Seahawks

judge not, lest ye be judged. you don't know why she was crying. what log? plus, i do not claim to be a christian, therefore i do not suffer from the hypocrisy of a self-proclaimed christian attacking others. So it okay for future President to be sitting around crying becuase others are attacking her character???? I personally see that a personality flaw and someone I wouldn't vote for. She is weak. And yes I can have judgements about people. Its okay.

i thought christians were supposed to be loving and charitable? why don't you figure out why she was crying, instead of being a sinner? Always back to the Christian thing. You must be insecure. Someone who is running for president shouldn't be sitting around crying for themselves. Did Kennedy sit around and cry when the Soviets were putting nukes in Cuba??? She got issues. Why don't you take the log out of your eye before you accuse me of being a sinner.

it's funny how a supporter of Bush could make fun of how Hillary looks. Who cares how she looks??? What about her little crying session a week ago. I'm not being treated fair so I'm going to go cry. Hell what she going to do faced with a big decision?

Good song. Kevbone I just said what you wanted to hear. I do semi believe it but not all the way.

was he from enumclaw? Minnesota. Norwegian. Recovered alcholic, litte rough around the edges. Another one he would say to us kids "Leave me alone, I'm busier than a cat covering shit"

Grandpa always said in the summer "I'm hottter than a fresh f'd sheep"

I’m hungrier than a bitch hounddog suckin' pups

When you mess with the bull you get the horns.

Becuase our system is similuar to Russia. They have one party where they hand pick a person for all to vote for. We have two parties where they hand pick who we can vote for. Few more choices but all the ellite picked for you. Keep fighting over those choices. They are all on the same team. We need to wake up.

Everyone getting along now? Always expect the person with the truck nuts to be playing AC/DC in there lifted truck. Get a good laugh out of them, especially the stealy ones that knock together. Always wonder if the person driving the truck got size issue.

http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=7625589

Who going to start the next thread where all the circle jerks can have there little orgy togather??

It is, despite you being so dumb. You can go to any museum and see'em. but you might be too dumb to be let inside. I've answer the question to kevbone 5 pages back. No museum has transitional fossils. Man people here are dense.

That argument is really weak. So what if it's not a 'true link' (which is an incredibly narrow definition). This creature had undeniable reptilian features which the bat-bird strawman argument woefully over simplifies. This is strong evidence that it is very close to a 'true link' in my mind. A 'true link' requires a series of fossils leading up to and out of a splitting. The probability of discovering that is minuscule. At the very least you have to admit that this makes evolution plausible. It's not conclusive evidence but it is incredibly strong evidence. Even that quote from Lecomte du Nouy doesn't state that it isn't a transitional form but is more of an apologetic concession to creationists. I hear what your saying but if evolution is true the fossil record should be teaming with tranitional fossils. Its not. and no concern by the evolutionist. They just march on and say this is the truth blindly.

Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles. Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a part-way wing and part-way forelimb, or a part-way feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100% birds. Archaeopteryx had claw-like appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same appendages, however. are found in a living bird in South America, the Hoactzin, and he is 100% bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending out along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It flew. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree. Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "in spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain "unknown."11 Marshall has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved

In modem decades, the tree of horse evolution has been refuted and abandoned, in professional circles at least. Consider this admission by Steven Stanley: "The horse ... the classic story of one genus fuming into another, … Now it's becoming apparent that there's an overlap of these genera, and that there were many species belonging to each one" (Bioscience, Dec. 1986). Mr. Walt Barnhart, in his master's thesis (1987) , catalogued this overlap in 21 different genera with data from the evolutionary literature. Dotted lines represent uncertainties in dating. Most individual categories are known only from their teeth. It is hard to see any evolutionary sequence here

The world as you see it is either "1" or "2". Is that what Jesus taught? "Interpret my words "1" or "2". Nothing else will work. Oh, ignore all the changes in direction and interpretation between 1200 BC and late 2007 AD. Oh and one more thingy, after you have translated through 4 or 5 separate languages, don't worry about it. Bound to be right." Ever hear of the dead sea scroles?? Read up. The mauscripts were not changed. I know a guy who actually studies the bible in greek and hebrew. Fricking smart guy. Yes it hard to translate some words from one language to another but the ideas are the same. To deny something becuase of translation would be eliminate some of the great writting of the world.

Did I see that horse turn into a cat? Micro buddy and a site totally to bash creation. Come back in a decade or so if you learn how to make sense The opening quote is a fricking lie "This small dog-sized animal is the oldest found horse" Its a horse and they put in small dog-size to Impply it evolved. Like how they humped its spine and the only one with its head down. Come on are you guys actually this stupid. 0+0+=0

Did I see that horse turn into a cat? Micro buddy and a site totally to bash creation.

LOL That really funny.

You have a manual excellent can I have a copy? Once again insulting me still doesn't provide the intermediate fossils. Back to your old tatics again huh?

Yep. But there's no "if" to it. OOps. Too bad for you! Well your betting your soul for enternity. Hope your right. I still get to live a good life and if I'm right whole lot to look forward to. You on the other hand will burn forever. I like my odds.

Funny how you will believe scientific theory saying fossilization is impossible but not science saying the Earth is 4 billion years old. Cognitive dissonance? I guess you are too dumb to get it. Can you prove fossilization. Yes and you can prove how long it takes. Something 60 -70 million supposedly years old would have 0% cells. No if and or buts. But hey it does. So we have to come up with a new theory to debunk this. 0 + 0 = 0 Something doesn't come from nothing. Basic laws. 1) Mary finds some 65 million year old blood cells inside a dinosaur bone 2) Mary suggests that these blood cells have been preserved through the fosslization process 3) Fossilization theory does not discount this, but it is an unexpected result. Offering possibilities for more exciting discoveries. 4) Mouthbreathing Bible thumpers (probably reading Bible looking for justifications for incest) cannot understand Mary's work. 5. and idiots can't admit that maybe there thinking was wrong becuase they are so much into there huminstic religion that it doesn't allow any other thought. SEAHAWKS YOU HAVE EXCEEDED THE QUOTA FOR MAXIMUM POSTS IN A THREAD. STFU AND GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. KK I think your a pretty smart guy smarter than 99% here and sometimes and eligant writter but sometimes. I don't have to lay down to something that has no proof. That been shoved down everyone of our throat as fact. and in fact is a fraud. If you want to beleive Mr. linky is 70 million years old go ahead. Nothing out there proves that. Calling me stupid for thinking that still doesn't prove that. There are no intermediate fossils. There are comets that were formed when the big boom (they say happened) that should no longer exist. But what do they do with every bit of evidence that fly's in the face of what they believe? They make up some incredible theory that can support what they believe. So no I will not shut up. Find something else if you don't like it. SH, you are exposing yourself on a weak branch. Ironically, it would be an olive branch. I am a Christian and I do not beleive in Creationism over evolution. I have been on Archeological digs with preists, pastors, mullahs, Jews, even Mormon decons and all of them beleive in the effectiveness of carbon dating and in science and in evolution. Oops. The Mormons still beleived in Creationism. But it does not change their faith or love of the Bible, Quran, Torah. One thing all of these people did have was a strong background in the history of the Bible. Most of them had Phd's and all of them at least had Masters degrees in the field of Religious studies. The texts as we get them are multi layered and incredibly rich with value to the Spiritual practitioner as well as historians and scientists. Admitting the earth was not flat did not crush Christianity as was predicted. Neither will newer developments in science that seem to contradict the Bible. I have no problem with my kids being taught evolution theory. I beleive in it as a sound scientific theory and I would be very surprised to learn it was not extremely accurate. Meanwhile, I know God exists and that I have a good relatioship with Him. I beleive you are pining your hopes to an interpretation of stories that were never meant to be taken as literal as you and most other Christians take them. So little time and I am a slow typist. Talk to me offline.... Well there a problem with that logic. Jesus taught about Adam and eve and creation. So if Jesus taught this then either 1. Its true or 2. He's a lier. If he a lier then you better look somewhere else becuase it all crap then. ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). In these words of Jesus we find He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in ‘the beginning of the creation’