salvation is by grace through faith and the new birth. The oldest Christian sources confirm this.


Dude,,, this website is called physorg.com /science /physics /tech /nano /news
what part of that do you not get?

If you want to preach, go to a church!

knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2012
Dude!

Scale me in under "social sciences" if that makes you feel any better. By the way, address your complaint to Ghost please. He was the first to mention any religion here.
mcausal
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2012

Scale me in under "social sciences" if that makes you feel any better. By the way, address your complaint to Ghost please. He was the first to mention any religion here.


since you are the one preaching, i scale you under "preacher"
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2012

Sorry, humans were kind to one another before your religion stepped in, and in countries that are mainly secular there's far less crime and punishment than in, say, the United States or Saudi Arabia.


That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

In the majority of the "secular" nations in the world right now are allegedly communist, but actually dictatorships or republics disquised as communist, and the history of these nations is that all the rape, murder and pillaging is done by the secularist, atheist government!

You need to get your facts and history straight, because this is public knowledge and beyond contestation.

I'm not going to try to sit here and defend "religious nations," but you're ridiculous. The mid-century era Soviets and Chinese are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history, really even worse than the Holocaust in some cases, it's just the cover-ups were so extensive that the real extent of the murdering is not known...
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2012
...and it continues to this day in some regions, not that any of that is particularly relevant.

As for fossils, has ANYONE on this damn site ever actually bothered to look at how much variation there is in modern humans' morphology?

Average African American cranial capacity is about 10% less than average caucasion or asian!

Arm length, legs length, facial structure, head size, shoulder width, total height, skin color, lip size, hip size, etc, many other things vary wildly even within the same household and family, and even more so within the same "race", never mind across all races.

In fighting sports, such as MMA or boxing, we have four to six weight classes differing by a total of up to 100lbs or more, because modern humans differ by that much, even when the competitors are all adults in perfect or near-perfect physical condition. Not counting dwarfs and midgets.

So I guess all 4 or so major weight classes would be labelled as a different "species" by these idiots.

Grow up.
rwinners
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
Seems Knowalot really should be call Knownothing.


And perhaps, should be confined.
Lurker2358
not rated yet Mar 31, 2012
Yes a long line of religionists has been refining the dogma for millenia. You xians have had centuries to fine tune your various definitions to depict the very penultimate being of goodness and perfection.


The phrase "the just shall live by his faith" comes from Habakkuk, which pre-dates the incarnation by some 600 years, give or take a few.

The Law was clearly not intended to be some sort of "brownie point" system, nor was it intended to be a burden to people.

the sacrificial system within the law is clear evidence that salvation cannot be about a merit award system, since the very nature of performing the "sin offering" is an willful admission of an individual's inability to keep the other portions of the law.

So "keeping the law," in and of itself, could not remove sin any more than adding water to mud would remove dirt. It's just always been that way under both Judaism and Christianity
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Initially the Jewish rabbi's did consider Isaiah 53 to be a Messianic prophecy. Only after Christianity emerged did they change their opinion and interpret the suffering servant as Israel. Anyone reading the chapter can see for himself this view is hardly supported by the text. Israel (as a people) did not suffer and die for our sins and Israel did not heal the world.
And who is the 'they' you are referring to? The 'they' whose opinions are most convenient for you? Well of course.

"If we read further in Isaiah 49 -- beyond verse 3 -- we see that the Servant, though called Israel, isn't the nation but instead the Redeemer who will bring the nation of Israel back to G-d."
http://www.lighto...h53.html

-An interesting group of crossbreeds (I made a pun). They like jesus but think xians are pagans. I agree.

-Jews have their own messiah, and it is not your messiah.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
"all of the elements of the coming of the mashiach: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service."

(jesus - fail fail fail fail)

"The mashiach will be a great political leader

(Jesus - fail)

"descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader who will win battles for Israel.

(YOUR jesus - fail; MY jesus - win) But most importantly:

"he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach"

...He left (twice).
http://www.jewfaq...iach.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
The muslims of course have their own agenda with the Bible. Any verse that does not fit the koran is considered "changed"
Muslims have their own agenda?? Xians appropriated the Law and attached it to their version.
It is very implausible that one man 600 years after the events presents the only true version of Jesus
It is JUST AS implausible that jesus some 600 years after isaiah can claim that this particular prophet was talking about him. Yes? Whether xians stole the torah or not. Which they did, and claimed that it is all about jesus. Which it is not.

Many messiahs before and since have claimed isaiah. Constantine just happened to favor the jesus myth.
The Christian doctrine of salvation was not fine tuned over hundreds of years.
Sure it was. Jesus' divinity was not official until the council of nicaea. And flip-flopping explains all the many edits and redactions, the most embarrassing being the pseudoepigrapha.

Saying it is so only works with your congregants.
knowalot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Isaiah also writes that the Messiah would be rejected by His own people and become a light to the gentiles instead. In the Psalms His shameful death is described in detail, and Daniel writes that He will be killed just before the destruction of the temple.

The fact is that Jesus fulfilled so many OT prophecy before the destruction of the second temple that no one else can be the Messiah but Him. The reason why world peace and end of sin is not here is because those promises are still in the future, and, according to the Bible, peace begins first in our hearts. This is the time of grace.

Jewish author Michael Brown wrote an excellent book on these and other problems religious Jews have against Jesus of Nazareth. It is called "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
By the way, address your complaint to Ghost please. He was the first to mention any religion here.
You imply jesus, young earth, and creationism by begging the question in all your posts. This is a form of deception is it not? I and others are only too happy to elucidate.
since you are the one preaching, i scale you under "preacher"
Religionists, invariably xians, will show up here and claim that their god is responsible for all manner of natural phenomena. And further they will attempt to discredit the work of scientists, as knowalot did here.

As they are not summarily weeded out by management, it is up to reasonable posters to expose them for what they are. This is right and proper. Exposing them here enables others to recognize their influence elsewhere.

Here is Bart Ehrman elucidating the sorry state of the xian bible.
http://www.youtub...pp_video
knowalot
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
Jesus' divinity was well established from the beginning. Jesus is called God several times in the Bible, for instance by the apostle Thomas. Confronted with the risen Jesus, he calls Him my Lord and my God. Jesus Himself claims that He is the Father in flesh and blood. To the astonished disciples He says: if you see me, you have seen the Father, and the Father dwells in me.

There have indeed been many Messianic claimants. But the rational attitude is not jump to conclusions, but simply analyze their claims. Jesus is the most plausible candidate because He did fulfill Isaiah and the others did not. The koran denies a well supported historical fact: the death of Jesus on the cross. That alone would make the koran anything but a credible witness.

Nicaea was not about the divity of Jesus but the Godhead. The divity of Jesus was beyond dispute. It was the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son which was at stake. You obviously do not know church history.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Isaiah also writes that the Messiah would be rejected by His own people and become a light
So? This is part of the mithras and osiris myths, and obviously stolen.
In the Psalms His shameful death is described in detail
Only in a lyrical sense.
and Daniel writes that He will be killed just before the destruction of the temple.
Uh many many people were killed before the destruction of the temple. This destruction occurred some 40 years after jesus, a period of rebellion and destruction in israel.
knowalot
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Since when is it forbidden to discredit the work of scientists? Science is all about falsification of hypothesis. Unfortunately the dogma of evolution is now elevated beyond critique. That kind of attitude is not science, but religion.

It is fine for me that you are taking the moral high ground and calling yourself reasonable. But it can be lonely at the top. Many people who called themselves reasonable have turned out to be very creepy individuals indeed. But you are different of course.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Jesus' divinity was well established from the beginning. Jesus is called God several times in the Bible
Nowhere in matthew, mark, or luke does jesus call himself god. Only in john, the last gospel, does he call himself god. Obviously this was a later accomodation. Ehrman explains this very well.
Jesus is the most plausible candidate because He did fulfill Isaiah
He did not fulfill isaiah. Ask any jew. I showed this to you. He left without finishing the job. Another dud.

The romans resurrected him, cleaned him up, made him god, and foisted him on the masses on the threat of martyrdom. The rest is history.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Since when is it forbidden to discredit the work of scientists?
Its not appropriate to try to replace it with superstition.
Science is all about falsification of hypothesis.
You bet. Religion is the anthesis of this.
Unfortunately the dogma of evolution is now elevated beyond critique. That kind of attitude is not science, but religion.
That is a lie. The theory of evolution is routinely revised in light of new discoveries. Your superstitions are NEVER revised in light of new discovery. See the difference?

Archeology has TOLD us that there were no kingdoms of solomon and david, no exodus, no genocidal joshuan rampage. Be responsible and revise your book please.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Neither Isaiah (written around 700 BC) nor the gospels are adopted from a pagan cult that started in the first century. There is no documentary or archeological evidence for this claim. It is a theory peddled by new age believers like Elaine Pagels, and is considered pseudo science by serious scholars.

In fact there is evidence that cults started to adopt themes from Christianlty in the second century and beyond as it became more widespread. I thought you considered yourself a scientific person.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
All gospels attribute divine aspects to Jesus (like raising the dead and other miracles) and call him Son of God. The gospel of John was written in the first century according to most scholars. Other Bible books such as the letters of Paul (written between 40 AD and 65 AD) call Jesus God. Even extra Biblical sources like Ignatius and Clement call Jesus God (around 100 AD).

Your contention was that Constantine (who became a Christian around 310 AD) elevated Jesus to divinity. These facts clearly show you are wrong, just as you are wrong with your other claims. A rational person would admit that, but you are still in denial.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
The fact that a song in Psalms describes the crucifixion in a detailed way is actually a greater proof for it's veracity. Besides that, since when can a song not contain facts? That is just a non sequitur.

Jesus did fullfill many prophecies from Isaiah. All of those who are connected to the suffering servant aspect of the Messiah. The conquering King aspect is yet in the future. If Jesus is not the Messiah, then the Jews also have a problem. They cannot explain who is responsible for the 300 predictions that match the life of Jesus and should have been completed before 70 AD. So this argument is invalid because it ignores most of the evidence.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Archeology in fact does tell us there was a kingdom of David. The line of David is mentioned on the Tel Dan steele. The location for the city of David has been discovered in recent years, and currently excavations are underway in what is believed to be the palace of David. Some promising finds in Saudi Arabia at Jabel al Lawz could well be the real location of mount Horeb.

But generally speaking archeology cannot disprove the Bible (neither has it ever, just confirmed). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The same argument is used by the evolutionists when confronted with those giant gaps in the fossil record.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Neither Isaiah (written around 700 BC) nor the gospels are adopted from a pagan cult that started in the first century.
Mithraism can be traced to 1500 bce and before. It was intermingled with various indo/sumerian/egyptian precursors.
http://www.mithra...-ira.htm
There is no documentary or archeological evidence for this claim.
There is none for the jesus myth either, besides that novel of yours.
It is a theory peddled by new age believers like Elaine Pagels, and is considered pseudo science by serious scholars.
Serious RELIGIONIST scholars. You guys always leave that out. Categorize it any way you want. It makes a great deal of sense, and there is a LOT more hard corroborating evidence for, say, osiris, than for jesus. And this evidence makes jesus look like a retread. An obvious retread. A smorgasbord of earlier messianic godmen.
http://www.youtub...pp_video

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Even extra Biblical sources like Ignatius and Clement call Jesus God (around 100 AD).
extra biblical proto-XIAN souces, is what you mean? But then others equally as influential at the time, said he was NOT god. These poor chaps met the blade shortly after the council of nicaea.
Archeology in fact does tell us there was a kingdom of David. The line of David is mentioned on the Tel Dan steele. The location for the city of David has been discovered in recent years, and currently excavations are underway in what is believed to be the palace of David. Some promising finds in Saudi Arabia at Jabel al Lawz could well be the real location of mount Horeb.
Sorry these have all been convincingly discounted. For instance the tel dan stele, even if the fragments do say 'house of david', are a record of some aramaic kings military victory against israel. This king was obviously aware of judean myths and knew that the jews referred to themselves as 'house of david', AS THEY DO TODAY.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Legitimate archeological evidence would be ruins of an extensive kingdom including many fortified cities. There are none. Jerusalem was perhaps abandoned at this time.

In contrast we have more hard evidence for the hittites, who were only recently discovered in areas only recently searched. The holy land has been extensively explored for centuries by archeologists. They find not kingdoms but little villages. They find extensive descriptions of comparable civilizations in the region but NONE for israel or judah. What the bible describes never existed.

We do find an extensive egyptian military presence throughout the region during the purported time of the exodus, as well as evidence that goshen was sparsely populated and never held 2 million jews. EVER.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2012
So according to you Isaiah's suffering servant was adopted from some unknown Mythras-precursor, but there is no evidence for this claim either. And that you consider plausible?

The Bible time and time again dismisses any mixing with false gods and image worship, like the Mythras bull. All the evidence points to the Biblical God being anything but from pagan origin. To still peddle this belief is just irrational.

The historical Jesus does not only rely on the Bible, but on various secular sources as well. Again, there is not a single text or piece of archeological evidence that supports your theory that Jesus was some kind of pagan copy.

The Tel Dan steele mentions the line of David and is widely acknowledged as referring to kind David. Of course there are complex theories why house of David and house of Omri do not refer to what they refer to. One writer even claims the steele is a Jewish fabrication. Those people will always come out of the woodwork sooner or later...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
The fact that a song in Psalms describes the crucifixion in a detailed way is actually a greater proof for it's veracity. Besides that, since when can a song not contain facts? That is just a non sequitur.
Unfortunately psalm 22 does not. Only the kind of obscure imagery you religionists love to misinterpret.

"So the evidence from early Christian writings show that up to the middle of the second century CE it never occurred to Christian writers that Psalm 22:16b was an explicit reference to the nailing of the crucifixion. It all changed with Justin Martyr sometime after 150 CE. From then onwards the citations of Psalm 22:16b as an exact prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion became more and more common.

This finding is enough for us to conclude that "they pierced" was never part of the original meaning of Psalm 22:16b. It was not present in the Hebrew Bible (regardless of whether the actual reading was kaaru or kaari) and it was not present in the Septuagint."
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
"But then others equally as influential at the time, said he was NOT god. These poor chaps met the blade shortly after the council of nicaea."

What others? Be specific. There is no other gospel or proto-gospel denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, unless you can present one now. What chaps? How can someone from the first century be living at the time of Constantine? Jesus was considered God by Christians from the beginning. Even the gnostics of the second century do not deny the basic facts of the gospel, including His diviniy.

Lets re-iterate. You claimed that only from the time of Constantine was Jesus made God. I have given you evidence to the contrary. You gave nothing, but hang on to your claim. That is irrational.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
The Bible time and time again dismisses any mixing with false gods and image worship, like the Mythras bull. All the evidence points to the Biblical God being anything but from pagan origin. To still peddle this belief is just irrational.
You are missing the point I think. The evidence indicates that jesus IS a false god of decidedly pagan origin. To disregard all the identical myths from adjacent regions and far earlier times, is what is irrational dont you think?

Because the bible SAYS it is not adulterated means that it is not in fact obviously adulterated?? This is irrational.
http://www.youtub...pp_video
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Justin Martyr the first one to use Psalm 22 ?? That is a strange claim, because the gospels contain references to Psalm 22 using it as prophetic to His death and resurrection. So this claim is just nonsense, and it looks like it was directly copied from some site. What is the source?

The part you quote about "they pierced" is false. I do not know your source material here, but the Septuagint translates the Hebrew as "they pierced". All Masoretic scripts use the verb kaaru meaning "to bore through". So again a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
What others? Be specific. There is no other gospel or proto-gospel denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, unless you can present one now. What chaps?
I am surprised at how ignorant you are of xian history. No Im not.

"Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body."

"Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human, hence could not be called the Theotokos, i.e. "the one who gives birth to God". The debate about the single or dual nature of Christ ensued in Ephesus"
http://en.wikiped...oversies

etc
Jesus was considered God by Christians from the beginning.
Beginning of what? When and where did they stop being jews and become something else? Many variations for a very long time.
rwinners
not rated yet Mar 31, 2012
This thread has gone to hell. Bye!~
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
and it looks like it was directly copied from some site. What is the source?
You can copy/paste passages into GOOGLE you know.
http://webspace.w...rce.html
"Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine
-So would this mean that the trinity was actually a quadinity?? Maybe thats why it didnt fly. Didnt jibe with the osiris/horus/isis precursor. But then isis was the virgin mary so... ?

So how come you guys think that jesus was an anglo with long wavy hair? He would have obviously been an olive-skinned semite with a jew fro. And a wife. Unless he was gay.
http://www.hairca...rstyles/
http://jew-fro.co...jew-fro/
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
"The evidence indicates..."

What evidence? There is no evidence for this claim as I have indicated. We have been through this before, but vague and often concocted analogies between religions is not proof at all that they emanated from eachother or influenced eachother. There is just no logical connection.

So unless you can come up with some document or archeological evidence, I must conclude you are holding on to a blind belief and must be classified along with these other new agers as a pseudo scientist.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Now you are going completely off the chart. Arianism starts with Arius around 300 AD! We are talking about what Christians believed in the first and second century. Even Arius did not deny Jesus was divine, but he believed that Jesus was created by the Father. The Arian belief is more or less similar to Jehovah witness.

The Ebionites did not leave any writings and no one knows what they believed about Jesus, but it is likely that they insisted on keeping the Jewish law. This dispute is even recorded in the Bible (Acts 15). The Gnostics are groups loosely connected to Christianity that arise in the second century. No gnostic writing predates the NT books, and no gnostic denies the divinity of Jesus, but rather extrapolate Him beyond what the apostles write.

Nestorius was a church father from the fifth century with views that were considerd heretical at the time. That has nothing do to with the origin of the Christian faith in the first and second century.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
"The evidence indicates..."

What evidence? There is no evidence for this claim as I have indicated.
You can say this with a straight face only if you have not reviewed all the links I posted as well as all the logic I have presented. The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST your holyman du jour and all his relatives. So sorry. Take some time and digest the links.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
"Most Christians identified Jesus as divine from a very early period, although holding a variety of competing views as to what exactly this implied.[22] Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God;[23] by the Council of Nicaea in 325 he was identified as God in the fullest sense, being 'of the same substance, essence or being'."

"The 1st and 2nd-century texts that would later be canonized as the New Testament several times imply or indirectly refer to Jesus' divinity, though there is scholarly debate as to whether or not they call him God"
http://en.wikiped...stianity
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Don't be silly please. You have neither supplied any logic nor any evidence. The links you supply consist of personal blogs and characters like Paul Tobin. He hardly qualifies as a scholarly source on the Bible with a mechanical enigeering degree from Singapore. Then other name you use profusely is Ehrman. He does not believe in the pagan theory thing. Another friend you may find in your support is British satanist Vexen Crabtree.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Heres some more:

"The Alogi...were a group of Christian heretics in Asia Minor that flourished around 170 CE...They explicitly deny the Logos doctrine in John chapter 1 and they deny Johannine authorship by comparing his Gospel with the synoptic Gospels."

"Cerinthus (c. 100 AD) was a gnostic and to some, an early Christian, who was prominent as a "heresiarch" in the view of the early Church Fathers. Contrary to proto-orthodox Christianity, Cerinthus's school followed the Jewish law, used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world, and denied the divinity of Jesus."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
He hardly qualifies as a scholarly source on the Bible with a mechanical enigeering degree from Singapore.
So jesus was a carpenter from nazareth. Are you saying that only certified theologians can be legitimate sources of historical knowledge? Yes I think you are.
http://www.youtub...pp_video

Facts are facts. Jesus is a retread. The bible is hopelessly adulterated.
Another friend you may find in your support is British satanist Vexen Crabtree.
Naw sorry satan doesnt exist either. But he was originally conceived as the egyptian god Set. Did you know that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
So how come you guys think that jesus was an anglo with long wavy hair? He would have obviously been an olive-skinned semite with a jew fro. And a wife. Unless he was gay.
-And by the way please be responsible and fix all your icons and stationery. So that people dont get the idea that you are trying to deceive them or anything.

Thanks.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
knowalot:

I admire your efforts and intention, if not particularly all of your content, obviously.

You are never going to "win" a discussion with Ghost, unfortunately.

I mean, he never admits when he's wrong on any purely secular or scientific topic anyway, so why would you expect any better on a topic of religion or spiritual matters?

I usually end up having to link to 2 or 3 world class experts just to get him to quit heckling me even when I'm definitely right. And I don't recall ever getting an acknowledgement or apology out of him when my point was well proven.

Sorry, you're just wasting your time.

Even if you were a hundred times as skilled and knowledgeable as anyone on this site, which you definitely are not, no insult intended just being clear and blunt; I doubt it would matter to Ghost. He'd still be the same way. I wish I could say or think otherwise, but I've just never seen any evidence of it anyway.
encoded
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
God is made out of repulsive neutrons
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
I usually end up having to link to 2 or 3 world class experts just to get him to quit heckling me even when I'm definitely right. And I don't recall ever getting an acknowledgement or apology out of him when my point was well proven.
This from the accomplished celestial mechanic (in his own mind) who still thinks there is dry ice to be found in the Antarctic? Ahaaahaahaha. Keep up the good work.
Scottaino
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
Every time there is an article about evolution I come to the comments section to see these religious idiots saying it isn't true. These aren't the kind of people who are looking for answers, so we shouldn't waste our time arguing with them. Maybe if we ignore them they will go away.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Every time there is an article about evolution I come to the comments section to see these religious idiots saying it isn't true. These aren't the kind of people who are looking for answers, so we shouldn't waste our time arguing with them. Maybe if we ignore them they will go away.
Youre new here arent you?