I think you're giving ancient herdsmen an awful lot of credit for a notion of humans being made of the same matter as the Earth that's both so generic as to be meaningless, and a logical jump that's present in almost every creation myth in the world.
At the same time, the term "from the dust of the earth" is used. Not "from nothing" or "from God's breath" but from the dust of the earth. Whether or not it's intentional, it's still saying that the same materials that went into the ground can be found in the body. Now I'll give it's still somewhat generic, but for a millenia year old story, it's closer to the truth than most would care to admit, whether or not it's by accident.
I really don't want to sound insulting, but you've fallen into the same trap as so many other people who think divine creation is somehow more "provable" than random creation. The evidence doesn't make sense to you, because you're not very familiar with the evidence, you're not seeing patterns where they are and seeing patterns where they're not, completely ignoring the very important fact that the fossil record is simultaneously gigantic and incredibly sparse because that's just how fossils work, and frankly you don't really seem to understand what the scientific process means.
A bit assish. Just saying. But what are these patterns, then? And for that matter, it feels like a bit of an excuse that you can dismiss problems in the fossil record with "that's how fossils work". At the very least, an attempt could be made to explain, instead of just handwaving it.
You're compressing to whole of hundreds of millions of years of geological movement and the crap-shoot process of preservation into a storybook timeline of the Earth. The timeline of fossil evolution doesn't jump around, your incomplete perception of it does. There aren't an abundance of blue-light stars; blue light propagates better, and travels through the atmosphere, which is why the human eyeball isn't the preferred tool of astronomy. Your concepts about gradual evolution leaving problematic holes at cross-over points is a valid question, but it's not so stumping as you think it is: bats transitioned from shrews though a stage not unlike flying squirrels, they just got lighter and more muscular, because once random evolution finds an unexploited niche, selection pressure-relief causes it to fill that very fast (in the timescale of evolution). Like I said, I really don't want to sound like an ass, but your arguments are either drawn from somebody else's very slanted presentation of reality, or the result of a tremendous lack of research.
I'll address the bolded ones in order.
1. I am well aware that blue light is very all-consuming. Within the atmosphere. That does not explain the multitudes we see from shots outside of the atmosphere. And I do not mean stars that appear blue from here on earth. I mean stars that, when you get up close, are blue and EXTREMELY hot.
2. I'm not following how this works. The way a flying squirrel flies and the way a bat flies are very different. The flying squirrel, if I recall, has flaps essentially under its arms that it uses to glide. The bat has extended fingers with membranes that make a wing. I don't see how a squirrel could go to a bat, as even though it can glide in its own way, a flying squirrel still needs its hands/paws to assist in eating.
Author
Topic: Campaign to Arrest the Pope over Child Abuse (Read 30571 times)