You can sit back and b!tch about how little we can do to help, and try to wash the blood of the innocent off your hands- thats right- your hands. By your vote and advocacy the unborn meet a gruesome death, never opted the chance to have a life of joy or misery, be what fate they face. I prefer to roll up my sleeves and do what little I can to make a difference, though small it may be, it spite of people like you. What would the world have missed for the obortion of Einstein, Dr. King, Newton, Mother Theresa, the neighbor kid... nobody says things like "That fetus will be president someday," but it is the reality.

Bella, pull your head out of your A**. The oxygen will help with rational thoughts. My money goes where it counts, not some two bit feel good operation that only produces propoganda and behind the scenes Jim Bakers. Anyone with half a brain and a house full of kids to raise can't afford to p!ss their money away like that. Nor the time spent with community projects, food drives, emergency service work and the like. You talk rubbish because it is all you know, and your ignorance reveals the color of your heart. Good day, madam.

ken- We are different. You are not willing to mix science and spirituality (religion, if you prefer). I am not willing to seperate them entirely. If I am wrong, which is in fact one possibible scenario, then what I believe about God, about my relationship with fellow man, about the state of existence here and now and in times to come is all wrong too. I am not the type to bury my head in the sand, I am interested in as genuine an objective truth as exists. I do however believe that there are things that we will not be able to explain- the debate regarding the origin and history of life on earth is one of those things. I believe that scripture is legitimate, I believe that it is factual, in other words, I believe that it qualifies as scientific evidence- a sort of a qualitative analysis if you will. I believe there is more than enough natural phenomena that also support this belief. I am not as knowledgable as you are in the fields of hard science, but I am not ignorant of them either. I understand your drive to test and analyze. I truly think that some of the conclusions evolutionists have come to are simply incorrect- for our purposes here, it is just my opinion. I also believe that God is the Master Scientist, but I am not convinced that He plays by our scientific laws either- and I know that I cannot verify or falsify that concept in scientific terms. However, I am not uncomfortable when I cannot answer some of these questions. I will continue to search for answers, but my faith is not trumped by our current brand of science, that is why it is called faith. Believing without seeing. If that is lost, all is lost. And I would rather err on that side than err on the other. Perhaps I would make a lousy scientist, but I am okay with that. I prefer to teach my children accordingly.

Okay a couple of clarifications, then the punchline... 1.) The bla bla bla was not part of the argument, nor an insult, nor a way to say that I did not care or not want to consider what you had to say, it was to indicate that I was aware of your likely set of responses, and that I was thinking past your initial response- kind of indicating we had been down this road before, and I had not forgotten your point...moving on... 2.) I am not after moving the goal post. What we have here is two distinctly differing philosophical perspectives on the subject. You indicate that the age of these fossils range in the hundreds of millions of years (based on carbon dating, and some other things that I recall discussing with you) however I believe that the methods of dating are flawed, in spite of your surety that they are not fallable. I also firmly believe that the fossil record was the result of a single catastrophic event- which, if it were provable (within the parameters of "proof") it would negate the entire fossil record as evidence for evolution. We could adress the relationship between the current atmospheric composition, the ice core samples, ice ages, other climate change, and the plant fossil record to discuss the implications of a pre-flood atmosphere as described in Genesis, but I do not have the time- key word: Water vapor barrier in the atmosphere- could have kept the earth at a fairly constant temperature from pole to pole, provided for a heavy dew instead of rain, and would have been the likely source for the water during the flood. Just a thought, not trying to steer to a new segway (sp?) 3.) Hominid fossils: sorry I was not more clear about this- read it from the perspective of somebody who firmly believes that each species is its own thing, and that while we share traits with other species, we do not share a common ancestry. I think that the bottom line on taking these as evidence is that some of the specimens have some more human like characteristics than others, and some have more ape like cahracteristics- but the cahracteristics do not trend with the dates of origin enough for me to conclude that it was a process from monkey to man. 4.) tiktaalik- the duck-billed platapus of the day. Duck billed platapus is not a transitional species. It is an example of what to do with leftover parts :) 5.) on science and theology- I am a big supporter and believer in science, I understand what it is, how it works, and why it is important. I think that there is certainly enough scientific evidence to continue to give creedence to the concept of creation. At the same time, I think that there is enough of a lack of evidence to give evolution the slam dunk conclusion. Therefor, I believe that to throw the theory of creation out in the cold is not viable. So if you are going to offer a study of one theory, both should be addressed for thier merit. To me, science is not so hard a line that it is not tied to theology. I believe that they are intimately connected, thus theology provides an acceptable perspective on the science of origins. Here is the bottom line: We do not agree, based on different interpretations of scientific data, as well as spiritual and theological convictions. I do believe that the effects of sin and the influence of Satan have tainted this world in ways we may never understand. There is only one sure way to find out what the answers are, and I am not more curious about that than I am about continuing my existence on this earth for a long time to come. One more general thought on knowledge: Get a pencil and paper. Draw a lage circle on the paper- to construct a pie chart. Make a small wedge- represent about a 3% portion of the graphic. Draw another wedge adjacent to the first- about 5-6 times larger than the first. This should leave you three slices of the pie graph. Now, label the slices: the smallest one represents what we know we know. This is the stuff we can "prove" within reasonal parameters at least. The next larger wedge should be labled "what we know we don't know". This reprsents the information that is avaialble, that we simply to not have any info about- we know we dont know it. The last wedge- by far the largest one, represents all of the stuff that we don't know, that we dont know. I think that the study of the origin of creatures fits well into this category- there is a lot of stuff that we don't know that we don't know. Anyhow, thanks for the discussion, regards~ Ranger2