PDA

View Full Version : Christians have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan



Pages : [1] 2

BigBadBrian
05-16-2007, 03:53 PM
Christians have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan


Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2007, 10:31 (BST)

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”, Christian Today has learned.

The threats were made in a letter circulated last week to the town’s Christian population, according to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance.

They come as Pakistan’s National Assembly overwhelmingly rejected proposed amendments to the blasphemy laws, which were tabled by a minority representative Member of Parliament, Mr Bhandara. On 8 May, the Government led the movement in the National Assembly to defeat the reforms.

Under the existing blasphemy laws, anyone convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad faces life imprisonment or the death penalty, according to section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Mr Bhandara, a Parsi, proposed a bill which would amend the penalty for blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad to a five year prison sentence and a fine. He also proposed applying the law to other religions, not only Islam.

His proposals were greeted with cries of “shame” from Government and opposition benches and were rejected by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister as un-Islamic. “Islam is our religion and such bills hurt our feelings. This is not a secular state but the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the Minister said according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

In a statement, APMA said: “Christians and other religious minorities are being roped into false cases under the blasphemy law. They are being murdered by zealots … This law is proving to be a sword hanging on the heads of non-Muslims and secular-minded people.

“The blasphemy law needs to be amended, if not altogether repealed, because of its great misuse. The law has created an atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance …a sense of insecurity and harassment.”

Commenting on the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province, APMA said: “The Christians of Pakistan are already facing victimisation and discrimination. Many innocent Christians are incarcerated and killed.

“Attacks on churches, Christian schools and other institutions have been experienced by the Christians of Pakistan in the past few years, and now the rise of vigilante groups and threats have aggravated the situation.”

Stuart Windsor, Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s National Director, said: “We are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism in Pakistan, and the threats made to Christians in North-West Frontier Province.

“We urge the Pakistani authorities to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of religious tolerance and freedom and to protect religious minorities who are facing threats and ultimatums. We urge the Government of Pakistan to recognise the gross misuse of the blasphemy laws and the urgent need for their reform, or repeal.”

Link (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christians.have.10.days.to.convert.to.islam.in.pak istan/10790.htm)

BigBadBrian
05-16-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.


I thought Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were the only ones giving out deadlines lately. Is this their doing?

:cool:

DEMON CUNT
05-16-2007, 04:24 PM
BRIAN SPAM!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h80kfZGwzhM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h80kfZGwzhM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nickdfresh
05-16-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I thought Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were the only ones giving out deadlines lately. Is this their doing?

:cool:

Yeah dummy, good one!


Bush: Pakistan steadfast in war on terror
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — President Bush praised Pakistan's fight against terrorism as unfaltering Saturday...

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-04-bush-pakistan_x.htm)

Gee Brian, what's Fearless Cheerleader doing about this? Apparently, he doesn't seem to mind that the Paki intelligence agency (ISI) is training Taliban guerrillas to kill Americans and NATO troops, but oh well. Neither do you apparently...

Good Dummy COn...

ODShowtime
05-16-2007, 06:46 PM
bbb's thread titles have been straying more from the actual headlines from the articles lately.

They're always more sensational than the original.

Attention whore.

ELVIS
05-16-2007, 06:58 PM
Ahh...

Kill the Christians...

Right, libs ??

DEMON CUNT
05-16-2007, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
bbb's thread titles have been straying more from the actual headlines from the articles lately.

They're always more sensational than the original.

Attention whore.

People like BigBland are drawn to these sorts of stories to distract themselves from the real bloodshed going on in that part of our world.

They feel as though stories like this justify their hatred for other other religions while, of course, paying no mind to instructions such as 'love thy enemies.'

Conservatives also seek out stories to justify their desire for murder which is cheaply packaged as a fake 'war on terror.'

This particular "story" comes from a kooky right wing Christ-o-fascist website called http://www.christiantoday.com.

Nickdfresh
05-16-2007, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ahh...

Kill the Christians...

Right, libs ??

See what I mean? Look at the silly bitch with the martyrdom complex...

yeah Joan of Arc, "libs" are advocating just that.:rolleyes:

ELVIS
05-16-2007, 07:23 PM
LMAO!

DEMON CUNT
05-16-2007, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ahh...

Kill the Christians...

Right, libs ??

No, Elvis. Killing is wrong and that is just part of the reason why us 'libs' hate your "war."

My plan places Christians into prison camps for science and civics classes. A general 'common sense' centered education will be required.

Classes include: "Snakes cannot speak", "Dinosaurs: Real", "What Christ has to do with Christianity", "Forget Leviticus! Have you read the gospels!?!"

Sign up now!

ELVIS
05-16-2007, 07:35 PM
How much do the classes cost ??

And it's not my war, fool...

DEMON CUNT
05-16-2007, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
How much do the classes cost ??

And it's not my war, fool...

Did you vote for Bush in the last Presidential election? If you did, then this is your fucking war. You voted for it.

Oh, the camp will be free and of no cost to you since the programs will be funded by socialist liberals like myself.

Don't worry.

We will not "de-Christian" you. We will simply encourage an increased blood flow into your brain. After treatment we hope that you'll be able to use it on your own.

Hell, some of you might actually go on to experience feelings of empathy (http://www.answers.com/empathy&r=67).

sadaist
05-17-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

A general 'common sense' centered education will be required.



You first

Hyman Roth
05-17-2007, 08:47 AM
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/1162757261support_denmarke0c.jpg

kentuckyklira
05-17-2007, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ahh...

Kill the Christians...

Right, libs ??

Well, as atrocious as this is, at least they aren´t simply killing all the men and boys like the good Christian Serbs did in Sebrenica!

BigBadBrian
05-17-2007, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
My plan places Christians into prison camps for science and civics classes. A general 'common sense' centered education will be required.




Good one!!! What a plan!

Your heroes Adolf and Heinrich would be proud.

;)

BigBadBrian
05-17-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
No, Elvis. Killing is wrong and that is just part of the reason why us 'libs' hate your "war."



Oh BS!!!

The only reason you hate this war is because you see it as Bush's war.
Otherwise, you couldn't give a damn about Iraqis or any other person that doesn't look like you. Get real.

:gulp:

BITEYOASS
05-17-2007, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/1162757261support_denmarke0c.jpg

LMFAO! :D

GO-SPURS-GO
05-17-2007, 10:51 AM
My plan places Christians into prison camps for science and civics classes. A general 'common sense' centered education will be required.


I think people who believe in the living GOD has more 'common sense' than atheist. Richard Dawkins or Darwin can't even explain where the primordial atom and all the gases came from. It takes more faith to believe that we started as a single cell and evolved into a 100 trillion celled life.

BITEYOASS
05-17-2007, 10:52 AM
I think the North-West Frontier is Taliban HQ anyway. Why bother saving their sould if they plan on killing us anyway. Fuck, I don't know why we aren't invading that particular province in Pakistan instead of Iraq. Hell, what we should have done to get Musharif to cooperate is threaten to accelerate India's nuclear program if they won't let us in the North-West Frontier Province. Heck I've been reading stories on how India has modified Migs and Sukhoi jets; gutted the Russian equipment and inserted their own technology. They even did a practice dogfight with the US Navy and made it into a stalemate.

GO-SPURS-GO
05-17-2007, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
No, Elvis. Killing is wrong and that is just part of the reason why us 'libs' hate your "war."

My plan places Christians into prison camps for science and civics classes. A general 'common sense' centered education will be required.

Classes include: "Snakes cannot speak", "Dinosaurs: Real", "What Christ has to do with Christianity", "Forget Leviticus! Have you read the gospels!?!"

Sign up now!

oops... i messed up The Cunts quote.

I think people who believe in the living GOD has more 'common sense' than atheist. Richard Dawkins or Darwin can't even explain where the primordial atom and all the gases came from. It takes more faith to believe that we started as a single cell and evolved into a 100 trillion celled life.

hideyoursheep
05-17-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I think the North-West Frontier is Taliban HQ anyway. Why bother saving their sould if they plan on killing us anyway. Fuck, I don't know why we aren't invading that particular province in Pakistan instead of Iraq. Hell, what we should have done to get Musharif to cooperate is threaten to accelerate India's nuclear program if they won't let us in the North-West Frontier Province.

Only conclusion I can come up with is.....

You don't want your telemarketers at war with your opium farmers. :D


So much for "making no distinction between the terrist, and the nations who harbor them".:mad:

Nice one, Dubyah.

Should have said "make as much money as possible by destroying Iraq's infrastructure and robbing the national treasury in hopes of landing huge oil contracts for my base, while we blame them for 9/11 and invent ties between Bin-Laden and Saddam, and if that doesn't work, repeat the words, "smoking gun-mushroom cloud"".

BucshCo=Evildoers. :mad:

EAT MY ASSHOLE
05-17-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I thought Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were the only ones giving out deadlines lately. Is this their doing?

And who was it who said "Saddam Hussein and his sons have three days to leave their country before we commence bombing"??

Big Bad Brian....HE'S A BIG DUMB TWAT!!!

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 01:07 PM
Ok, I get it...

Islam good, Christian bad...:rolleyes:

Satan
05-17-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ok, I get it...

Islam good, Christian bad...:rolleyes:

Well, actually it's more like this.......

"Religious Vomit" (J. Biafra)

[Chorus]
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck

They all claim that they have the truth
That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee

They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness

[Chorus]
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH

They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kMI0vWBt44s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kMI0vWBt44s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Nickdfresh
05-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Oh BS!!!

The only reason you hate this war is because you see it as Bush's war.
...l.

:gulp:

And it would never have been fought to begin with without him...

Nickdfresh
05-17-2007, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ok, I get it...

Islam good, Christian bad...:rolleyes:

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/BDX/BDX420/bxp139270.jpg

Baby's On Fire
05-17-2007, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ahh...

Kill the Christians...

Right, libs ??


Ever hear of the Crusades, you dumbass, blind, neo-con stupid motherfucker?

What a motherfucking hypocrite.

All religious people are IDIOTS, and all religion is evil and a scam.

So fuck you.

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 07:54 PM
I'm not religious...

But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...

The old me would have said "with your mother", but I'm a new creature in Christ Jesus...

Old things have passed away...

God bless you...


:elvis:

Baby's On Fire
05-17-2007, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not religious...

But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...

The old me would have said "with your mother", but I'm a new creature in Christ Jesus...

Old things have passed away...

God bless you...


:elvis:


Yeah. God Bless. Jesus will save all. Except for all the innocents the BCE has murdered. And every thing else for that matter.

Thanks Elvis, you just proved my point about religious people being idiots (Republican and Democrats alike).

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 08:18 PM
I'm not religious...

DEMON CUNT
05-17-2007, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only reason you hate this war is because you see it as Bush's war.
Otherwise, you couldn't give a damn about Iraqis or any other person that doesn't look like you. Get real.


Nope. Wrong as usual, BigBland.

Do not assume that I approach my politics with the same mentality that you do.

Blessed are the peacemakers...

DEMON CUNT
05-17-2007, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
oops... i messed up The Cunts quote.

I think people who believe in the living GOD has more 'common sense' than atheist. Richard Dawkins or Darwin can't even explain where the primordial atom and all the gases came from. It takes more faith to believe that we started as a single cell and evolved into a 100 trillion celled life.

There you go confusing faith for common sense.

Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Science is not on your side.

If you want to be a Christian then be one. Christ even left you a set of instructions and lessons.

My beef is with the fact that most of you are hypocritical assholes. Who are more concerned with wars against terror and gay marriage than anything that Christ had to say.

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."



You convieniently forgot "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."


:elvis:

DEMON CUNT
05-17-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
You convieniently forgot "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."


So which is God? Person, idea, or thing?

Nickdfresh
05-17-2007, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not religious...

But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...

The old me would have said "with your mother", but I'm a new creature in Christ Jesus...

Old things have passed away...

God bless you...


:elvis:

Really? Is that why you called me "Dickdfresh" the other day, completely unprovoked, you phony?

"Thou shalt not lie?" Yeah, right balllicker...

You're even a bigger cunt now than you were before. Because now, it's forgiven and sanctioned by the almighty..

GO-SPURS-GO
05-17-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Ever hear of the Crusades, you dumbass, blind, neo-con stupid motherfucker?

What a motherfucking hypocrite.

All religious people are IDIOTS, and all religion is evil and a scam.

So fuck you.

Another angry, bitter and mean spirited liberal/athiest. Your religion known as evolution teaches you that there is nothing to look forward to after death! so i can see why you mean spirited liberals/athiest are sooo bitter. you are the same as people you criticize. People like you, FORD and all of your hippie Hollywood friends are no different from Ann Coultor and Micheal Savage.

Nickdfresh
05-17-2007, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Another angry, bitter and mean spirited liberal/athiest. Your religion known as evolution teaches you that there is nothing to look forward to after death! so i can see why you mean spirited liberals/athiest are sooo bitter. you are the same as people you criticize. People like you, FORD and all of your hippie Hollywood friends are no different from Ann Coultor and Micheal Savage.

Um dude, evolution is science, not religion....

And it has nothing to do with the afterlife of 72 glorious virgin bisexual cheerleaders I know I'm due for!

ODShowtime
05-17-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Oh BS!!!

The only reason you hate this war is because you see it as Bush's war.
Otherwise, you couldn't give a damn about Iraqis or any other person that doesn't look like you. Get real.

What do you think is the main reason for people hating gw you idiot? :rolleyes:

ODShowtime
05-17-2007, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
oops... i messed up The Cunts quote.

I think people who believe in the living GOD has more 'common sense' than atheist. Richard Dawkins or Darwin can't even explain where the primordial atom and all the gases came from. It takes more faith to believe that we started as a single cell and evolved into a 100 trillion celled life.

People who use reason don't have faith that life started as a single cell. They believe that there are numerous THEORIES based on observation that sound plausible and have yet to be proven wrong.

Faith is for the weak, like elvis.

DEMON CUNT
05-17-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And it has nothing to do with the afterlife of 72 glorious virgin bisexual cheerleaders I know I'm due for!

Fuck yeah! Liberal Heaven is going to be awesome!

ODShowtime
05-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Oh BS!!!

The only reason you hate this war is because you see it as Bush's war.
Otherwise, you couldn't give a damn about Iraqis or any other person that doesn't look like you. Get real.


hold up...

I saw this quote again and the shear stupidity of it took two reads to fully hit me... like a slap in the face!

So bbb, you're saying that no one here has a legitimate beef about the Iraq war? Are you saying that it went off without hitch and the only reason we see bad news on the TV is because the liberals are bitching and moaning?

To quote Stg. Stendanko, "You are a stupid, stupid man."

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? Is that why you called me "Dickdfresh" the other day, completely unprovoked, you phony?



You're such a little girl...

And I called you Dickforbreath, dick...

I'm sorry, I forgot you can't handle a little friendly name calling or someone poking fun at you...:rolleyes:

Sissy...

FORD
05-17-2007, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm not religious...

But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...

The old me would have said "with your mother", but I'm a new creature in Christ Jesus...



OK, that's going in the sig file!

ELVIS
05-17-2007, 11:49 PM
:D

LMAO!

GO-SPURS-GO
05-17-2007, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
There you go confusing faith for common sense.

Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Science is not on your side.

If you want to be a Christian then be one. Christ even left you a set of instructions and lessons.

My beef is with the fact that most of you are hypocritical assholes. Who are more concerned with wars against terror and gay marriage than anything that Christ had to say.

Science is on my side. If you would stop being so black and white for once in your life, you would know what i mean. It wasn't that long ago when the science/atheist community believed that the earth and moon was made at the same time, while the Bible has said all along that they were created at different times. I could go on and on with examples like that. All the stuff at the " Scopes trial" like the tooth that turned out to be a pigs tooth was a fraud. Lucy, the Nebraska man and all kind of other stuff has been debunked. Unlike the evolution scientist, the creation scientist are way under funded. but in the last 20 years they have made a big dent in the theory of evolution. a 100 scientist from schools around the country with PH.D levels from Berkley to Chicago have spoke against evolution. Watch the documentary " The Case For A Creator." Now, I'm not saying that they believe the living GOD from the bible created the universe. All I'm saying is that they now have doubts in evolution. Give them a couple of years and they will believe in the living GOD. I once believed in evolution. People have hard hearts for GOD. if we believe in GOD, then we are accountable for the actions we take. People don't like that. People wan't to do what they want. That's cool, because GOD gives us free will. Darwin said " I suppose", "or maybe" 127 times in his book, The origins of life. Jellyfish, watermelons and clouds are 97% water. are they the same? of course not! Humans and monkeys are 97% alike. It's that 3% that makes the difference. Everything in your house was created by someone or something, and you Mr. Demon are no different! It takes more faith that we evolved from a single cell, to this incredible 100 trillion cell life form, than to believe in a loving and great GOD! You Mr. Demon, will never be duplicated again. from your finger prints, your eyes, your brain to your DNA. There will never be another one of you. Can you tell me where has a great explosion, like the "Big Bang," created order. If a mountain blows up, does it create a bridge or a house? Of course not. It's crazy to think that this "Privileged Planet" was all by chance. This lucky planet sure has some good food, that somehow and someway got here. Carrots, nuts, bananas and apples. I think the doctors say that they are also good for you and they can even prevent diseases too! WOW..... Imagine that! If all you Liberal/atheist would give GOD a chance like you say we should give peace a chance, then you would know what I'm talking about. Once again my misguided liberal friends, please excuse my grammar. You guys have tore me up on that in the past threads. For those of you who are searching for the truth may i suggest some movies. Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Part 1,2 and 3, The Case For A Creator, Unlocking The Mystery Of Life, The Privileged Planet, Biblical Authors: Who Actually Wrote The Bible, Where Facts and Fiction Meet: The Biblical Christ in a Da Vinci Code Society. WARNING.....These movies will make a non-believer a sceptic, a sceptic a believer and a believer a fanatic! Like me. SORRY... There are a lot of lies that us GOD loving Christians need to set straight. One more thing....Darwin and Richard Dawkins can't explain where the primordial atom came from! Can you MR. Demon?

DEMON CUNT
05-18-2007, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Science is on my side. If you would stop being so black and white for once in your life, ... Darwin and Richard Dawkins can't explain where the primordial atom came from! Can you MR. Demon?

Holy shit! Hire an editor.

Did you copy/paste that from Creationism for Dummies?

I'll show you a "primordial atom" when you show me a talking snake.

Hyman Roth
05-18-2007, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
....

I'll show you a "primordial atom" when you show me a talking snake.

LMMFAO!! He's got a point, though - scientists are baffled on the issue of a "first cause" and the laws of physics seem to dissipate the closer and closer we are able to get to it through academic study. Its fascinating stuff that I can't really understand but ultimately leads me to the belief that there must be some omnipotent being - although I am sure it is nothing like our feeble minds have imagined. Of course, this is neither here nor there on the issue of creationism v. natural selection, which, as I think was already pointed out, are not necessarily inconsistent.

DEMON CUNT
05-18-2007, 01:15 AM
I really wonder why we even care about an after life.

I believe that humans as a species grew more intelligent we became aware of our mortality. Early humans began to comfort their grief by constructing scenarios to deal with and explain the death of loved ones.

These early humans were not aware of dinosaurs and science.

Run with that one, Christ-o-fascists

ELVIS
05-18-2007, 01:22 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtFjGvf6QFg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UtFjGvf6QFg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



:elvis:

PlexiBrown
05-18-2007, 02:02 AM
Right off the bat that guy said, "I am going to try to convince you of my beliefs". To that I say to him, "shut the fuck up". When he was an atheist he was probably going around trying to convince people of that belief.

ELVIS
05-18-2007, 02:04 AM
This is cool...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXQFqlVMrrc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mXQFqlVMrrc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


:elvis:

GO-SPURS-GO
05-18-2007, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Holy shit! Hire an editor.

Did you copy/paste that from Creationism for Dummies?

I'll show you a "primordial atom" when you show me a talking snake.

Come on Mr. Demon, is that the best you got. i've already told you about my spelling/grammar. Why don't you just shut me up, and show me a primordial atom. According to Richard Dawkins and the rest of you atheist, believing in a GOD is an out dated fairytale. So shut up this stupid fairytale believing Christian. If you know, then you need to tell the god of the atheist Richard Dawkins. because everytime someone ask him that, he starts to sweat and becomes very mean spirited, and attacks the people who ask him that question. kinda like DEMON, FORD & NICK.

ELVIS
05-18-2007, 02:53 AM
Especially Dick...Er...Nick...


:elvis:

Nitro Express
05-18-2007, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
http://content.imagesocket.com/images/1162757261support_denmarke0c.jpg

Bwaahaaa! Lego needs the Brigham Young and Warren Jeffs set as well.

FORD
05-18-2007, 03:15 AM
When did I become an atheist?? :confused:

GO-SPURS-GO
05-18-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by FORD
When did I become an atheist?? :confused:

I mentioned you, because when you disagree with someone, most of the times you call them names. Or you make fun of the way people spell. Like me! :D

Hyman Roth
05-18-2007, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I mentioned you, because when you disagree with someone, most of the times you call them names. Or you make fun of the way people spell. Like me! :D

No he doesn't. He just does that to dogmatic pricks that try to ramrod their beliefs down everyone's throat and borderline spam the site. I have personally and publically disagreed with Ford on this and that other Roth board on several occassions and the dude has not once called me a name or made fun of the way I post.

kentuckyklira
05-18-2007, 04:55 AM
I can´t believe that so many so stupid people can at the same time be so arrogant! Why can´t some people simply accept the fact that there will probably always be something we can´t understand. What´s so hard about having an "I want to understand as much as I can" attitude instead of "I want everything explained"?

How can people be so incredibly stupid to base what they consider major bets in their life on something so obviously wrong as an individual religion? Can´t these weak minded numbskulls see that, had they been born on a totally different part of the world or time in history, they ´d be worshipping Allah, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Isis Osiris and Ra or maybe just simply the largest tree in the vicinity instead of Jesus?

Nickdfresh
05-18-2007, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Especially Dick...Er...Nick...


:elvis:

You suck what?

Nickdfresh
05-18-2007, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
You're such a little girl...

And I called you Dickforbreath, dick...

I'm sorry, I forgot you can't handle a little friendly name calling or someone poking fun at you...:rolleyes:

Sissy...


I feel the love...

ODShowtime
05-18-2007, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Unlike the evolution scientist, the creation scientist are way under funded. but in the last 20 years they have made a big dent in the theory of evolution. a 100 scientist from schools around the country with PH.D levels from Berkley to Chicago have spoke against evolution.

First of all, there is no creation science because there is no evidence of creation.

Second, the only place you're gonna get a degree in that worthless nonsense is liberty U.

You need to stop getting your science learning from right wing chain mails.

ODShowtime
05-18-2007, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Can´t these weak minded numbskulls see that, had they been born on a totally different part of the world or time in history, they ´d be worshipping Allah, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Isis Osiris and Ra or maybe just simply the largest tree in the vicinity instead of Jesus?

Pretty much.

Just like how your ancestors worshipped a homicidal, drug addicted maniac 70 years ago. ;)

EAT MY ASSHOLE
05-18-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
I'll show you a "primordial atom" when you show me a talking snake.

If I only had a picture of Brian, you'd be looking at an attatchment of it right now... :)

Seshmeister
05-18-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Ok, I get it...

Islam good, Christian bad...:rolleyes:


If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

hideyoursheep
05-18-2007, 12:15 PM
Hey, Dubyah!!! Lookie here!!

MATTHEW 23: "Woe unto you... hypocrites!...ye blind guides...fools...full of extortion and excess...whited sepulchres...full of hypocrisy and iniquity...Woe unto you...Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

DEMON CUNT
05-18-2007, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Come on Mr. Demon, is that the best you got. i've already told you about my spelling/grammar. Why don't you just shut me up, and show me a primordial atom. According to Richard Dawkins and the rest of you atheist, believing in a GOD is an out dated fairytale. So shut up this stupid fairytale believing Christian. If you know, then you need to tell the god of the atheist Richard Dawkins. because everytime someone ask him that, he starts to sweat and becomes very mean spirited, and attacks the people who ask him that question. kinda like DEMON, FORD & NICK.

Yes, I get it.

Someone has taught you to ask for a "primordial atom" over and over in this context as a means to show us "atheists" how mistaken we are.

Why are you trying to prove the existence of your "God" by disproving evolution with such a silly question? Isn't your "God" real enough for you already? Why is evolution even such a threat you people like you?

Feel free to provide some footage of Dawkins getting all sweaty and mean spirited.

http://www.kqed.org/arts/mixtape/images/jungle-book.jpg

Seshmeister
05-18-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Science is on my side. If you would stop being so black and white for once in your life, you would know what i mean. It wasn't that long ago when the science/atheist community believed that the earth and moon was made at the same time, while the Bible has said all along that they were created at different times. I could go on and on with examples like that. All the stuff at the " Scopes trial" like the tooth that turned out to be a pigs tooth was a fraud. Lucy, the Nebraska man and all kind of other stuff has been debunked. Unlike the evolution scientist, the creation scientist are way under funded. but in the last 20 years they have made a big dent in the theory of evolution. a 100 scientist from schools around the country with PH.D levels from Berkley to Chicago have spoke against evolution. Watch the documentary " The Case For A Creator." Now, I'm not saying that they believe the living GOD from the bible created the universe. All I'm saying is that they now have doubts in evolution. Give them a couple of years and they will believe in the living GOD. I once believed in evolution. People have hard hearts for GOD. if we believe in GOD, then we are accountable for the actions we take. People don't like that. People wan't to do what they want. That's cool, because GOD gives us free will. Darwin said " I suppose", "or maybe" 127 times in his book, The origins of life. Jellyfish, watermelons and clouds are 97% water. are they the same? of course not! Humans and monkeys are 97% alike. It's that 3% that makes the difference. Everything in your house was created by someone or something, and you Mr. Demon are no different! It takes more faith that we evolved from a single cell, to this incredible 100 trillion cell life form, than to believe in a loving and great GOD! You Mr. Demon, will never be duplicated again. from your finger prints, your eyes, your brain to your DNA. There will never be another one of you. Can you tell me where has a great explosion, like the "Big Bang," created order. If a mountain blows up, does it create a bridge or a house? Of course not. It's crazy to think that this "Privileged Planet" was all by chance. This lucky planet sure has some good food, that somehow and someway got here. Carrots, nuts, bananas and apples. I think the doctors say that they are also good for you and they can even prevent diseases too! WOW..... Imagine that! If all you Liberal/atheist would give GOD a chance like you say we should give peace a chance, then you would know what I'm talking about. Once again my misguided liberal friends, please excuse my grammar. You guys have tore me up on that in the past threads. For those of you who are searching for the truth may i suggest some movies. Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution: Part 1,2 and 3, The Case For A Creator, Unlocking The Mystery Of Life, The Privileged Planet, Biblical Authors: Who Actually Wrote The Bible, Where Facts and Fiction Meet: The Biblical Christ in a Da Vinci Code Society. WARNING.....These movies will make a non-believer a sceptic, a sceptic a believer and a believer a fanatic! Like me. SORRY... There are a lot of lies that us GOD loving Christians need to set straight. One more thing....Darwin and Richard Dawkins can't explain where the primordial atom came from! Can you MR. Demon?

Please watch these lectures from 1991. They were done in such a way as to allow anyone to understand such difficult concepts which you are obviously struggling with.

An hour of your time.

In fact I urge everyone to watch these. I did at the time and I'm grateful someone has posted them on youtube.



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JW1rVGgFzWU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JW1rVGgFzWU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sezfMGjRQEg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sezfMGjRQEg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ghuVDSHY48"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ghuVDSHY48" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YNAcQwlEGI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YNAcQwlEGI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iT5gDA_QNhs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iT5gDA_QNhs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/39bANDhumyg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/39bANDhumyg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nfxSazfyJAw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nfxSazfyJAw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/daONxbSR9WE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/daONxbSR9WE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

GO-SPURS-GO
05-20-2007, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Please watch these lectures from 1991. They were done in such a way as to allow anyone to understand such difficult concepts which you are obviously struggling with.

An hour of your time.

In fact I urge everyone to watch these. I did at the time and I'm grateful someone has posted them on youtube.



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JW1rVGgFzWU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JW1rVGgFzWU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sezfMGjRQEg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sezfMGjRQEg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ghuVDSHY48"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ghuVDSHY48" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YNAcQwlEGI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YNAcQwlEGI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iT5gDA_QNhs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iT5gDA_QNhs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/39bANDhumyg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/39bANDhumyg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nfxSazfyJAw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nfxSazfyJAw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/daONxbSR9WE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/daONxbSR9WE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I've seen 2 of those. I'll watch the others, if you watch my videos that i've stated. my vids were done in such a way as to allow anyone to understand such difficult concepts which you are obviously struggling with too. :p

PlexiBrown
05-20-2007, 03:10 AM
Who Actually Wrote The Bible

Mystics.

GO-SPURS-GO
05-20-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yes, I get it.

Someone has taught you to ask for a "primordial atom" over and over in this context as a means to show us "atheists" how mistaken we are.

Why are you trying to prove the existence of your "God" by disproving evolution with such a silly question? Isn't your "God" real enough for you already? Why is evolution even such a threat you people like you?

Feel free to provide some footage of Dawkins getting all sweaty and mean spirited.

http://www.kqed.org/arts/mixtape/images/jungle-book.jpg

Of course someone has taught me a lot of questions to ask people like you. Remember me? I can't even spell Democrate right. :o
Just like you were brainwashed by public schooling into believing in Evolution. My beefs with evolution is this. Evolution=no GOD, no GOD=No morality, no morality=chaos and chaos is what we see today. This world has gone to shit. Corruption, drugs, shootings, child/animal porn, wars and the most disgusting thing of all, is about 5 children (REPORTED) a day getting molested and most of the pedophiles getting of scott free. If those liberal democrats would stop taking political donations from NAMBLA, maybe they could stop that. Ahh shit i forgot. NAMBLA has the ACLU on the pedophiles side. Never mind, that won't happen. I know, I know my liberal friends, they have a "right" to have child porn. Man... I keep forgetting about that Freedom Of Expression Amendment. I know all you liberals hate Bush for killing 600,000 innocent people.:o
It seems to me that you should want a GOD to make those evil republicans suffer for their actions. Right? Under your way of thinking that will never happen. WOW...I just figured out why you liberals hate him so much. Since you dont believe in GOD, Bush and the neo-cons will never be held accountable. So see... it would be nice if there was a GOD to make evil people in this world be held accountable. Society is gonna get a lot worse with the help of people like Richard Dawkins. Take away GOD from the 2/3rds of the worlds population (and MOST of these people are poor and law abiders), then the movie "Escape from New York" don't sound too far fetched. A "Dog Eat Dog" world is not a good world to live in. you better start getting bigger locks on your doors and bigger guns to protect you. Because MOST of these poor and decent law abiding people only have GOD to hold on to. Did I make you Mr. Demon, feel why I think Evilution is a threat to me(and you)? One more thing... For such a silly question, why has nobody told me the answer?:confused:
I got dozens of questions like that one for you guys. I'm just waiting for the 1st answer.:p Once again my grammar sucks. But my logic is pretty sound. Can I get a witness from the congregation. ;)

GO-SPURS-GO
05-20-2007, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
Mystics.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO5qTV.09GZTYA0gu7lcYF;_ylu=X3oDMTE1aGsxdW9 sBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANTUE9UX zE-/SIG=12jat72vs/EXP=1179733333/**http%3a//www.amazon.com/Biblical-Collectors-Authors/dp/B000E991NE

Here, this might help you with your struggles.;)

FORD
05-20-2007, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Of course someone has taught me a lot of questions to ask people like you. Remember me? I can't even spell Democrate right. :o
Just like you were brainwashed by public schooling into believing in Evolution. My beefs with evolution is this. Evolution=no GOD, no GOD=No morality, no morality=chaos and chaos is what we see today.

But aren't the "fine Christians" Chimp and Darth Cheney in charge? Aren't they men of impeccable morals who restored "honor and dignity to the White House"??

This country has never BEEN more "moral" than it's been the last 7 years. At least according to the definition of "moral" pushed by the right wing.



If those liberal democrats would stop taking political donations from NAMBLA, maybe they could stop that. Ahh shit i forgot. NAMBLA has the ACLU on the pedophiles side.

Mark Foley is no liberal democrat. Neither is that fucking Nazi PIG Bill Donohue who defends pedophile priests.

And let's not forget this little reminder from Poppy Bush's days in the White House.....

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/wtpage1small.gif



I know all you liberals hate Bush for killing 600,000 innocent people.:o
It seems to me that you should want a GOD to make those evil republicans suffer for their actions. Right? Under your way of thinking that will never happen. WOW...I just figured out why you liberals hate him so much. Since you dont believe in GOD, Bush and the neo-cons will never be held accountable. So see... it would be nice if there was a GOD to make evil people in this world be held accountable.

On the contrary, I'm looking forward to watching the entire BCE burn in Hell. :)

Tell you what really bugs God though....... Freeper idiots who think that SPELLING HIS FUCKING NAME IN ALL CAPS MAKES A DIFFERENCE. That's considering the net equivalent of shouting. And shouting God's name when you aren't praying could very well be considered taking His name in vain.

Just something you should keep in mind.


Society is gonna get a lot worse with the help of people like Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins, but how the Hell is he more harmful to this world than George Bush Jr or Dick Cheney?? :confused:


Take away GOD from the 2/3rds of the worlds population (and MOST of these people are poor and law abiders), then the movie "Escape from New York" don't sound too far fetched. A "Dog Eat Dog" world is not a good world to live in. you better start getting bigger locks on your doors and bigger guns to protect you. Because MOST of these poor and decent law abiding people only have GOD to hold on to. Did I make you Mr. Demon, feel why I think Evilution is a threat to me(and you)? One more thing... For such a silly question, why has nobody told me the answer?:confused:
I got dozens of questions like that one for you guys. I'm just waiting for the 1st answer.:p Once again my grammar sucks. But my logic is pretty sound. Can I get a witness from the congregation. ;)

Newsflash: 2/3 of the world already doesn't believe in your definition of God, and even the remainihg third who do have some degree of doctrinal disputes with the others.

What do you think all the fighting is about (other than the corporate land grabs for theft of resources, of course)

GO-SPURS-GO
05-20-2007, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by FORD
But aren't the "fine Christians" Chimp and Darth Cheney in charge? Aren't they men of impeccable morals who restored "honor and dignity to the White House"??

This country has never BEEN more "moral" than it's been the last 7 years. At least according to the definition of "moral" pushed by the right wing.




Mark Foley is no liberal democrat. Neither is that fucking Nazi PIG Bill Donohue who defends pedophile priests.

And let's not forget this little reminder from Poppy Bush's days in the White House.....

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/wtpage1small.gif




On the contrary, I'm looking forward to watching the entire BCE burn in Hell. :)

Tell you what really bugs God though....... Freeper idiots who think that SPELLING HIS FUCKING NAME IN ALL CAPS MAKES A DIFFERENCE. That's considering the net equivalent of shouting. And shouting God's name when you aren't praying could very well be considered taking His name in vain.

Just something you should keep in mind.



I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins, but how the Hell is he more harmful to this world than George Bush Jr or Dick Cheney?? :confused:



Newsflash: 2/3 of the world already doesn't believe in your definition of God, and even the remainihg third who do have some degree of doctrinal disputes with the others.

What do you think all the fighting is about (other than the corporate land grabs for theft of resources, of course)

Man, you guys are so thick skulled. You guys hate to be painted with a broad brush or labeled, but you do the same to others. Once again, the bible is proven true. We ALL are hypocrites and fall short from the glory of GOD! Oops.. God. Sorry. I'm going to bed. I spent all day with my family at Schlitterbahn water park. But I do wan't to argue some of your points though. but after the Spurs game. later....

matt19
05-20-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
My beefs with evolution is this. Evolution=no GOD, no GOD=No morality, no morality=chaos and chaos is what we see today. This world has gone to shit. Corruption, drugs, shootings, child/animal porn, wars and the most disgusting thing of all, is about 5 children (REPORTED) a day getting molested and most of the pedophiles getting of scott free.

So what you are saying is humans can't hold themselves accountable, they need some higher being to answer to? I think that you are an overconfident asshole. Just because someone doesn't believe what you do doesn't make them less of a person. AND.... what are catholic priests doing? molesting children? So where does your "god" eliminate that, and last i checked the bible gave everyone free will. So basicly your free to believe and do what YOU feel... So "god" pretty much said..."Its all on you humans." SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!

And the Spurs are no good hacks who cry when they dont get a call, Ginobli is a flopping piece of shit. Duncan is a fucking crybaby, and Bowen is a fucking hack. If the league didn't favor the spurs, they wouldnt have won that series, Duncan was just as far off the bench as Amarie, and didnt get shit. So go suck Popovich's dick and stay off these boards with your non sensical horseshit!

Hyman Roth
05-20-2007, 07:31 AM
Good thread! Interesting read.

Everyone keep in: "God made Rock and Roll for you - God made Rock and Roll for everyone."

(Jayzus did I just quote Paul Stanely?...talk about Homosexual Prostitution Inquiries...)

DEMON CUNT
05-20-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Of course someone has taught me a lot of questions to ask people like you...

Evolution=no GOD, no GOD=No morality, no morality=chaos and chaos is what we see today. This world has gone to shit...

It seems to me that you should want a GOD to make those evil republicans suffer for their actions. Right?... So see... it would be nice if there was a GOD to make evil people in this world be held accountable. Society is gonna get a lot worse with the help of people like Richard Dawkins.

For such a silly question, why has nobody told me the answer?


Dude. You are going to get nowhere with your mamby pamby logic. Reasonable people do not need a god to teach them the difference between right and wrong.

If you need a god, have one.

If you need a god to reign judgement upon your enemies, have one.

If you need a god that affords you the opportunity to control your afterlife, have one.

Human beings have always been a violent and selfish species. Corruption, murder, sexual perversion, and evil have existed all throughout our recorded history. (see the Old Testament.) To blame the "decline of humanity" on Dawkins' philosophy is just plain stupid.

Christianity is a glorified and aggressive doomsday cult that largely ignores the teachings of it's founder.

Find that talking snake yet?

The_KiD
05-20-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Good thread! Interesting read.

Everyone keep in: "God made Rock and Roll for you - God made Rock and Roll for everyone."

(Jayzus did I just quote Paul Stanely?...talk about Homosexual Prostitution Inquiries...)

Now that is funny...LOL

KiD

PlexiBrown
05-20-2007, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO5qTV.09GZTYA0gu7lcYF;_ylu=X3oDMTE1aGsxdW9 sBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANTUE9UX zE-/SIG=12jat72vs/EXP=1179733333/**http%3a//www.amazon.com/Biblical-Collectors-Authors/dp/B000E991NE

Here, this might help you with your struggles.;)

Not too bright, are you? Try thinking and feeling for yourself sometime. All of the answers are within.

Seshmeister
05-20-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
My beefs with evolution is this. Evolution=no GOD, no GOD=No morality, no morality=chaos and chaos is what we see today. This world has gone to shit. Corruption, drugs, shootings, child/animal porn, wars and the most disgusting thing of all, is about 5 children (REPORTED) a day getting molested and most of the pedophiles getting of scott free.

Apart from the obvious point about how many pedophiles(which you seem to be obsessed with) have held office in the christian church and been tolerated, I'll just quickly shoot down your 'No god = No Morality' bullshit.

Firstly the Bible and the Koran are not moral texts. In the Bible your god kills innocent people including children, and approves of rape and slavery. Moral Christians are those that cherry pick the moral parts of the bible to follow so effectively are just the same as moral atheists.


Secondly look at the 2004 United Nations Human Development Report

Countries with a high level of atheism:

are more charitable
have less crime and lower homicide rates
have less disease (especially STDs and AIDS/HIV)
have less poverty
have smaller gaps between the poor and rich
are just as democratic
are cleaner
have better education and literacy rates
have better gender equality
have better treatment of homosexuals
have lower suicide rates


Countries with the most religion consistently have the lowest index of human development which kind of explains your tortured attempts to use the English language in your posts.:)

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5

Finally why are there so few athiests in prison. There seems to be some debate on the numbers but even the most strident christian websites quote it as being even by population, most other research shows less.

In 2001 there were more scientologists in US prisons than atheists!

Cheers!

:gulp:

DEMON CUNT
05-20-2007, 01:22 PM
Nice research, Seshmeister.

People often mistake faith for fact.

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Dude. You are going to get nowhere with your mamby pamby logic. Reasonable people do not need a god to teach them the difference between right and wrong.

If you need a god, have one.

If you need a god to reign judgement upon your enemies, have one.

If you need a god that affords you the opportunity to control your afterlife, have one.

Human beings have always been a violent and selfish species. Corruption, murder, sexual perversion, and evil have existed all throughout our recorded history. (see the Old Testament.) To blame the "decline of humanity" on Dawkins' philosophy is just plain stupid.

Christianity is a glorified and aggressive doomsday cult that largely ignores the teachings of it's founder.

Find that talking snake yet?

Yes I did, here it is.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Special-Vibrating-Talking-Snake/dp/B000MO9OQ0/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/103-0431647-2013462
Now where did the primordial atom come from?:D
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and think that there is nothing wrong in today's society. But don't bitch when people don't believe you that global warming is a problem.

FORD
05-21-2007, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Good thread! Interesting read.

Everyone keep in: "God made Rock and Roll for you - God made Rock and Roll for everyone."

(Jayzus did I just quote Paul Stanely?...talk about Homosexual Prostitution Inquiries...)

Actually you aren't quoting Paul Stanley at all. He didn't write the song.

Russ Ballard and Rod Argent did......

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/InH_9fbfma8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/InH_9fbfma8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

It was also recorded by the Christian rock band Petra in the mid 80's.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aJIQl75fmho"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aJIQl75fmho" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Seems to surface every decade or so, but I don't think anyone's done it recently.

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Nice research, Seshmeister.

People often mistake faith for fact.

It's funny that you liberals think that the web-sites that conservatives get there research is stupid and false. While the web-sites you liberals get your info is smart and factual. numbers can be twisted to fit any view. But the part that Seshmeister said "secular countries give more to charitys" is just plain wrong and Phil Zuckerman just flat out lied!!!! Tsunami & Katrina quickly comes to mind. America and Christians are the #1 givers in charity. how much did you give to the Katrina victims Mr. Demon? That's what i thought! Liberals often mistake lies for facts!

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 03:31 AM
You got to admit Mr Demon, that snake thing was pretty funny. You asked for only 1, but i actually found 2.:)

DEMON CUNT
05-21-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Yes I did, here it is.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Special-Vibrating-Talking-Snake/dp/B000MO9OQ0/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/103-0431647-2013462
Now where did the primordial atom come from?:D
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand and think that there is nothing wrong in today's society. But don't bitch when people don't believe you that global warming is a problem.

Not once did I sat that "there is nothing wrong in today's society." Everything that you mentioned has been actively happening for thousands of years. To pretend that the situation is any different today shows a lack of historical knowledge.

Your "things getting worse" talk is just part of your cult's marketing scheme.

Critical thinking is discouraged in the Christian community. So, I don't care if you believe in a "god" and I don't care if you don't believe "that global warming is a problem." You are going to believe what you are told to believe. You are going to repeat what you are told to repeat.


It's funny that you liberals think that the web-sites that conservatives get there research is stupid and false. While the web-sites you liberals get your info is smart and factual. numbers can be twisted to fit any view. But the part that Seshmeister said "secular countries give more to charitys" is just plain wrong and Phil Zuckerman just flat out lied!!!! Tsunami & Katrina quickly comes to mind. America and Christians are the #1 givers in charity. how much did you give to the Katrina victims Mr. Demon? That's what i thought! Liberals often mistake lies for facts!

What's really funny about all this is you conservatives rarely provide any research for your statements. You just regurgitate the talking points that you heard on the TV and in church.

Seshmeister's research stands until you can provide data to counter his findings with a neutral source. Talk is cheap.

I gave nothing to the Katrina "victims" for various reasons. We did contribute a few hundred bucks to the animal rescue organizations that were involved. How about you Mr. Super Generous Christian Guy? How much did you give?


You got to admit Mr Demon, that snake thing was pretty funny. You asked for only 1, but i actually found 2.

Your Sunday school class may find that amusing. I don't.

To be disingenuous about my question while demanding an answer yours displays the irrational and lazy nature of your belief system.

ELVIS
05-21-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

I gave nothing to the Katrina "victims" for various reasons. We did contribute a few hundred bucks to the animal rescue organizations that were involved. How about you Mr. Super Generous Christian Guy? How much did you give?





I know you're not talking to me, but I volunteered countless hours of my time...


:elvis:

DEMON CUNT
05-21-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I know you're not talking to me, but I volunteered countless hours of my time...


Nice!

Nickdfresh
05-21-2007, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
I know you're not talking to me, but I volunteered countless hours of my time...


:elvis:

Thanks for helping "the ******s" Elvis.

ELVIS
05-21-2007, 09:39 PM
You're a class act, Nick...

Nickdfresh
05-21-2007, 09:40 PM
Thanks Elvis!

Nickdfresh
05-21-2007, 09:48 PM
What a great thread: http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26808

Nickdfresh
05-21-2007, 10:00 PM
And this: http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=680904#post680904

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


Your "things getting worse" talk is just part of your cult's marketing scheme.

Actually Demon dude, that was pretty funny.

You are going to believe what you are told to believe. You are going to repeat what you are told to repeat.

Dude... we all do that. that's what separates us from people like Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, Albert Einstein and Darwin.


What's really funny about all this is you conservatives rarely provide any research for your statements. You just regurgitate the talking points that you heard on the TV and in church.

Seshmeister's research stands until you can provide data to counter his findings with a neutral source. Talk is cheap.

I could give you research from the websites that I get my info from, like christiananswers.net, WND.com or thecreationnetwork.com. but you will just say that it is wrong and stupid. so why bother? By the way, that's pretty funny that you consider Phil Zuckerman a neutral source.


I gave nothing to the Katrina "victims" for various reasons. We did contribute a few hundred bucks to the animal rescue organizations that were involved. How about you Mr. Super Generous Christian Guy? How much did you give?

We can now finally agree on something. I too have helped out the animal community. I applaud your honesty, you could have easily said you gave a thousand dollars to the victims of Katrina. I would not have believed you though. "Most" liberals believe it's the governments job to tax the crap out of people, and give that money to the needy. But me and "most" Christians I know, feel it's our duty to help out people who have less, from our own pockets.



Your Sunday school class may find that amusing. I don't.

I don't go to church. Actually, my house is my church. Jesus said "where several gather in my name, I am with you."

To be disingenuous about my question while demanding an answer yours displays the irrational and lazy nature of your belief system.

I'm sorry. I thought that was funny, I wanted to make you laugh with me for the first time.
"lazy belief system?" you should have seen us pathetic, fairytale believing Christians working hard at the shelters to help out all our brothers and sisters who suffered from the flood. While you liberals like to smoke dope and protest, we like to volunteer and help out humanity.

PlexiBrown
05-21-2007, 11:53 PM
Here is what matters......fuck Sammy Hagar!

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 11:57 PM
WOW... What the heck did I do? I was trying to break down Demons quotes. I need to learn how to do that. Demon didn't say all that. I hope all you guys can tell his qoutes from my answers. I don't want to make Demon mad at me for saying he believes in God. Sorry...

ELVIS
05-21-2007, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
While you liberals like to smoke dope and protest, we like to volunteer and help out humanity.


Hey now...

Some Christians smoke dope and protest, and some liberals get off their asses and do the right thing...


:elvis:

GO-SPURS-GO
05-21-2007, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
Here is what matters......fuck Sammy Hagar!

I think your cool.:baaa:

GO-SPURS-GO
05-22-2007, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Hey now...

Some Christians smoke dope and protest, and some liberals get off their asses and do the right thing...


:elvis:

I know Elvis. I like to mess with Ford, Nick, Demon and the rest of people like that. They talk sooo much crap about people who don't view the world like them. And all I'm doing is giving them a taste of there own medicine. They need to realize that they are no different from Ann Coultor and Micheal Savage.

DEMON CUNT
05-22-2007, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
WOW... What the heck did I do? I was trying to break down Demons quotes. I need to learn how to do that. Demon didn't say all that. I hope all you guys can tell his qoutes from my answers. I don't want to make Demon mad at me for saying he believes in God. Sorry...

Don't sweat it.

It's good to hear that you are willing to lend a hand to your fellow man. I can respect that.

How to quote:

After you hit the "quote" button you'll open a new page where you'll find the message you are quoting at the top of the message window that you type your message into.

That quote is surrounded by QUOTE and B "opening tags" wrapped with "[]" brackets. The B stands for "bold." The tags with the "/" are the closing tags. Use these as examples.

So at the beginning of the quote place the opening tags at the beginning of the quote and the closing tags at the end of the quote.

Type your responses after the closing quote tags.

Use the "Preview Reply" button to check your work. At that point you can make corrections and preview again until you are ready to publish.

Let me know how that works.

DC

DEMON CUNT
05-22-2007, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
Here is what matters......fuck Sammy Hagar!

That's right.

Fuck him in his stinky 68 year old butthole with BigBlandBrian's left pinky finger!

ELVIS
05-22-2007, 12:59 AM
I think Hagar turns 60 this year...

Not that I know or care...


LMAO!


:elvis:

Jesus Christ
05-22-2007, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I know Elvis. I like to mess with Ford, Nick, Demon and the rest of people like that.

Warren, ye do not act much like the Christian ye claim to be :(

GO-SPURS-GO
05-22-2007, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Warren, ye do not act much like the Christian ye claim to be :(

Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
I try to live by your standards, but their real hard.
I know this is you father, because how did you know my name! Amen

Jesus Christ
05-22-2007, 02:38 AM
Ye are forgiven. Now go and sin no more.

Seshmeister
05-22-2007, 07:45 AM
LMAO.

So now you are worshipping a middle aged civil servant from Seattle...?

Ellyllions
05-22-2007, 07:53 AM
Just to interject, have any of you read ANY of the Quaran?

Seriously. For any of us to speak about the ins and outs of this religion without delving into anything directly related to the religion without sensationalism is not effective.

I think I'm going to buy a copy and give it a look through just so I can have some real information to take a stance.

ELVIS
05-22-2007, 08:51 AM
I have...

Ellyllions
05-22-2007, 08:54 AM
Of course you have.

10 times and twice in space, I'll bet.

DEMON CUNT
05-22-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Seriously. For any of us to speak about the ins and outs of this religion without delving into anything directly related to the religion without sensationalism is not effective.

I think I'm going to buy a copy and give it a look through just so I can have some real information to take a stance.

Buy your copy with cash! Don't use a card or a check. I can't imagine the Quran is a big seller in your part of the country.

You'll probably be shocked to find how similar the Quran is to the Biblical texts.

I am looking forward to what you have to say about it.

Angel
05-22-2007, 02:13 PM
I haven't read the Qu'ran, but I have read the biography of Mohammed. Very interesting read, and 99% of the stuff that we think is Islamic, is actually old tribal customs.

Nickdfresh
05-22-2007, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Angel
...99% of the stuff that we think is Islamic, is actually old tribal customs.

Excellent point!


Thanks babe!

ODShowtime
05-22-2007, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Corruption, drugs, shootings, child/animal porn, wars and the most disgusting thing of all, is about 5 children (REPORTED) a day getting molested and most of the pedophiles getting of scott free. If those liberal democrats would stop taking political donations from NAMBLA, maybe they could stop that. Ahh shit i forgot. NAMBLA has the ACLU on the pedophiles side. Never mind, that won't happen. I know, I know my liberal friends, they have a "right" to have child porn.

You make a spurious and frankly offensive argument here.

I'd suspect it's because you lack the ability to engage in logical thinking.

And by the way, your little icon title says "evolution is not a fact" ... No shit. It's a theory. No one here has ever said otherwise.

ELVIS
05-22-2007, 07:46 PM
I don't know about that...

BigBadBrian
05-22-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime

And by the way, your little icon title says "evolution is not a fact" ... No shit. It's a theory. No one here has ever said otherwise.

Except Sesh...and Nick.

ODShowtime
05-22-2007, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Except Sesh...and Nick.

Well, I'm sure you have plenty of free time on your hands. Go search and find where someone here says that evolution is a "fact."

You have a slight chance of proving me wrong for once!

Alright, I'll qualify my statement by saying it has to be someone who's not a complete idiot.

Most of the left leaning posters here know the difference between theories and facts.

BigBadBrian
05-22-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Well, I'm sure you have plenty of free time on your hands. Go search and find where someone here says that evolution is a "fact."

You have a slight chance of proving me wrong for once!

Alright, I'll qualify my statement by saying it has to be someone who's not a complete idiot.

Most of the left leaning posters here know the difference between theories and facts.

Sesh said there was overwhelming evidence (fact) just the other day.

NOW PAY ATTENTION!!!

ODShowtime
05-22-2007, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Sesh said there was overwhelming evidence (fact) just the other day.

NOW PAY ATTENTION!!!

Jesus H Christ you're a moron. :rolleyes:

You have the reading comprehension of rhesus monkey.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39479000/jpg/_39479042_rhesus2203.jpg


Originally posted by ODShowtime

And by the way, your little icon title says "evolution is not a fact" ... No shit. It's a theory. No one here has ever said otherwise.

Did shesh say it was a fact or say overwhelming evidence? I don't give a fuck about the words you inferred. No wonder you're so clueless.

I think one problem all you faith-based non-reality individuals have is that you truly don't understand science and perception.

Nickdfresh
05-22-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Except Sesh...and Nick.

No freeper, (going out on the limb to speak for Sesh), we said it was "science."

Seshmeister
05-22-2007, 09:57 PM
This misunderstanding of the word theory is getting very fucking tedious so I'll just borrow from wikipedia which seems to have a nice clear definition on this that hopefully people can follow.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

The term theoretical is sometimes used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework — derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Another name for this theory is classical electromagnetism. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting the fact that they are today taken as granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested as yet.

The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In common speech, theory has a far wider and less defined meaning than its use in the sciences."


In other words the whole fucking premise of science is that everything is testable and repeatable through experimentation. The power of science comes from the fact that a position is posited as a 'theory' and may always been overtaken by new research and discoveries.

Creationism is NOT science. It is the opposite of science.

It takes writings of ancient peoples and then tries to shoehorn bullshit ideas to try and make it believable. It is patently wrong.

As I said earlier gravity is a theory but it allows us to put a man on the fucking moon and stops creationist bullshit from floating around the room.




Cheers!

:gulp:

Ellyllions
05-23-2007, 07:00 AM
Now this is interesting....don't any of you suspect that Creationism and the Evolution Theory might BOTH be correct? That's my belief.

The truth is always the sum of it's parts.

ELVIS
05-23-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
don't any of you suspect that Creationism and the Evolution Theory might BOTH be correct? That's my belief.



No...

ELVIS
05-23-2007, 07:33 AM
If evolution were true, there should be a huge number of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and there is not...

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 08:57 AM
There are plenty.

ELVIS
05-23-2007, 09:44 AM
Name one, or show one to us...

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:02 AM
Timescale
CENOZOIC

(See part 2) 65-0 Ma Mammals & birds & teleost fish dominant

MESOZOIC

Cretaceous 144-65 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. Small mammals, birds.

Jurassic 213-144 Ma Dinosaurs dominant. First mammals, then first birds.

Triassic 248-213 Ma Mammalian reptiles dominant. First dinosaurs.

PALEOZOIC

Permian 286-248 Ma Amphibians dominant. First mammal-like reptiles.

Pennsylvanian 320-286 Ma Amphibians dominant. First reptiles.

Mississippian 360-320 Ma Big terrestrial amphibians, fishes.

Devonian 408-360 Ma Fish dominant. First amphibians.

Silurian 438-408 Ma First ray-finned & lobe-finned fish.

Ordovician 505-438 Ma More jawless fishes.

Cambrian 590-505 Ma First jawless fishes.


Summary of the known vertebrate fossil record
(We start off with primitive jawless fish.)

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
Late Silurian -- first little simple shark-like denticles.
Early Devonian -- first recognizable shark teeth, clearly derived from scales.
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.

Cladoselache (late Devonian) -- Magnificent early shark fossils, found in Cleveland roadcuts during the construction of the U.S. interstate highways. Probably not directly ancestral to sharks, but gives a remarkable picture of general early shark anatomy, down to the muscle fibers!
Tristychius & similar hybodonts (early Mississippian) -- Primitive proto-sharks with broad-based but otherwise shark-like fins.
Ctenacanthus & similar ctenacanthids (late Devonian) -- Primitive, slow sharks with broad-based shark-like fins & fin spines. Probably ancestral to all modern sharks, skates, and rays. Fragmentary fin spines (Triassic) -- from more advanced sharks.
Paleospinax (early Jurassic) -- More advanced features such as detached upper jaw, but retains primitive ctenacanthid features such as two dorsal spines, primitive teeth, etc.
Spathobatis (late Jurassic) -- First proto-ray.
Protospinax (late Jurassic) -- A very early shark/skate. After this, first heterodonts, hexanchids, & nurse sharks appear (late Jurassic). Other shark groups date from the Cretaceous or Eocene. First true skates known from Upper Cretaceous.
A separate lineage leads from the ctenacanthids through Echinochimaera (late Mississippian) and Similihari (late Pennsylvanian) to the modern ratfish.

Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified.

Acanthodians(?) (Silurian) -- A puzzling group of spiny fish with similarities to early bony fish.
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis, Mimia; early Devonian) -- Primitive bony ray-finned fishes that gave rise to the vast majority of living fish. Heavy acanthodian-type scales, acanthodian-like skull, and big notochord.
Canobius, Aeduella (Carboniferous) -- Later paleoniscoids with smaller, more advanced jaws.
Parasemionotus (early Triassic) -- "Holostean" fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) -- The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) -- More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
Eels & sardines date from the late Jurassic, salmonids from the Paleocene & Eocene, carp from the Cretaceous, and the great group of spiny teleosts from the Eocene. The first members of many of these families are known and are in the leptolepid family (note the inherent classification problem!).

Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already.

Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish.
Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth.
Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike.
Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins.
Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable."
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.

Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (late Devonian) -- A little later, the fin-to-foot transition was almost complete, and we have a set of early tetrapod fossils that clearly did have feet. The most complete are Ichthyostega, Acanthostega gunnari, and the newly described Hynerpeton bassetti (Daeschler et al., 1994). (There are also other genera known from more fragmentary fossils.) Hynerpeton is the earliest of these three genera (365 Ma), but is more advanced in some ways; the other two genera retained more fish- like characters longer than the Hynerpeton lineage did.
Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (late Dev./early Miss.) -- These larger amphibians still have some icthyostegid fish features, such as skull bone patterns, labyrinthine tooth dentine, presence & pattern of large palatal tusks, the fish skull hinge, pieces of gill structure between cheek & shoulder, and the vertebral structure. But they have lost several other fish features: the fin rays in the tail are gone, the vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined, etc.
More info on those first known Late Devonian amphibians: Acanthostega gunnari was very fish-like, and recently Coates & Clack (1991) found that it still had internal gills! They said: "Acanthostega seems to have retained fish-like internal gills and an open opercular chamber for use in aquatic respiration, implying that the earliest tetrapods were not fully terrestrial....Retention of fish-like internal gills by a Devonian tetrapod blurs the traditional distinction between tetrapods and fishes...this adds further support to the suggestion that unique tetrapod characters such as limbs with digits evolved first for use in water rather than for walking on land." Acanthostega also had a remarkably fish-like shoulder and forelimb. Ichthyostega was also very fishlike, retaining a fish-like finned tail, permanent lateral line system, and notochord. Neither of these two animals could have survived long on land.

Coates & Clack (1990) also recently found the first really well- preserved feet, from Acanthostega (front foot found) and Ichthyostega (hind foot found). (Hynerpeton's feet are unknown.) The feet were much more fin-like than anyone expected. It had been assumed that they had five toes on each foot, as do all modern tetrapods. This was a puzzle since the fins of lobe-finned fishes don't seem to be built on a five-toed plan. It turns out that Acanthostega's front foot had eight toes, and Ichthyostega's hind foot had seven toes, giving both feet the look of a short, stout flipper with many "toe rays" similar to fin rays. All you have to do to a lobe- fin to make it into a many-toed foot like this is curl it, wrapping the fin rays forward around the end of the limb. In fact, this is exactly how feet develop in larval amphibians, from a curled limb bud. (Also see Gould's essay on this subject, "Eight Little Piggies".) Said the discoverers (Coates & Clack, 1990): "The morphology of the limbs of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega suggest an aquatic mode of life, compatible with a recent assessment of the fish-tetrapod transition. The dorsoventrally compressed lower leg bones of Ichthyostega strongly resemble those of a cetacean [whale] pectoral flipper. A peculiar, poorly ossified mass lies anteriorly adjacent to the digits, and appears to be reinforcement for the leading edge of this paddle-like limb." Coates & Clack also found that Acanthostega's front foot couldn't bend forward at the elbow, and thus couldn't be brought into a weight-bearing position. In other words this "foot" still functioned as a horizontal fin. Ichthyostega's hind foot may have functioned this way too, though its front feet could take weight. Functionally, these two animals were not fully amphibian; they lived in an in-between fish/amphibian niche, with their feet still partly functioning as fins. Though they are probably not ancestral to later tetrapods, Acanthostega & Ichthyostega certainly show that the transition from fish to amphibian is feasible!

Hynerpeton, in contrast, probably did not have internal gills and already had a well-developed shoulder girdle; it could elevate and retract its forelimb strongly, and it had strong muscles that attached the shoulder to the rest of the body (Daeschler et al., 1994). Hynerpeton's discoverers think that since it had the strongest limbs earliest on, it may be the actual ancestor of all subsequent terrestrial tetrapods, while Acanthostega and Ichthyostega may have been a side branch that stayed happily in a mostly-aquatic niche.

In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout life, and scudded around underwater with flipper-like, many-toed feet that didn't carry much weight. Different lineages of amphibians began to bend either the hind feet or front feet forward so that the feet carried weight. One line (Hynerpeton) bore weight on all four feet, developed strong limb girdles and muscles, and quickly became more terrestrial.

Transitions among amphibians
Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.
From there we jump to the Mesozoic:

Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.
Finally, here's a recently found fossil:

Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:04 AM
I'll outline here the lineage that led to humans. Notice that there were many other large, successful branches (particularly the lemurs, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys) that I will only mention in passing. Also see Jim Foley's fossil hominid FAQ for detailed information on hominid fossils.

GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene" says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.)

Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene) -- Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars.
Cantius (early Eocene) -- One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye, grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal adaptations.
Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene) -- Primitive lemur-like primates.
The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene. The Old World lineage continued as follows:

Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma) -- Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes).
GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several other mammal groups have a similar gap.

Parapithecus (early Oligocene) -- The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now. Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line. From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene, Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene.
Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) -- From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5- cusped teeth, etc.).
Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt) -- Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and shorter face.
Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.) -- A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey- like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae.
Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa) -- A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons.
Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene) -- A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes divided into two lines:
Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid- Miocene) -- Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan.
Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma) -- Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans.
GAP: There are no known fossil hominids or apes from Africa between 14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids, probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very ape-like bipedal hominids:

Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma) -- A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal (only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma) -- Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just 375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller- toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei) eventually went extinct.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma) -- The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape- human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma) -- Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller. Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary speech? First clumsy stone tools.
Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man"; Pleist., 1.8 Ma) -- Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago) -- These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about where this happened.
One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000 years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more muscular, with a slightly larger brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago) -- All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually supplanted the Neanderthals.
Known species-species transitions in primates:

Phillip Gingerich has done a lot of work on early primate transitions. Here are some of his major findings in plesiadapids, early lemurs, and early monkeys:

Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a gradually changing lineage that passed through three different species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples. praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich (1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million years."
Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and every other character available for study, and there can be little doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.
Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C. mckennai to C. trigonodus.
And here are some transitions found by other researchers:

Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus - P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4 million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications."
Delson (discussed in Gingerich, 1985) has studied transitions in primates from the Miocene to the present. For instance, in a 1983 paper (see Chaline, 1983), he discussed a possible smooth transition from Theropithecus darti to T. oswaldi, and discusses transitions in hominids, concluding that Homo sapiens clearly shows gradual changes over the last 800,000 years.
Kurten (1968) reports a smooth transition linking Macaca florentina to M. sylvana
Bats
GAP: One of the least understood groups of modern mammals -- there are no known bat fossils from the entire Paleocene. The first known fossil bat, Icaronycteris, is from the (later) Eocene, and it was already a fully flying animal very similar to modern bats. It did still have a few "primitive" features, though (unfused & unkeeled sternum, several teeth that modern bats have lost, etc.)

Fruit bats and horseshoe bats first appear in the Oligocene. Modern little vespertiliontids (like the little brown bat) first appear in the Miocene.
Carnivores
Creodonts -- early placental mammals with minor but interestingly carnivore-like changes in the molars and premolars. Had a carnivore- like shearing zone in the teeth, though the zone moved throughout life instead of staying in particular teeth. Also had a carnivore- like bony sheet in the brain dividing cerebrum & cerebellum, details of ankle. Closely related to & possibly ancestral to carnivores. The origin of the creodonts is unclear. They probably were derived from condylarths.
Cimolestes (late Cretaceous) -- This creodont (?) lost the last molar & then later enlarged the last upper premolar and first lower molar. (In modern carnivores, these two teeth are very enlarged to be the wickedly shearing carnassial teeth, the hallmark of carnivores.) Still unfused feet & unossified bulla. This genus is probably ancestral to two later lines of Eocene carnivores called "miacoids". Miacoids were relatively unspecialized meat-eaters that seem to have split into a "viverravid" line (with cat/civet/hyena traits) and a "miacid" line (with dog/bear/weasel traits). These two lines may possibly have arisen from these slightly different species of Cimolestes:
Cimolestes incisus & Cimolestes cerberoides (Cretaceous) -- These are two species that lost their third molar, and may have given rise to the viverravid line of miacoids (see Hunt & Tedford, in Szalay et al., 1993).
Cimolestes sp. (Paleocene) -- A later, as yet unnamed species that has very miacid-like teeth.
Simpsonictis tenuis (mid-Paleocene) -- A very early viverravid. The upper carnassial was large; the lower carnassial was of variable size in different individuals.
Paroodectes, Vulpavus (early Eocene) -- Early miacids. Enlarged carnassials now specialized for shearing. Still had unfused foot bones, short limbs, plantigrade feet, unossified bulla.
GAP: few miacoid skulls are known from the rest of the Eocene -- a real pity because for early carnivore relationships, skulls (particularly the skull floor and ear capsule) are more useful than teeth. There are some later skulls from the early Oligocene, which are already distinguishable as canids, viverrids, mustelids, & felids (a dog-like face, a cat-like face, and so on). Luckily some new well-preserved miacoid fossils have just been found in the last few years (mentioned in Szalay et al., 1993). They are still being studied and will probably clarify exactly which miacoids gave rise to which carnivores. Meanwhile, analysis of teeth has revealed at least one ancestor:

Viverravus sicarius (mid-Eocene) -- Hunt & Tedford (in Szalay et al., 1993) think this viverravid may be the ancestral aeluroid. It has teeth & skeletal traits similar to the first known Oligocene aeluroids (undifferentiated cat/civet/hyenas).
From the Oligocene onward, the main carnivore lineages continued to diverge. First, the dog/bear/weasel line.

Dogs:

Cynodictis (late Eocene) -- First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) -- A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
Cynodesmus (Miocene) -- First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).
Bears:

Cynodictis (see above)
Hesperocyon (see above)
Ursavus elmensis (mid-Oligocene) -- A small, heavy doglike animal, intermediate between arctoids and bears. Still had slicing carnassials & all its premolars, but molars were becoming squarer. Later specimens of Ursavus became larger, with squarer, more bear-like, molars.
Protursus simpsoni (Pliocene; also "Indarctos") -- Sheepdog-sized. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, shorter tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus.
Ursus minimus (Pliocene) -- First little bear, with very bearlike molars, but still had the first premolars and slender canines. Shows gradual tooth changes and increase in body size as the ice age approached. Gave rise to the modern black bears (U. americanus & U. thibetanus), which haven't changed much since the Pliocene, and also smoothly evolved to the next species, U. etruscus:
Ursus etruscus (late Pliocene) -- A larger bear, similar to our brown bear but with more primitive dentition. Molars big & square. First premolars small, and got smaller over time. Canines stouter. In Europe, gradually evolved into:
Ursus savini (late Pleistocene, 1 Ma) -- Very similar to the brown bear. Some individuals didn't have the first premolars at all, while others had little vestigial premolars. Tendency toward domed forehead. Slowly split into a European population and an Asian population.
U. spelaeus (late Pleistocene) -- The recently extinct giant cave bear, with a highly domed forehead. Clearly derived from the European population of U. savini, in a smooth transition. The species boundary is arbitrarily set at about 300,000 years ago.
U. arctos (late Pleistocene) -- The brown ("grizzly") bear, clearly derived from the Asian population of U. savini about 800,000 years ago.. Spread into the Europe, & to the New World.
U. maritimus (late Pleistocene) -- The polar bear. Very similar to a local population of brown bear, U. arctos beringianus that lived in Kamchatka about 500,000 years ago (Kurten 1964).
The transitions between each of these bear species are very well documented. For most of the transitions there are superb series of transitional specimens leading right across the species "boundaries". See Kurten (1976) for basic info on bear evolution.

Raccoons (procyonids):

Phlaocyon (Miocene) -- A climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials and handlike forepaws, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.). Typical raccoons first appeared in the Pliocene.
Weasels (mustelids):

Plesictis (early Oligocene) -- Transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels etc.)
Potamotherium (late Oligocene) -- Another early mustelid, but has some rather puzzling traits that may mean it is not a direct ancestor of later mustelids. Mustelids were diversifying with "bewildering variety" by the early Miocene.
Pinniped relationships have been the subject of extensive discussion and analysis. They now appear to be a monophyletic group, probably derived from early bears (or possibly early weasels?).

Seals, sea lions & walruses:

Pachycynodon (early Oligocene) -- A bearlike terrestrial carnivore with several sea-lion traits.
Enaliarctos (late Oligocene, California) -- Still had many features of bear-like terrestrial carnivores: bear- like tympanic bulla, carnassials, etc. But, had flippers instead of toes (though could still walk and run on the flippers) and somewhat simplified dentition. Gave rise to several more advanced families, including:
Odobenidae: the walrus family. Started with Neotherium 14 my, then Imagotaria, which is probably ancestral to modern species.
Otariidae: the sea lion family. First was Pithanotaria (mid- Miocene, 11 Ma) -- small and primitive in many respects, then Thalassoleon (late Miocene) and finally modern sea lions (Pleistocene, about 2 Ma).
Phocidae: the seal family. First known are the primitive and somewhat weasel-like mid-Miocene seals Leptophoca and Montherium. Modern seals first appear in the Pliocene, about 4 Ma.
Now, on to the second major group of carnivores, the cat/civet/hyena line. Civets (viverrids):

Stenoplesictis (early Oligocene) -- An early civet-like animal related to the miacids. Might not be directly ancestral (has some puzzling non-civet-like traits).
Palaeoprionodon (late Oligocene, 30-24 Ma) -- An aeluroid (undifferentiated cat/civet/hyena) with a civet-like skull floor. Probably had split off from the cat line and was on the way to modern viverrids.
Herpestides (early Miocene, 22 Ma, France) -- Had a distinctly civet-like skull floor, more advanced than Palaeoprionodon.
More advanced modern civets appeared in the Miocene.
Cats:

Haplogale (late Oligocene, 30 Ma) -- A slightly cat-like aeluroid (cat/civet/hyena).
"Proailurus" julieni, (early Miocene) -- An aeluroid with a viverrid-ish skull floor that also showed the first cat-like traits. The genus name is in quotes because, though it was first thought to be in Proailurus, it's now clear that it was a slightly different genus, probably ancestral to Proailurus.
Proailurus lemanensis (early Miocene, 24 Ma) -- Considered the first true cat; had the first really cat-like skull floor, with an ossified bulla.
Pseudaelurus (early-mid Miocene, 20 Ma) -- A slightly later, more advanced cat.
Dinictis (early Oligocene) -- Transitional from early cats such as Proailurus to modern "feline" cats
Hoplophoneus (early Oligocene) -- Transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats
Hyaenids:

Though there are only four species now, hyaenids were once very common and have an abundant fossil record. There is a main stem of generally small to medium-sized civet-like forms, showing a general trend toward an increase in size (Werdelin & Solounias, 1991):
Herpestes antiquus (early Miocene) -- A viverrid thought to be the ancestor of the hyenid family.
Protictitherium crassum (& 5 closely related species) (early Miocene, 17-18 Ma) -- Fox-sized, civet-like animals with hyena-like teeth. Transitional between the early civet-like viverrids and all the hyenids. Split into three lines, one of which led to the aardwolf. Another line eventually led to modern hyenas:
Plioviverrops orbignyi (& 3 closely related species)
Tungurictis spocki, a mid-Miocene fox-sized hyenid. Truly hyena-like ear capsule.
Ictitherium viverrinum (& 6 closely related species)
Thalassictis robusta (& 5 other spp.)
Hyaenotherium wongii
Miohyaenotherium bessarabicum
Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides (& 3 other spp.)
Palinhyaena reperta
Ikelohyaena abronia
Belbus beaumonti
Leecyaena lycyaenoides (& 1 other) We're now in the Pliocene.
Parahyaena brunnea
Hyaena hyaena. Pliocrocuta (below) split off from Hyaena via cladogenesis. Hyaena itself continued on mostly unchanged as the modern striped hyena, with one more recent offshoot, the brown hyena,
Hyaena brunnea.
Pliocrocuta perrieri
Pachycrocuta brevirostris (& 1 other)
Adcrocuta eximia, which split into: Crocuta crocuta (the modern spotted hyena), C. sivalensis, and C. dietrichi.
Species-species transitions among carnivores:

Ginsburg (in Chaline, 1983) describes gradual change in the early cats, from Haplogale media to Proailurus lemansis, to (in Europe) Pseudaelurus transitorius to Ps. lorteti to Ps. rmoieviensis to Ps. quadridentatus. These European lineages gave rise to the modern Lynx, Panthera, etc. Different lineages of Pseudaelurus evolved in North American, Africa, and Asia.
Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution; the first "polar bear" subspecies, Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was a essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."
Kurten (1968) also described the following known species-species transitions:
Felis issiodorensis to Felis pardina (leopards)
Gulo schlosseri to Gulo gulo (wolverines)
Cuon majori to Cuon alpinus (dholes, a type of short-faced wolf)
Lundelius et al. (1987) describe a study by Schultz in 1978 that showed an increase in canine length leading from the dirk-tooth cat Megantereon hesperus to Megantereon/Smilodon gracilis, then to Smilodon fatalis (a saber-toothed cat), and then to Smilodon californicus. Note the genus transition and the accompanying striking change in morphology.
Werdelin & Solounias (1991) wrote an extensive monograph on hyenids. They discuss over one hundred (!) named species, with extensive discussion of the eighteen best-known species, and cladistic analysis of hundreds of specimens from the SIXTY-ONE "reasonably well known" hyaenid fossil species. They concluded:
"We view the evolution of hyaenids as overwhelmingly gradual. The species, when studied with regard to their total variability, often grade insensibly into each other, as do the genera. Large specimens of Hyaenotherium wongii are, for example, difficult to distinguish from small specimens of Hyaenictitherium hyaenoides, a distinct genus. Viewed over the entire family, the evolution of hyaenids from small, fox-like forms to large, scavenging, "typical" hyenas can be followed step by step, and the assembly of features defining the most derived forms has taken place piecemeal since the Miocene. Nowhere is there any indication of major breaks identifying macroevolutionary steps."

Rodents
Lagomorphs and rodents are two modern orders that look superficially similar but have long been thought to be unrelated. Until recently, the origins of both groups were a mystery. They popped into the late Paleocene fossil record fully formed -- in North America & Europe, that is. New discoveries of earlier fossils from previously unstudied deposits in Asia have finally revealed the probable ancestors of both rodents and lagomorphs -- surprise, they're related after all. (see Chuankuei-Li et al., 1987)

Anagale, Barunlestes, or a similar anagalid (mid-late Paleocene) -- A recently discovered order of primitive rodent/lagomorph ancestors from Asia. Rabbit-like lower cheek teeth, with cusps in a pattern that finally explains where the rabbits' central cusp came from (it's the old anagalid protocone). Primitive skeleton not yet specialized for leaping, with unfused leg bones, but has a rabbit-like heel. No gap yet in the teeth. These fossils have just been found in the last decade, and are still being described and analyzed. Barunlestes in particular (known so far from just one specimen) has both rodent-like and rabbit-like features, and may be ancestral to both the rodents and the lagomorphs. This lineage then apparently split into two groups, a eurymyloid/rodent-like group and a mymotonid/rabbit-like group.
Heomys (mid-late Paleocene, China) -- An early rodent-like eurymyloid. Similar overall to Barunlestes but with added rodent/lagomorph features (enamel only on front of incisors, loss of canines and some premolars, long tooth gap) plus various rodent-like facial features and rodent-like cheek teeth. Probably a "cousin" to the rodents, though Chuankuei-Li et al (1987, and in Szalay et al. 1993) think it is "very close to the ancestral stem of the order Rodentia."
News flash Tribosphenomys minutus (late Paleocene, 55 Ma) -- A just-announced discovery; it's a small Asian anagalid known from a single jaw found in some fossilized dung (well, we all have to die somehow). It still had rabbit-like cheek teeth, but had fully rodent-like ever-growing first incisors. This probably is the "ancestral stem" of the rodents. (see Discover, Feb. 1995, p. 22).
Acritoparamys (was "Paramys") atavus (late Paleocene) -- First known primitive rodent.
Paramys & its ischyromyid friends (late Paleocene) -- Generalized early rodents; a mostly squirrel-like skeleton but without the arboreal adaptations. Had a primitive jaw musculature (which modern squirrels still retain). Rodent-like gnawing incisors, but cheek teeth still rooted (unlike modern rodents) and primitive rodent dental formula.
Squirrels:

Paramys (see above)
Protosciurus (early Oligocene) An early squirrel with very primitive dentition and jaw muscles, but with the unique ear structure of modern squirrels. Fully arboreal.
Sciurus, the modern squirrel genus. Arose in the Miocene and has not changed since then. Among the rodents, squirrels may be considered "living fossils".
Beavers:

Paramys (see above)
Paleocastor (Oligocene) -- Early beaver. A burrower, not yet aquatic. From here the beaver lineage became increasingly aquatic. Modern beavers appear in the Pleistocene.
Rats/mice/voles:

Paramys (see above)
Eomyids -- later Eocene rodents with a few tooth and eyesocket features that show they had branched off from the squirrel line.
Geomyoids -- primitive rodents that have those same tooth & eyesocket features, and still have squirrel-like jaws; Known to have given rise to the mouse family only because we have intermediate fossil forms.
In the Oligocene these early mice started to split into modern families such as kangaroo rats and pocket gophers. The first really mouse- like rodent, Antemus, first appeared in the Miocene (16 Ma) in Asia. In the Plio-Pleistocene, modern mice, hamsters, and voles appeared and started speciating all over the place. Carroll (1988, p. 493) has a nightmarish diagram of vole speciation which I will not try to describe here! The fossil record is very good for these recent rodents, and many examples of species-species transitions are known, very often crossing genus lines (see below).
Cavies:

GAP: No cavy fossils are known between Paramys and the late Oligocene, when cavies suddenly appear in modern form in both Africa and South America. However, there are possible cavy ancestors (franimorphs) in the early Oligocene of Texas, from which they could have rafted to South America and Africa. Known species-species transitions in rodents:

Chaline & Laurin (1986) show gradual change in Plio-Pleistocene water voles, with gradual speciations documented in every step in the following lineage: Mimomys occitanus to M. stehlini to M. polonicus to M. pliocaenicus to M. ostramosensis. The most important change was the development of high-crowned teeth, which allows grass-eating. They say: "The evolution of the lineage appears to involve continuous morphological drift involving functional adaptation processes. It presumably results from changes in diet when Pretiglian steppes were replaced in Europe by a period with forest...In our opinion phyletic gradualism [in this lineage] seems well characterized. It lasts for 1.9 my and leads to very important morphological changes, and the transitional stages in the chronomorphocline are sufficiently easily recognizable that they have been described as morphospecies..."
In a previous paper, Chaline (1983, p. 83) surveyed speciation in the known arvicolid rodents. About 25% of the species have fossil records complete enough to study the mode of appearance. Of those 25%, a wide variety of modes was seen, ranging sudden appearances (taken to mean punctuated equilibrium), to quick but smooth transitions, to very slow smooth transitions. Both cladogenesis and anagenesis occurred. Overall, smooth species-to-species transitions were seen for 53% of the studied species, but no single mode of evolution was dominant.
Chevret et al. (1993) describe the transition from mouse teeth to vole teeth (6-4.5 Ma).
Fahlbusch (1983) documents gradual change in various Miocene rodent transitions.
Goodwin (in Martin, 1993) describes gradual transitions in prairie dogs, with Cinomys niobrarius increasing in size and splitting into two descendants, C. leucurus and C. parvidens.
Jaeger (in Chaline, 1983) describes gradual shifts in tooth size and shape two genera of early mice, related to the development of grazing.
Kurten (1968) describes a transition in voles, from Lagurus pannonicus to L. lagurus.
Lundelius et al. (1987) summarizes and reviews species-species transitions in numerous voles, grasshopper mice, jumping mice, etc., from at least 11 different studies. Ex: Sigmodon medius to Sigmodon minor, and Zapus sandersi to Zapus hudsonius. The authors point out that some promising, well-fossilized groups have not even been studied yet for species-to-species transitions (e.g. the packrats, Neotoma).
Martin (1993) summarizes and reviews the numerous known Pleistocene rodent species-to-species transitions in muskrats, water voles, grasshopper mice, prairie voles, pocket gophers, and cotton rats. Michaux (in Chaline, 1983) summarized speciations in mice. He found a wide variety of modes of speciation, ranging from sudden appearance to gradual change.
Rensberger (1981) describes a likely lineage in the development of hypsodonty (high-crowned teeth for eating grass), among seven species of meniscomyine rodents in the genus Niglarodon.
Stuart (1982, described by Barnosky, 1987) showed smooth transitions in water voles, including a genus transition. Mimomys savini gradually lost its distinctive tooth characters, including rooted cheek teeth, as it changed into a new genus, Arvicola cantiana, which in turn smoothly changed into the modern A. terrestris.
Vianey-Liaud (1972) showed gradual change in two independent lineages of the mid-Oligocene rodent genus Theridomys. For example, the molars become gradually more hypsodont over time from species to species.
Vianey-Liaud & Hartenberger (in Chaline, 1983) also describe gradual shifts in size and shape in Eocene rodents (mainly theridomyids), concluding that gradual evolution explains their data better than punctuated equilibrium.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:05 AM
Lagomorphs
Barunlestes (see above) The possible Asian rodent/lagomorph ancestor.
Mimotoma (Paleocene) -- A rabbit-like animal, similar to Barunlestes, but with a rabbit dental formula, changes in the facial bones, and only one layer of enamel on the incisors (unlike the rodents). Like rabbits, it had two upper incisors, but the second incisor is still large and functional, while in modern rabbits it is tiny. Chuankuei-Li et al. (1987; also see Szalay et al., 1993) think this is the actual ancestor of Mimolagus, next.
Mimolagus (late Eocene) -- Possesses several more lagomorph-like characters, such as a special enamel layer, possible double upper incisors, and large premolars.
Lushilagus (mid-late Eocene) -- First true lagomorph. Teeth very similar to Mimotoma, and modern rabbit & hare teeth could easily have been derived from these teeth.
After this, the first modern rabbits appeared in the Oligocene.
Known species-to-species transitions in lagomorphs:

The mid-Tertiary lagomorph Prolagus shows a very nice "chronocline" (gradual change over time), grading from one species to the next. Gingerich (1977) says: "In Prolagus a very complete fossil record shows a remarkable but continuous and gradual reorganization of the premolar crown morphology in a single lineage."
Lundelius et al. (1987) mention transitions in Pleistocene rabbits, particularly from Nekrolagus to Sylvilagus, and from Pratilepus to Aluralagus. Note that both these transitions cross genus lines. Also see the lagomorph paper in Chaline (1983). Some of these transitions were considered to be "sudden appearances" until the intervening fossils were studied, revealing numerous transitional individuals.
Condylarths, the first hoofed animals
Protungulatum (latest Cretaceous) -- Transitional between earliest placental mammals and the condylarths (primitive, small hoofed animals). These early, simple insectivore- like small mammals had one new development: their cheek teeth had grinding surfaces instead of simple, pointed cusps. They were the first mammal herbivores. All their other features are generalized and primitive -- simple plantigrade five-toed clawed feet, all teeth present (3:1:4:3) with no gaps, all limb bones present and unfused, pointy-faced, narrow small brain, eyesocket not closed.
Within a few million years the condylarths split into several slightly different lineages with slightly different teeth, such as oxyclaenids (the most primitive), triisodontines, and phenacodonts (described in other sections). Those first differences amplified over time as the lineages drifted further and further apart, resulting ultimately in such different animals as whales, anteaters, and horses. It's interesting to see how similar the early condylarth lineages were to each other, in contrast to how different their descendants eventually, slowly, became. Paleontologists believe this is a classic example of how 'higher taxa" such as families and orders arise.

Says Carroll (1988, p.505): "In the case of the cetaceans [whales] and the perissodactyls [horses etc.], their origin among the condylarths has been clearly documented....If, as seems likely, it may eventually be possible to trace the ancestry of most of the placental mammals back to the early Paleocene, or even the latest Cretaceous, the differences between the earliest ancestral forms will be very small -- potentially no more than those that distinguish species or even populations within species. The origin of orders will become synonymous with the origin of species or geographical subspecies. In fact, this pattern is what one would expect from our understanding of evolution going back to Darwin. The selective forces related to the origin of major groups would be seen as no different than those leading to adaptation to very slightly differing enviromments and ways of life. On the basis of a better understanding of the anatomy and relationships of the earliest ungulates, we can see that the origin of the Cetacea and the perissodactyls resulted not from major differences in their anatomy and ways of life but from slight differences in their diet and mode of locomotion, as reflected in the pattern of the tooth cusps and details of the bones of the carpus and tarsus." (p. 505)

Species-to-species transitions among the condylarths:

The most common fossil mammal from the lower Eocene is a little primitive weasel-looking condylarth called Hyopsodus. It was previously known that many very different species of Hyopsodus were found at different sites, with (for example) very different tooth size. In 1976, Gingerich analyzed the tooth size of all the known fossils of Hyopsodus that could be dated reliably and independently. He found that "the pattern of change in tooth size that emerges is one of continuous gradual change between lineages, with gradual divergence following the separation of new sister lineages." When tooth size is charted against time, it shows the single lineage smoothly splitting into four descendant lineages. (This was one of the first detailed & extensive studies of speciation.)
By 1985, Gingerich had many more specimens of Hyopsodus and of several other Eocene condylarth lineages as well, such as Haplomylus. For example: "Haplomylus speirianus ...gradually became larger over time, ultimately giving rise to a new species Haplomylus scottianus... Hyopsodus latidens also became larger and then smaller, ultimately giving rise to a still smaller species, Hyopsodus simplex." These analyses were based on hundreds of new specimens (505 for Haplomylus, and 869 for Hyposodus) from Clark's Fork Basin in Wyoming. Note, however, that several other species from the same time showed stasis (particularly Ectocion, which was previously reported to show change, but in fact stayed much the same), and that not all species transitions are documented. So transitions are not always found. But sometimes they are found.
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as predicted. (for discussions see Berta, 1994; Gingerich et al. 1990; Thewissen et al. 1994; Discover magazine, Jan. 1995; Gould 1994)

Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:

Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
Perissodactyls (horses, tapirs, rhinos)
Here we come to the most famous general lineage of all, the horse sequence. It was the first such lineage to be discovered, in the late 1800's, and thus became the most famous. There is an odd rumor circulating in creationist circles that the horse sequence is somehow suspect or outdated. Not so; it's a very good sequence that has grown only more detailed and complete over the years, changing mainly by the addition of large side-branches. As these various paleontologists have said recently: "The extensive fossil record of the family Equidae provides an excellent example of long-term, large-scale evolutionary change." (Colbert, 1988) "The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses."(Evander, in Prothero & Schoch 1989, p. 125) "All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma, 1986, p.409) "...fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden, 1988)

So here's the summary of the horse sequence. For more info, see the Horse Evolution FAQ.

Loxolophus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive condylarth with rather low-crowned molars, probably ancestral to the phenacodontid condylarths.
Tetraclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A more advanced Paleocene condylarth from the phenacodontid family, and almost certainly ancestral to all the perissodactyls (a different order). Long but unspecialized limbs; 5 toes on each foot (#1 and #5 smaller). Slightly more efficient wrist.
GAP: There are almost no known perissodactyl fossils from the late Paleocene. This is actually a small gap; it's only noticeable because the perissodactyl record is otherwise very complete. Recent discoveries have made clear that the first perissodactyls arose in Asia (a poorly studied continent), so hopefully the ongoing new fossil hunts in Asia will fill this small but frustrating gap. The first clue has already come in:

Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)
Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.
Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.
Orohippus (mid-Eocene, ~50 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests.
Epihippus (late Eocene, ~45 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser.
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.
Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger
Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.
Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.
Kalobatippus (late Oligocene) -- Three-toed browser w/foot intermediate between Mio. & Para.
Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.
'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.
'Merychippus' gunteri (mid-Miocene, ~18 Ma) -- Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth.
Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.
Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus. The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines". Crystal clear, right?
SMALL GAP: It is not known which Merychippus species (stylodontus? carrizoensis?) gave rise to the first Dinohippus species (Evander, in Prothero & S 1988).

Dinohippus (late Miocene, 12 Ma) -- One-toed grazer, spring-footed. Very equine feet, teeth, and skull, with straighter teeth & smaller fossae. First was D. spectans, followed by D. interpolatus and D. leidyanus. A slightly later species was D. mexicanus, with even straighter teeth and even smaller fossae.
Equus (Plesippus), also called the "E. simplicidens" group (Pliocene, ~4 My) -- Three closely related species of one-toed spring-footed high-crowned grazers. No fossae and very straight teeth. Pony size, fully "horsey" body -- rigid spine, long neck, long legs, fused leg bones with no rotation, long nose, flexible muzzle, deep jaw. The brain was a bit larger than in early Dinohippus. Still had some primitive traits such as simple teeth & slight facial fossae, which later Equus species lost. These "simple Equus" species quickly diversified into at least 12 new species in 4 different groups. During the first major glaciations of the late Pliocene (2.6 Ma), certain Equus species crossed to the Old World. Worldwide, Equus took over the niche of "large coarse-grazing plains runner".
Equus (Hippotigris) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras.
Equus (Equus) (Pleistocene) -- Subgenus of modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.]
Compare Equus to Hyracotherium and see how much it has changed. If you think of animals as being divided into "kinds", do you think Equus and Hyracotherium can be considered the same "kind"? Tapirs and rhinos:
Loxolophus, see above
Tetraclaenodon, see above
Homagalax (early Eocene) -- Very like its sister genus Hyracotherium, but had cross-lophs on teeth. Note that these early perissodactyls differed only in slight details of the teeth.
Heptodon (late early Eocene) -- A small early tapiroid showing one more tooth cusp change. Split into two lineages:
Helaletes (mid-Eocene) which had a short proboscis, then Prototapir (late Oligocene), much like modern tapirs but without such a flexible snout, then Miotapirus (early Miocene), an almost- modern tapir with a flexible snout, then Tapirus (Pliocene) the modern tapir.
Hyrachyus (late Eocene), a tapiroid with increased shearing function in its teeth. Led to the late Eocene hyracodontids such as Hyracodon (rhino-tapiroids, or "running rhinos") that show increasing development of high-crowned teeth and larger body size. They led to Caenopus (early Oligocene), a large, hornless, generalized rhino which led to the modern horned rhinos of the Miocene & Pliocene. Our living genera first appear in the Pliocene, about 4 Ma.
Species-species transitions:

Horses: Gingerich (1980) documented speciation from Hyracotherium grangeri to H. aemulor. Prothero & Schoch (1989) mention some intermediate fossils that link late Orohippus to Mesohippus celer. MacFadden (1985) has documented numerous smooth transitions among the three-toed horses, particularly among Merychippus and the various hipparions. Hulbert (in Prothero & Schoch, 1989) showed that Dinohippus smoothly grades into Equus through successive Pliocene strata. Simpson (1961) describes gradual loss of the side toes in Pliohippus through 3 successive strata of the early Pliocene.
Rhinos: Wood (1954) said of the rhino fossils "whenever we do have positive paleontological evidence, the picture is of the most extreme gradualism" (quoted in Gingerich, 1977), and Kurten (1968) describes a smooth transition between Dicerorhinus species.
Elephants
Minchenella or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids.
Phenacolophus (late Paleocene or early Eocene) -- An early embrithopod (very early, slightly elephant-like condylarths), thought to be the stem-group of all elephants.
Pilgrimella (early Eocene) -- An anthracobunid (early proto-elephant condylarth), with massive molar cusps aligned in two transverse ridges.
Unnamed species of proto-elephant (early Eocene) -- Discovered recently in Algeria. Had slightly enlarged upper incisors (the beginnings of tusks), and various tooth reductions. Still had "normal" molars instead of the strange multi-layered molars of modern elephants. Had the high forehead and pneumatized skull bones of later elephants, and was clearly a heavy-boned, slow animal. Only one meter tall.
Moeritherium, Numidotherium, Barytherium (early-mid Eocene) -- A group of three similar very early elephants. It is unclear which of the three came first. Pig-sized with stout legs, broad spreading feet and flat hooves. Elephantish face with the eye set far forward & a very deep jaw. Second incisors enlarged into short tusks, in upper and lower jaws; little first incisors still present; loss of some teeth. No trunk.
Paleomastodon, Phiomia (early Oligocene) -- The first "mastodonts", a medium-sized animals with a trunk, long lower jaws, and short upper and lower tusks. Lost first incisors and canines. Molars still have heavy rounded cusps, with enamel bands becoming irregular. Phiomia was up to eight feet tall.
GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap again. No elephant fossils at all for several million years.

Gomphotherium (early Miocene) -- Basically a large edition of Phiomia, with tooth enamel bands becoming very irregular. Two long rows cusps on teeth became cross- crests when worn down. Gave rise to several families of elephant- relatives that spread all over the world. From here on the elephant lineages are known to the species level.
The mastodon lineage split off here, becoming more adapted to a forest browser niche, and going through Miomastodon (Miocene) and Pliomastodon (Pliocene), to Mastodon (or "Mammut", Pleistocene).
Meanwhile, the elephant lineage became still larger, adapting to a savannah/steppe grazer niche:

Stegotetrabelodon (late Miocene) -- One of the first of the "true" elephants, but still had two long rows of cross-crests, functional premolars, and lower tusks. Other early Miocene genera show compression of the molar cusps into plates (a modern feature ), with exactly as many plates as there were cusps. Molars start erupting from front to back, actually moving forward in the jaw throughout life.
Primelephas (latest Miocene) -- Short lower jaw makes it look like an elephant now. Reduction & loss of premolars. Very numerous plates on the molars, now; we're now at the modern elephants' bizarre system of one enormous multi-layered molar being functional at a time, moving forward in the jaw.
Primelephas gomphotheroides (mid-Pliocene) -- A later species that split into three lineages, Loxodonta, Elephas, and Mammuthus:
Loxodonta adaurora (5 Ma). Gave rise to the modern African elephant Loxodonta africana about 3.5 Ma.
Elephas ekorensis (5 Ma), an early Asian elephant with rather primitive molars, clearly derived directly from P. gomphotheroides. Led directly to:
Elephas recki, which sent off one side branch, E. hydrusicus, at 3.8 Ma, and then continued changing on its own until it became E. iolensis.
Elephas maximus, the modern Asian elephant, clearly derived from
E. hysudricus. Strikingly similar to young E. hysudricus animals. Possibly a case of neoteny (in which "new" traits are simply juvenile features retained into adulthood).
Mammuthus meridionalis, clearly derived from P. gomphotheroides. Spread around the northern hemisphere. In Europe, led to M. armeniacus/trogontherii, and then to M. primigenius. In North America, led to M. imperator and then M. columbi.
The Pleistocene record for elephants is very good. In general, after the earliest forms of the three modern genera appeared, they show very smooth, continuous evolution with almost half of the speciation events preserved in fossils. For instance, Carroll (1988) says: "Within the genus Elephas, species demonstrate continuous change over a period of 4.5 million years. ...the elephants provide excellent evidence of significant morphological change within species, through species within genera, and through genera within a family...."
Species-species transitions among the elephants:

Maglio (1973) studied Pleistocene elephants closely. Overall, Maglio showed that at least 7 of the 17 Quaternary elephant species arose through smooth anagenesis transitions from their ancestors. For example, he said that Elephas recki "can be traced through a progressive series of stages...These stages pass almost imperceptibly into each other....In the late Pleistocene a more progressive elephant appears which I retain as a distinct species, E. iolensis, only as a matter of convenience. Although as a group, material referred to E. iolensis is distinct from that of E. recki, some intermediate specimens are known, and E. iolensis seems to represent a very progressive, terminal stage in the E. recki specific lineage."
Maglio also documented very smooth transitions between three Eurasian mammoth species: Mammuthus meridionalis --> M. armeniacus (or M. trogontherii) --> M. primigenius.
Lister (1993) reanalyzed mammoth teeth and confirmed Maglio's scheme of gradual evolution in European mammoths, and found evidence for gradual transitions in the North American mammoths too.
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
GAP: The ancestors of sirenians are not known. No sirenian-like fossils are known from before the Eocene.

Early Eocene -- fragmentary sirenian fossils known from Hungary.
Prorastomus (mid-Eocene) -- A very primitive sirenian with an extremely primitive dental formula (including the ancient fifth premolar that all other mammals lost in the Cretaceous! Could this mean sirenians split off from all other mammals very early on?) The skull is somewhat condylarth-like. Had distinctive sirenian ribs. Not enough of the rest of the skeleton was found to know how aquatic it was.
Protosiren (late Eocene) -- A sirenian with an essentially modern skeleton, though it still had the very primitive dental formula. Probably split into the two surviving lineages:
Dugongs: Eotheroides (late Eocene), with a slightly curved snout and small tusks, still with the primitive dental formula. Perhaps gave rise to Halitherium (Oligocene) a dugong-ish sirenian with a more curved snout and longer tusks, and then to living dugongs, very curved snout & big tusks.
Manatees: Sirenotherium (early Miocene); Potamosiren (late Miocene), a manatee-like sirenian with loss of some cheek teeth; then Ribodon (early Pliocene), a manatee with continuous tooth replacement, and then the living manatees.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:06 AM
Artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals)
"The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and the skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns....the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene..." (Carroll, 1988)

Chriacus (early Paleocene) -- A primitive oxyclaenid condylarth from the Lower Paleocene. Has many tooth features linking it to later Diacodexis; but in all other ways, including the legs, it was an unspecialized condylarth.
GAP: No artiodactyl fossils known from the late Paleocene. Similar late Paleocene gaps in rodents, lagomorphs, and perissodactyls are currently being filled with newly discovered Asian fossils, so apparently much late Paleocene herbivore evolution occurred in central Asia. Perhaps the new Asian expeditions will find Paleocene artiodactyl fossils too. At any rate, somewhere between Chriacus & Diacodexis, the hind leg changed, particularly the ankle, to allow smooth running.

Diacodexis (early Eocene) -- A rabbit-sized with longer limbs than the condylarths. The fibula was reduced to a splint, and in some (but not all!) individuals, fused partially to the tibia. Artiodactyl-like "double pulley" ankle (because of this feature, Diacodexis is automatically classified as the first artiodactyl). The feet were very elongated, and the 3rd and 4th toes bore the most weight. Many primitive, non-artiodactyl features retained: collarbone, unfused ulna, primitive femur, unfused foot bones with all 5 toes, could still spread hind limb out to the side, very primitive skull & teeth (all teeth present, no gaps, simple cusps). In fact, in most ways, Diacodexis is just a leggy condylarth. Only the ankle shows that it was in fact the ancestor of all our modern cloven-hoofed animals (possible exception: the hippos & pigs may have split off earlier). There are abundant species-to- species transitions linking Diacodexis to various artiodactyl familes (see below).
Hippos & pigs:

Helohyus or a similar helohyid (mid-Eocene) -- Primitive artiodactyl, larger than Diacodexis but with relatively shorter & stouter limbs, with bulbous cusps on the molars.
Anthracotherium and later anthracotheriids (late Eocene) -- A group of heavy artiodactyls that started out dog-size and increased to be hippo-size. Later species became amphibious with hippo-like teeth. Led to the modern hippos in the early Miocene, 18 Ma.
Propalaeochoerus or a similar cebochoerid/choeropotamid (late Eocene) -- Primitive piglike artiodactyls derived from the helohyids (see above).
Perchoerus (early Oligocene) -- The first known peccary.
Paleochoerus (early Oligocene, 38 Ma) -- First known true pig, apparently ancestral to all modern pigs. Pigs on the whole are still rather primitive artiodactyls; they lost the first toe on the forefoot and have long curving canines, but have very few other skeletal changes and still have low-cusped teeth. The main changes are a great lengthening of the skull & development of curving side tusks. These changes are seen Hyotherium (early Miocene), probably ancestral to the modern pig Sus and other genera.
Camels:

Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene) -- Similar to Diacodexis but with some advances; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
Poebrodon (late Eocene) -- First primitive camelid. Like other late Eocene artiodactyls, it had developed crescent-shaped grinding ridges on the cheek teeth. A small, short-necked, four-toed animal with little hooves on each toe.
Poebrotherium (mid-Oligocene) -- A taller camelid with fused arm & leg bones, and missing toes 1, 4, and 5. Longer neck, though still much shorter than modern camels. Had hooves.
From here the camel lineage developed pads in place of hooves on the feet, reverted to digitigrade posture, and began pacing instead of trotting, as shown by Miocene fossil footprints. This camel lineage goes through Protomeryx (early Miocene) and Procamelus (Miocene). The llamas split off here (Lama). The main camel lineage continued through Pliauchenia (Pliocene) and finally, in the late Pliocene, Camelus, the modern camels.
Ruminants: (see Scott & Janis, in Szalay et al., 1993, for details)

It's been very difficult to untangle the phylogeny of this fantastically huge, diverse, and successful group of herbivores. From the Eocene on, there are dozens of similar species, only some of them leading to modern lineages, with others in dozens of varied offshoot groups. Only recently have the main outlines become clear. The phylogeny listed below will probably change a bit as new information comes in.

Diacodexis (early Eocene, see above)
Homacodon & other dichobunids (mid-Eocene, see above)
Mesomeryx (late Eocene) -- A more advanced dichobunid; probably close to the ancestry of the rest of the artiodactyls.
Hypertragulus, Indomeryx or a similar hypertragulid (late Eocene) -- Primitive ruminants with a tendency toward crescent ridges on teeth, high-crowned teeth, and loss of one cusp on the upper molars. Long- legged runners and bounders, with many primitive features, but with telltale transitional signs: Still 5 toes on front and 4 behind, but the side toes are now smaller. Fibula still present (primitive), but now partially fused at the ends with the tibia. Upper incisors still present, but now smaller. Upper canine still pointed, but now the lower canine is like an incisor. Ulna and radius fused (new feature). Postorbital bar incomplete (primitive feature). Two ankle bones fused (new feature). Mastoid bone exposed on the surface of the skull (primitive feature).
Hyemoschus or other tragulids (Oligocene) -- Slightly more advanced ruminants called "tragulids" that have the above features plus loss of part of the first toe, some more bones fused, fibula shaft no longer ossifies. Too late to be actual ancestors; probably "cousins". Some later tragulids are still alive and are considered the most primitive living ruminants.
Archaeomeryx, Leptomeryx (mid-late Eocene) -- Rabbit-sized ruminants. Still had small upper incisors. The mastoid bone becomes less and less exposed in these "leptomerycids".
Bachitherium (early Oligocene) -- A later, more advanced leptomerycid.
Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) -- The most advanced ruminants yet, called "gelocids", with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:
Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer -- cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.
Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.
Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.
Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).
Species-species transitions in artiodactyls:

Brunet & Heintz (1983) describe gradual shifts in size and shape in Plio-Pleistocene artiodactyls (cited in Gingerich, 1985)
Harris & White (1979) show smooth species-species transitions among pigs.
Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera (not further discussed by this particular paper). Meanwhile, the main lineage of D. s-primus continued, and became D. s-metsiacus. Two species split off from D. s-metsiacus: one was D. gracilis, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae. Meanwhile, D. s- metsiacus continued changing and became D. s-kelleyi. Another species forked off, D. minutus. Slightly later another species forked off, D. woltonensis, which apparently was the first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, D. s-kelley continued changing and became D. s-secans. Some quotes from the paper: "A good fossil record, such as that of Diacodexis, flies major anagenetic change in the face of artificial [naming] conventions..." "Evolutionary change (both anagenesis and cladogenesis) among these artiodactyls appears to have been gradual, chronoclinal, and mosaic, involving an increase in the degree of expression and frequency of occurrence of derived morphologic features..." "...it appears that different taxa of artiodactyls -- in hindsight, the most primitive members of originating suborders, families, and subfamilies -- arose at different times from different lineage segments of the single species Diacodexis secans." The authors conclude: "Microevolutionary processes can account for both cladogenetic and anagenetic change among these artiodactyls; macroevolutionary processes are not called for."
Kurten (1968) describes a transition between Dama clactonia to Dama dama (deer)
Lister (in Martin, 1993) describes transitional moose antlers linking a Pleistocene moose, Alces latifrons, to the modern moose, Alces alces.
Wilson (1971) describes the gradual evolution of the late middle Eocene Protoreodon (family Agriochoeridae), showing progressive development of crescentic tooth cusps & other significant dental features. The species split into two diverging lineages which smoothly led to 1) Agriochoerus and 2) the oreodon Merycoidodon, which was the first member of a new, different, and eventually very successful family, Merycoidodontidae.
Vrba (in Chaline, 1983) studied speciation in the wildebeest tribe (specialist grazers) and the impala tribe (generalist browsers). She saw almost no smooth transitions among the numerous and diverse wildebeest/blesbuck/etc. species, and concluded that they have arisen mostly by punctuated equilibrium by "fortuitous subdivision of gene pools" due to repeated oscillations in African climate, rainfall & vegetation). The impalas, in contrast, have evolved smoothly in a single non-splitting lineage since the Miocene.
Species-species transitions known from other misc. mammal groups
Bookstein et al. (1975) describef gradual shifts in mean size in early Eocene mammals (cited in Gingerich, 1985).
Gingerich (1980) documented gradual change in a lineage of early Eocene tillodonts: Esthonyx xenicus to E. oncylion to E. grangeri.
Hulbert and Morgan (in Martin, 1993) describe gradual evolution through 2.3 million years in a genus of giant armadillo in Florida, Holmesina, with a noticeable spurt of evolution at 1.1 Ma when H. septentrionalis changed to H. floridanus.
This concludes our tour of the Cenozoic placental mammal record! However, please do not unfasten your seatbelts until the FAQ has come to a complete stop.

A quote from Gingerich (1985) about Eocene mammals also applies to the mammal record as a whole: "The fossil record of early Eocene mammals appears to be both gradual and punctuated. It is gradual in the sense that early and late representatives of all species, whether changing or not, are connected by intermediate forms. Some ancestor-descendant pairs of species are also connected by intermediates. The record is punctuated in the sense that new lineages appear abruptly at the Clarkforkian-Wasatchian boundary, and some possible ancestor-descendant pairs of species are not connected by intermediates."

In summary, as Carroll (1988) said, "There is considerable evidence from Tertiary mammals that significant change does occur during the duration of species, as they are typically recognized, and this change can account for the emergence of new species and genera."

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:10 AM
What Does The Fossil Record Show Us Now?

I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:

A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.
Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds).
Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes.
A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.
Good Models, Bad Models (or, "The FAQ author rambles on for a while")
And now we come to the main question. Which of the many theories of the origins of life on earth are consistent with the known vertebrate fossil record, and explain its major features? I'll go back to the two main models I outlined at the beginning, creationism and evolution, and break them down further into several different possibilities. I'll try to summarize what they say, and whether or not they are consistent with the major features of the fossil record.

Evolution alone (with no God, or with a non-interfering God)
Evolution of all vertebrates by descent from a common ancestor, with change occurring both through punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution, and with both modes of species formation (anagenesis and cladogenesis). These mechanisms and modes are consistent with (and in fact are predicted by) what is presently known about mutation, developmental biology, and population genetics According to this model, the remaining gaps in the fossil record are primarily due to the chance events of fossilization (particularly significant if evolution occurs locally or rapidly), in combination with immigration (the spreading of a new species from the site where it evolved out into different areas).

Evolution with a "Starting-gate God"
Evolution by common descent, as above, with God having set everything in motion in the beginning -- for instance, at the initial creation of the universe, or at the initial occurrence of life on earth -- and not having affected anything since.

Evolution with a "Tinkering God"
Evolution by common descent, as above, with God occasionally altering the direction of evolution (e.g., causing sudden extinctions of certain groups, causing certain mutations to arise). The extent of the "tinkering" could vary from almost none to constant adjustments. However, a "constant tinkering" theory may run into the problem that vertebrate history on the whole does not show any obvious direction. For instance, mammal evolution does not seem to have led inescapably toward humans, and does not show any consistent discernable trend (except possibly toward increased body size). Many lineages do show some sort of trend over time, but those trends were usually linked to available ecological niches, not to an inherent "evolutionary path", and the "trends" often reversed themselves when the environment or the competition changed.

Models 1, 2, and 3 are all consistent with the known fossil record.

Standard "young-earth" creationism
Creation of separate "kinds" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

"Separately created kinds", but with an old Earth.
Literal creationism won't fly, but could the concept of "separately created kinds" still be viable, with the creations occurring over millions of years? This would require the following convoluted adjustments:

First, if every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?

"Minor" evolution allowed.
In this model, the species-species transitions DO represent evolution, but of a minor and unimportant variety. Note, however, that during these bursts of "minor evolution", the evolution took place in an apparently non-directed manner, sometimes crossed genus and family lines, and resulted in just the same sorts of morphological differences that are seen between the other, presumably created, groups of animals.

Separately created fossils.
In this model, the "species-species transitions" do not represent evolution. This implies that every individual fossil in the species-to-species transitions must have been separately created, either by creation of the animal that later died and was fossilized, or by creation of a fossil in situ in the rock. I have heard this model called the "Lying God Theory".

In summary, models 1, 2, and 3 (slightly different versions of basic evolutionary theory) are consistent with the fossil record, and go further to explain its notable features with a coherent overarching framework. Evolutionary theory has made successful predictions about fossils that were discovered later (e.g. the whale fossils), about genetic patterns, and about numerous other aspects of biology such as the development of disease resistance. Model 4 (literal young-earth creationism) appears unsalvagable, as all of its predictions are wrong. Model 5 (nonliteral creationism, with separately created kinds on an old earth) can just barely be modified to be consistent with the fossil record, but only with bizarre and convoluted tinkering, and only, apparently, if God created the world to make it look like evolution happened. In my humble opinion, this still utterly fails to explain the record's notable features or to make any useful or testable predictions. It also raises the disturbing question of why God would go to such lengths to set up the appearance of evolution, right down to inserting the correct ratios of radioisotopes in the rocks.
Okay, having blathered on about that, now I'll quit pontificating and get to the main point.

The Main Point
Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.
As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:12 AM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

References
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.

Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York.

Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford. [collection of papers. Good intro to current thinking on many intermediate fossils from various groups.]

Benton, M.J. 1989. Patterns of evolution and extinction in vertebrates. Pp 218-241 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution. Unwin Hyman, London.

Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on discovery of Ambulocetus natans]

Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770

Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York. [general text. Only chapter 22 is concerned with species-level evolution and transitions; the other chapters generally describe only genera or families.]

Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.]

Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology 12:203-216.

Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 21(1):123-131.

Chuankuei-Li, R.W. Wilson, M.R. Dawson, and L. Krishtalka. 1987. The origin of rodents and lagomorphs. Chapter 3, pp. 97-108, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. HH Genoways. Plenum Press, New York.

Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.

Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.

Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York. [An accessible summary of large-scale trends in vertebrate history. Does not discuss species-level evolution at all, though.]

Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642.

Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254.

Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia). Palaont. Z. 57:213-230. [transitions among Miocene rodents.]

Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age Of Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new interpretations. Science 262: 845-846.

Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Pantheon Books, New York.

Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. [standard text on theories of how evolution occurs; doesn't address evidence for evolution per se].

Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28.

Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. In: Patterns Of Evolution As Illustrated By The Fossil Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp. 469-500. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.

Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.

Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc., 1:205-210.

Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144.

Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41.

Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.

Gould, S.J. 1983. Hen's Teeth And Horse's Toes. W.W. Norton, New York. [The title essay discusses evidence that some species retain old genes for traits that they no longer express -- teeth in chickens, side toes in horses. ]

Gould, S.J. 1993. Eight Little Piggies. W.W. Norton, New York. [collection of essays. Title essay is about early amphibians.]

Gould, S.J. 1994. Hooking Leviathon by its past. Natural History, May 1994.

Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.

Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract]

Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.

Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad. Bayern. 16:15-36.

Kemp, T.S. 1982. Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals. Academic Press, New York.

Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London. [this is a great little book; very clearly written, short, and well- illustrated.]

Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.

Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.

Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Aldine, Chicago.

Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York.

Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95.

Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720.

Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334.

Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski, C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne). University of California Press, Berkeley.

MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245-257.

MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158.

MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature 336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost everyone these days.)

MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus --> Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.]

Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.

Martin, R.A., and A.D. Barnosky, eds. 1993. Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America. Cambridge University Press, New York. [collection of papers. Particulary useful: Goodwin on prairie dogs, Hulbert & Morgan on armadillos, Lister on mammoths and moose, Martin on rodents.]

Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology 34:503-513.

Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York. [collection of papers]

Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles. Nature 349: 324-326.

Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont. 13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract]

Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation, Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209.

Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.

Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.

Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216.

Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435. [This is about the Las Hoyas bird. ]

Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves) from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series No.36 [Formal description of the Las Hoyas bird.]

Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science vol.255, pp.845-848.

Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal distribution. Science 251:1063-1065.

Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. [outdated but still the most accessible intro to horse evolution.]

Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal Phylogeny, vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York. [a compilation of articles on different groups of mammals. Volume 1 covers early Mesozoic mammals, monotremes, and marsupials, volume 2 covers Cenozoic placentals. Excellent intro to the current state of knowledge of mammal relationships, though to get the most from it you should be familiar with current phylogenetic methodology and vertebrate morphology.]

Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210-212.

Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx vol.11, pp. 1-47. [Description of the newest specimen of Archaeopteryx, with some more features that unite birds with dinosaurs. Summary and all figure legends are in English, the rest is in German.]

Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30 (a monograph). Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306- 312.

Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28.

Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281. [commentary on Australopithecus ramidus]

MAGAZINE ARTICLES by unknown authors:

Science News 133:102. "Bird fossil reveals history of flight".

Science News 145(3):36. "Fossil Whale Feet: A Step in Evolution" [Ambulocetus natans & other recent whale discoveries]

Science News 140:104-105. 1991. "The Lonely Bird." [summary of the Protoavis controversy.]

Science News 138:246-247. 1990. "Chinese bird fossil: mix of old and new".

Discover, (month?) 1991. Article on Protoavis.

Discover, January 1995. "Back to the Sea". Brief description of recent fossil whale discoveries, with a nice full-color painting depicting evolution to the sea (showing a mesonychid on land, Ambulocetus at the shoreline, the legged Eocene whale Rodhocetus in shallow water, and the later vestigial-legged whale Prozeuglodon in deep water.)

Discover, February 1995, p. 22 "Wabbit or Wodent?" Brief description, with photo, of a probably rodent/lagomorph ancestor.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:18 AM
Happy?

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:30 AM
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.



:)

Hyman Roth
05-23-2007, 11:30 AM
Sesh lost - Elvis was only looking for one.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:41 AM
There's plenty more where that came from. I missed out 3 pages...:)

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Now this is interesting....don't any of you suspect that Creationism and the Evolution Theory might BOTH be correct? That's my belief.


That's the belief of 99% of Christians outwith the US as well as the Catholic church.

Basically that a 'god' started the whole evolutionary process a few billion years ago.

I don't think it holds up but at least it's not insane.

Seshmeister
05-23-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions

The truth is always the sum of it's parts.

No you can have empirical truth.

If I say 1+1 = 2 and Elvis says 1+ 1= 8 the truth is not that 1+1= 5.

The truth is that Elvis is wrong.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Hyman Roth
05-23-2007, 12:57 PM
True.

Hyman Roth
05-23-2007, 01:00 PM
At least as far as empirical truth is concerned - but just because an idea can be supported by certain empirical data does not make that idea truth.

matt19
05-23-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
The truth is that Elvis is wrong.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Like normal.

ODShowtime
05-23-2007, 04:01 PM
I don't know shesh.

What if these guys have been digging in the dirt and writing about it for 200 years just to try to prove the bible wrong?



elvis... I was being sarcastic.

Angel
05-23-2007, 07:20 PM
Sesh, in case I haven't mentioned it in the past...



I FUCKING LOVE YOU!!!! :D

BITEYOASS
05-23-2007, 10:51 PM
IMO Evolution is a more evolved version of Creation. I don't think God had the time to write down the trillions of details involed in the constant creation of our universe, especially with the unevolved minds of ancient peoples who probably fucked up the actual story in the course of over several thousand years. Which proves that instead of defending god's word, they are actually defending the word of corrupt or incompotent scribes.

BITEYOASS
05-23-2007, 10:54 PM
That and these fundies idea of creationism also falls in line with the works of Pliny the Elder.

Nickdfresh
05-23-2007, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
If evolution were true, there should be a huge number of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and there is not...

LOL :D

Should I laugh or cry? I dunno.

The sister-fuckers are dragging this country down, man...

BTW, after you get off your cousin, you might realize that you sound just like Ford trying to reconcile his 9/11 "inside-job" crap...

Nickdfresh
05-23-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Now this is interesting....don't any of you suspect that Creationism and the Evolution Theory might BOTH be correct? That's my belief.

The truth is always the sum of it's parts.

I think Evolution does not prevent, nor even contradict, a belief in a God...

Baby's On Fire
05-24-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Holy shit! Hire an editor.

Did you copy/paste that from Creationism for Dummies?

I'll show you a "primordial atom" when you show me a talking snake.


Brilliant. Easily the best post ever on this site. You handed that douche bag's ass to him fucking gift wrapped.

Outstanding.

I saw a talking snake just today, and he offered me an apple.

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 08:37 PM
It was a grate post.

Reminded me of this...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NaEj3g5GOYA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NaEj3g5GOYA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

DEMON CUNT
05-24-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Brilliant. Easily the best post ever on this site. You handed that douche bag's ass to him fucking gift wrapped.

Outstanding.

I saw a talking snake just today, and he offered me an apple.

Gosh! Thank you.

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think Evolution does not prevent, nor even contradict, a belief in a God...

Depends what you mean by a god.

The huge counter argument is that of complexity.

If people have a problem with very simple cell like creatures becoming humans over vast periods of time, that's kind of nothing compared to an incredibly advanced being like a god just appearing one day and creating everything else.

If this god person does somehow appear out of nothing why would they then use a very gradual process like evolution to create life?

God just appeared from nothing but had limited powers which allowed him to start the big bang?

Did he just start the big bang or did that happen then he suddenly appeared hung around for a few billion years, start life from the primordial soup of preamino acids and then just fuck off?

The theist thing doesn't really work either. It doesn't explain anything at all in any way.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
05-24-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Depends what you mean by a god.

The huge counter argument is that of complexity.

You've cuntfused me with someone making that argument.:)


If people have a problem with very simple cell like creatures becoming humans over vast periods of time, that's kind of nothing compared to an incredibly advanced being like a god just appearing one day and creating everything else.

What if it always existed?


If this god person does somehow appear out of nothing why would they then use a very gradual process like evolution to create life?

Maybe it's like a kid playing with his Acme Chemistry Set, and "billions of years" are the time is takes it to fart?


God just appeared from nothing but had limited powers which allowed him to start the big bang?

I've never said "God appeared from nothing."

I think the common conceptualization is that it always existed...


Did he just start the big bang or did that happen then he suddenly appeared hung around for a few billion years, start life from the primordial soup of preamino acids and then just fuck off?

I dunno. But Aristotle, the first real modern scientist, thought of a god as an "unmoved mover," something that must have logically existed to start the universe...

Though, he really doesn't spend much time on the subject though.

Perhaps he wasn't arrogant enough to think he had all of the answers deduced?


The theist thing doesn't really work either. It doesn't explain anything at all in any way.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Well, how the fuck would one "explain" God, and why would one even want too?

Unless your some organized religionist charlatan pretending to speak for it...

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 09:14 PM
There's a great irony in reading about 'creationism' on the internet of all places.

Computers are a classic example of evolution.

I'd like to ask some of these anti science people to explain how their PC works.

You start with a switch like a light bulb which is either on or off giving a 1 or 0. You then put these in a circut and you can get a NAND gate. You put a bunch of these together and you can do addition. You stick that in a box and build on it and on and on to the point where you have an assembly language which allows you to send instructions to these circuits and process data.

I apologise for not explaining it better but I've forgotten most of that stuff. Anyhoo you don't turn around and look at your PC and say 'that's so complex it must have just been created one day by some sort of magical omnipitant being because I haven't spent my life finding out how it works.' Bill Gates can send me to hell for using a Mac.

Same goes for the study of evolution or fossils.

The reason that people like Dawkins or Sam Harris or these people are bringing out books and doing a more aggresive atheist thing is because the fundie shit both from muslims and in the US is starting to get dangerous.

If you want to believe that there are pixies and fairies and so forth in your backyard then that's all cool and fun and makes you interestingly eccentric.

When you have people running the worlds only superpower basing decisions on that it becomes a problem for everyone on the planet.

Unless the Lynchburg 'University' and Falwell people are totally discredited then I fear the US is totally fucked.

Since you can't compete in labor cost terms with cheaper countries like India or SE Asia then you have to compete on science and a better educated workforce.

Having people being taught that the Earth is a few thousand years old when it was populated by talking snakes, bioscience is evil and that nothing really matters that much because there is shortly going to be a second coming where you all go up to heaven is not the way to go.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

What if it always existed?


But we know that out universe didn't always exist snce it can be aged by the movement of stellar matter from a central point 6 billion years ago or whatever.

This god guy always existed and then one day created the universe?

How can something always exist?

My point is all it does is replace really difficult questions with a much more difficult one.

Cheers!

:gulp:

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 09:42 PM
This makes more sense than the crap religions dish out.

http://www.sethlearningcenter.org/

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 09:50 PM
He/She/It sounds like a bundle of laughs.:)

Forget the teachings of Seth and embrace Sesh the greatest spirtual teacher of the 21st century...:D

FORD
05-24-2007, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
This makes more sense than the crap religions dish out.

http://www.sethlearningcenter.org/

What a total Ramtha wannabe!

http://www.ramtha.com/

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 10:28 PM
What a total Ramtha wannabe!

Never heard of Ramtha. Why do you know about Ramtha?

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
But we know that out universe didn't always exist snce it can be aged by the movement of stellar matter from a central point 6 billion years ago or whatever.

This god guy always existed and then one day created the universe?

How can something always exist?

My point is all it does is replace really difficult questions with a much more difficult one.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Not only is all of this stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think.

Baby's On Fire
05-24-2007, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
There's a great irony in reading about 'creationism' on the internet of all places.

Computers are a classic example of evolution.

I'd like to ask some of these anti science people to explain how their PC works.

You start with a switch like a light bulb which is either on or off giving a 1 or 0. You then put these in a circut and you can get a NAND gate. You put a bunch of these together and you can do addition. You stick that in a box and build on it and on and on to the point where you have an assembly language which allows you to send instructions to these circuits and process data.

I apologise for not explaining it better but I've forgotten most of that stuff. Anyhoo you don't turn around and look at your PC and say 'that's so complex it must have just been created one day by some sort of magical omnipitant being because I haven't spent my life finding out how it works.' Bill Gates can send me to hell for using a Mac.

Same goes for the study of evolution or fossils.

The reason that people like Dawkins or Sam Harris or these people are bringing out books and doing a more aggresive atheist thing is because the fundie shit both from muslims and in the US is starting to get dangerous.

If you want to believe that there are pixies and fairies and so forth in your backyard then that's all cool and fun and makes you interestingly eccentric.

When you have people running the worlds only superpower basing decisions on that it becomes a problem for everyone on the planet.

Unless the Lynchburg 'University' and Falwell people are totally discredited then I fear the US is totally fucked.

Since you can't compete in labor cost terms with cheaper countries like India or SE Asia then you have to compete on science and a better educated workforce.

Having people being taught that the Earth is a few thousand years old when it was populated by talking snakes, bioscience is evil and that nothing really matters that much because there is shortly going to be a second coming where you all go up to heaven is not the way to go.

Cheers!

:gulp:

This is a genius post. Kudos. Finally someone with common sense accentuated by a healthy dose of reason.

Brilliant.

FORD
05-24-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
Never heard of Ramtha. Why do you know about Ramtha?

She's a local. Her mansion, school, and celebrity horse stables are located in the formerly small town of Yelm Washington, just a little bit east of Olympia. Her followers have been good for the Yelm economy, so that's why nobody's chased her away yet.

I've known a few "Ramsters" as her followers are called around here. They're decent people, but my opinion is that the woman is a complete fraud. Including the fake hair on her head.

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 10:48 PM
I've known a few "Ramsters" as her followers are called around here. They're decent people, but my opinion is that the woman is a complete fraud. Including the fake hair on her head.

I am sure that you are right about her. Lots of "pretenders" out there. There are those who are the real deal however and I believe that Jane Roberts/Seth is. I have read all of her books and listened to the class sessions she held in the 70's at her home. To me there is Jane Roberts and then there are the the rip off artists and wannabee's.

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
Not only is all of this stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think.

Of course.

I don't have any answers.

I just strongly believe in not making shit up because I don't.

Another huge irony to me is that FORD famously came up with the phrase 'sheep' many years ago for Van Halen fans who followed any old shit that they were told.

I can think of someone else who alledgedly used that term a lot...:)

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by FORD
She's a local. Her mansion, school, and celebrity horse stables are located in the formerly small town of Yelm Washington, just a little bit east of Olympia. Her followers have been good for the Yelm economy, so that's why nobody's chased her away yet.

I've known a few "Ramsters" as her followers are called around here. They're decent people, but my opinion is that the woman is a complete fraud. Including the fake hair on her head.

I think the key word here is 'mansion'.

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 11:21 PM
I think that the New Age shit actually irritates me more than religious superstitions because firstly they don't have the excuse of the powerful force of childhood indoctrination but secondly it's less fun to argue against.

All you need to do is replace the word 'energy' with the word 'bullshit' and thats it.

Cheers!

:gulp:

FORD
05-24-2007, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I think the key word here is 'mansion'.

You should see the stables. Those horses live better than a lot of humans. Carpeted floors, chandeliers, etc.

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 11:51 PM
All you need to do is replace the word 'energy' with the word 'bullshit' and thats it.

I disagree with you on this one.

PlexiBrown
05-24-2007, 11:52 PM
You should see the stables. Those horses live better than a lot of humans. Carpeted floors, chandeliers, etc.

Wow. That's nuts.

Seshmeister
05-24-2007, 11:52 PM
Give me an example.

FORD
05-24-2007, 11:53 PM
Hey, I just read that Salma Hayek is a Ramster! I need to get out to Yelm more often!

PlexiBrown
05-25-2007, 12:05 AM
Give me an example.

An example of energy? Are you serious?

matt19
05-25-2007, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.



:)

fucking brilliant :lol:

Ellyllions
05-25-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
That's the belief of 99% of Christians outwith the US as well as the Catholic church.

Basically that a 'god' started the whole evolutionary process a few billion years ago.

I don't think it holds up but at least it's not insane.

Well the Bible texts are only as old as humans were able to record. From looking at what you've posted, you know a "little bit" about anthropology.

Just maybe, God has been there all along, we just haven't had the skill to record his existence until a few thousand years ago.

I choose to believe that there is a God and there is a Heaven. I need that to maintain hope. I don't have enough faith in man's will to do good, so I need to believe that there is an ultimate good somewhere watching over and guiding me. That's my choice. I don't think that should be called "insane" because as humans we need emotional hope to cling to, and we all find it in different places.

It has been my experience that science tends to believe that humans, while capable of great evil, are innately good in nature. Christians believe just the opposite. Hence why Catholics baptize babies.

Angel
05-25-2007, 12:10 PM
I believe in myself, and no one else. Yes, I have a higher power... that "little voice" that tells me right from wrong. Do I think it's god? Hell, no...

Do I worry about heaven and hell? NOPE. If there IS such things, my innately good nature will take care of me. IF we should be wrong, and discover that there actually is a heaven, I'll make it there due to my living more like a christian than most.

Nitro Express
05-25-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Angel
I believe in myself, and no one else. Yes, I have a higher power... that "little voice" that tells me right from wrong. Do I think it's god? Hell, no...

Do I worry about heaven and hell? NOPE. If there IS such things, my innately good nature will take care of me. IF we should be wrong, and discover that there actually is a heaven, I'll make it there due to my living more like a christian than most.

I don't believe in the bible or quran. I don't believe in prophets. Why have a middleman when the middleman always says you need him and he's more in tune with the almighty than you. By accepting a prophet you are basically putting yourself below someone else.

I believe in higher knowlege and perfection. I believe that goes on and we are part of it and how much we get out of it is up to us. You can waste your life or build something out of it. The choice is yours and life isn't fair. Why that is I have no answer.

Nitro Express
05-25-2007, 12:48 PM
I think there are more agnostics and athiests than admit they are so. Why? Comming out and being honest offends grandma, grandpa, your parents. It's easier to just say I'm religion X. The family religion.

Successful religions tottaly use that family connection to keep members inside the church and make them pay money to the church. The Mormons are masters at that game.

Angel
05-25-2007, 03:52 PM
Nitro, that may be true in the States, but I don't think it's true here in Canada. We're a pretty secular nation... But then again, when I say I'm an atheist... that is the family religion. :D

BigBadBrian
05-25-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by matt19
fucking brilliant :lol:

Unlike the stuff you post.

:gulp:

BigBadBrian
05-25-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Angel
I believe in myself, and no one else. Yes, I have a higher power... that "little voice" that tells me right from wrong. Do I think it's god? Hell, no...

Do I worry about heaven and hell? NOPE. If there IS such things, my innately good nature will take care of me. IF we should be wrong, and discover that there actually is a heaven, I'll make it there due to my living more like a christian than most.

You are severely misguided on what it takes to get into heaven or go to hell. Please do some research on the Christian faith.

Change your evil ways, lesbian!!!

Also, if you believe in your "little voice," what do you do when it tells you that you're an imbecile? Hmm????

:gulp:

DEMON CUNT
05-25-2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Please do some research on the Christian faith.

Change your evil ways, lesbian!!!

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

PlexiBrown
05-25-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are severely misguided on what it takes to get into heaven or go to hell. Please do some research on the Christian faith.

Change your evil ways, lesbian!!!

Also, if you believe in your "little voice," what do you do when it tells you that you're an imbecile? Hmm????

:gulp:

I thought Jerry Falwell was dead.

DEMON CUNT
05-25-2007, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by PlexiBrown
I thought Jerry Falwell was dead.

He indeed is.

Sycophants like BigBlandBlowjob are all to happy and willing to carry on Falwell's doctrine of hate disguised as religion.

BigBland contradicts the teachings of Christ on a daily basis in a most hilariously ironic way.

knuckleboner
05-25-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are severely misguided on what it takes to get into heaven or go to hell. Please do some research on the Christian faith.



you believe in confession, right? that Christians can confess their sins and have them be forgiven and therefore ascend to heaven, right?


well, is it so hard to believe that an all-loving God (that is what you believe in right, an all-loving God?) wouldn't take "confession" from a recently deceased, noble, honest, charitable atheist, and forgive his sin of not believing?


or does this all-loving God say, "too bad, you had your chance to prove you believed in me while you were on earth. i don't care how many people you helped and how good a life you otherwise led, it's now too late for you, you're damned forever?"...

matt19
05-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Unlike the stuff you post.

:gulp:

What my original thoughts instead of being told what to think? Or just copying and pasting op-eds?

Why dont you go back and sit in time out.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t200/altered1986/poutingbaby.jpg

Angel
05-25-2007, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
BigBland contradicts the teachings of Christ on a daily basis in a most hilariously ironic way.

...and it's so much fun! ;)

Angel
05-25-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are severely misguided on what it takes to get into heaven or go to hell. Please do some research on the Christian faith.

Change your evil ways, lesbian!!!

Also, if you believe in your "little voice," what do you do when it tells you that you're an imbecile? Hmm????

:gulp:

YOU are judging me??? I don't believe you have that power.

That little voice is called a conscience. You wouldn't understand the concept.

You're just jealous that I get more pussy than you... or maybe it's the cock I get that you're jealous of.

:gulp:

matt19
05-25-2007, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Angel
YOU are judging me??? I don't believe you have that power.

That little voice is called a conscience. You wouldn't understand the concept.

You're just jealous that I get more pussy than you... or maybe it's the cock I get that you're jealous of.

:gulp:

LMFAO!


http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t200/altered1986/owned.jpg

Angel
05-25-2007, 08:30 PM
:D

ODShowtime
05-25-2007, 09:25 PM
that was funny

Seshmeister
05-25-2007, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are severely misguided on what it takes to get into heaven or go to hell. Please do some research on the Christian faith.

Change your evil ways, lesbian!!!

:gulp:

Brian please quote a passage from the bible that states "a women should not drinketh of the furry cup."

Seshmeister
05-25-2007, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Well the Bible texts are only as old as humans were able to record. From looking at what you've posted, you know a "little bit" about anthropology.

Just maybe, God has been there all along, we just haven't had the skill to record his existence until a few thousand years ago.


Nice use of quotation marks...:D

With all due respect this is the talk of a mad woman.:)

Ok being pedantic let's extend your few thousand years to 5000 years.

I'll repeat what I posted in my 'Easter Message'.:)

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45633&#vbform


Originally posted by Seshmeister
The Book of the Dead is the name given by Egyptologists to a group of mortuary spells written on sheets of papyrus covered with magical texts and accompanying illustrations called vignettes. These were placed with the dead in order to help them pass through the dangers of the underworld and attain an afterlife of bliss in the Field of Reeds. Some of the texts and vignettes are also found on the walls of tombs and on coffins or written on linen or vellum rather than on papyrus

You can go and read a copy of it in the British museum or perhaps more easily there are translations at these websites.

http://interoz.com/egypt/bkofdead.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/

In it is contained the story of Horus.

Maybe it's just a spectacular coincidence but here are some pretty amazing similarities between the story of Horus and Christ in that book written over 1500 years before Christ was supposedly born.

1. Both were conceived of a virgin.

2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.

4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.

5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.

8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

10. Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).

11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.

12. Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".

13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.

14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."

15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.

16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.

17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.

19. Both were baptized at age 30.

20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded.

22. Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.

23. Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation.

24. Both have 12 disciples.

25. Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind.

26. Horus "stilled the sea by his power." Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, "Peace, be still."

27. Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)

28. Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu").

29. Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount.

30. Both were crucified.

31. Both were crucified next to two thieves.

32. Both were buried in a tomb.

33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).

34. Both had their resurrection announced by women.

35. Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.

36. Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one").

37. Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower.

38. Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).

39. Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook.

40. Horus was born in Anu ("the place of bread") and Jesus was born in Bethlehem ("the house of bread").

41. "The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" (See Point 13)

42. Both were transfigured on the mount.

43. The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of "Madonna and Child."

44. Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called "Immaculate".

45. Horus says: "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." And Jesus says: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."





Now you may argue you 'need' a god to keep going so why not choose the ancient Egyptian gods?

Maybe it would be moral when you die that you should have your lawyer murdered and put in your tomb.

Ok bad example...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

Nickdfresh
05-26-2007, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
But we know that out universe didn't always exist snce it can be aged by the movement of stellar matter from a central point 6 billion years ago or whatever.

And hence the "unmoved mover" thought...


This god guy always existed and then one day created the universe?

How can something always exist?

I don't know. But how could our human brains, essentially programmed to accept the finitity of destruction, even contemplate it?


My point is all it does is replace really difficult questions with a much more difficult one.

Cheers!

:gulp:

So it has to be all easy then?

Cheers yourself. :guzzle:

matt19
05-26-2007, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Unlike the stuff you post.

:gulp:

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t200/altered1986/wahmbulance.jpg

GO-SPURS-GO
06-06-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Nice use of quotation marks...:D

With all due respect this is the talk of a mad woman.:)

Ok being pedantic let's extend your few thousand years to 5000 years.

I'll repeat what I posted in my 'Easter Message'.:)

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45633&#vbform




Now you may argue you 'need' a god to keep going so why not choose the ancient Egyptian gods?

Maybe it would be moral when you die that you should have your lawyer murdered and put in your tomb.

Ok bad example...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories?
Hardly. For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named 'Horus', but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story. For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I've provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S's book "The Christ Conspiracy" is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!
Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:

1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Also, she was just "Isis", not "Isis-Meri". Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name. Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

8) Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.

11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

No, he was not.

12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

13) He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

14) He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.

He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called 'the fisher' or having any association with a lamb or lion.

15) He came to fulfill the Law.

There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.

16) Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."

He was never referred to by either of these titles. "Krst", in Egyptian, means "burial", by the way. It wasn't a title.

17) Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."

No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html

GO-SPURS-GO
06-06-2007, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
Nice use of quotation marks...:D

With all due respect this is the talk of a mad woman.:)

Ok being pedantic let's extend your few thousand years to 5000 years.

I'll repeat what I posted in my 'Easter Message'.:)

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45633&#vbform




Now you may argue you 'need' a god to keep going so why not choose the ancient Egyptian gods?

Maybe it would be moral when you die that you should have your lawyer murdered and put in your tomb.

Ok bad example...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

THE TRICK

The trick in De Kretser’s approach of listing similarities is the degree of similarity.

Here is a list of some similarities between Horus and Hitler. I’ve retained the same numbering as De Kretser.



1 Horus is the father seen in the son Hitler’s superior qualities reflected in many sons of Germany
2 Horus claimed to be the light of the world Hitler claimed to enlighten Germany politically
5 Horus says “It is I who traverse the heavens… Eternity has been assigned to me without end Hitler traversed the skies by aeroplane and offered to make Germany forever powerful
8 Horus baptized with water Hitler baptized as an infant in water
9 Horus had a divine scribe Hitler had scribes
10 Horus born in Annu, the place of bread Hitler born in a town with a bakery
11 Horus the good shepherd Hitler at first like a good shepherd
16 Horus of 12 years Hitler at 12 years in highschool
17 Horus A man of 30 years Hitler joined Nazi Party at 30
18-19 Horus the KRST and manifesting son of God. Hitler seen as a saviour
20 Horus the Trinity Hitler, Goebels and Himler
21 Horus Child of a virgin Hitler’s mother a virgin prior to being mistress of H’s father
23-24 Horus taken by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep Hitler’s retreat at Berchtesgarten
26 Horus the avenger Hitler avenger of Versaille Treaty
27 Horus comes with peace Hitler repeatedly promised peace
28 Horus the afflicted one Hitler the afflicted one
32 Horus has 12 followers Hitler had 12
33 Horus Revelation written down by divine scribe Aan Hitler’s secretary wrote down his Will and Testament in 1945
34 Horus—Aani bears witness Hitler—Goebels his propaganda minister
35 Horus—The secret mysteries revealed by That-Aan Hitler—Albert Speer wrote a book “Inside the Third Reich”
36 Horus The morning star Hitler comforted by astrology
39 Horus The paradise of the Pole star Hitler had a model of how Berlin would be rebuilt
40 Servants of Horus Servants of Hitler

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

Ellyllions
06-06-2007, 03:14 PM
I stopped reading after he used the words, "mad woman".
No need to discuss with someone who's already decided that you're not only wrong but you're stupidly wrong.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-06-2007, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories?
Hardly. For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named 'Horus', but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story. For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I've provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S's book "The Christ Conspiracy" is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!
Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:

1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Also, she was just "Isis", not "Isis-Meri". Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name. Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

8) Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.

11) Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

No, he was not.

12) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

13) He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

14) He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.

He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called 'the fisher' or having any association with a lamb or lion.

15) He came to fulfill the Law.

There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.

16) Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."

He was never referred to by either of these titles. "Krst", in Egyptian, means "burial", by the way. It wasn't a title.

17) Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."

No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html

Reactions of Egyptologists:
Ward Gasque, a volunteer book reviewer for Amazon.com surveyed twenty contemporary Egyptologists. He asked them about the origins of Jesus' name, the relationship between Horus and Jesus, whether both experienced a virgin birth, and whether the Egyptian religion considered Hourus to be an incarnation of God.

Ten responded, They agreed:

Jesus' name is a Greek form of a very common Semitic name Jeshu'a, which is normally translated into English as Joshua.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HORUS WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN, THAT HE HAD TWELVE DISCIPLES, OR THAT HE WAS CONSIDERED INCARNATION OF GOD.

hideyoursheep
06-07-2007, 02:21 PM
Back to the topic...

Christians have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan


Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2007, 10:31 (BST)

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”,



Yeah...

There's a new Shariff in town, and his name is Usama Bin-Laden.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-07-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
Back to the topic...

Christians have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan


Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”.
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2007, 10:31 (BST)

Christians in Charsadda, a town in North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, have been warned that if they do not convert to Islam by 17 May they will face “dire consequences and bomb explosions”,



Yeah...

There's a new Shariff in town, and his name is Usama Bin-Laden.

According to the great wise one known as "FORD," Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden are not real. It's a BCA thing. No war on terror or nothing. The war was designed to make Halliburton billions of dollars. Including the people who own stocks, like Bush, Rumsfeld and Chaney. Oh... lets not forget about the ones we are not supposed to know about, like Clinton, Gore and Micheal Moore. After the war in Kosovo, Clinton and Gore hired his friends from Halliburton to clean up the mess. This is a little known fact. Get your head in the game Mr. Sheep, the BCE is taking over this world!:rolleyes:

hideyoursheep
06-07-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
According to the great wise one known as "FORD," Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden are not real. It's a BCA thing. No war on terror or nothing. The war was designed to make Halliburton billions of dollars. Including the people who own stocks, like Bush, Rumsfeld and Chaney. Oh... lets not forget about the ones we are not supposed to know about, like Clinton, Gore and Micheal Moore. After the war in Kosovo, Clinton and Gore hired his friends from Halliburton to clean up the mess. This is a little known fact. Get your head in the game Mr. Sheep, the BCE is taking over this world!:rolleyes:

FORD and I take a different approach when it comes to some of our beliefs...

That said, If the BCE were serious about getting UBL, you'd think he could be found by now?

The "war on terrer" included Iraq BEFORE 9/11. Clarke, Wilson, and others all can't be lying about their hard-on for Iraq from day one.

Nonetheless, it appears that UBL is doing quite well in northwest Pakistan. Looking to set up shop again in another unstable corner of the world? I see a pattern here, Mr. President.

BTW, whatever happened to "we will make no distinction between the terrists, and the nations that harbor them"?

Coincidence? Ignorance? Or is FORD right?

You decide.

And for Lemmy's sake, stop blaming Clinton for everything Bush fucks up on his own...it's only been 8 years. :rolleyes:

PlexiBrown
06-07-2007, 03:34 PM
I don't know. But how could our human brains, essentially programmed to accept the finitity of destruction, even contemplate it?

Right. The brain can't. If there was a beginning, then what was before the beginning? If there is an outer edge to space, then what is beyond the outer edge? If there is an ending, then what is after the end? The only sure thing in the universe is that Sammy Hagar is a tool.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-07-2007, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
FORD and I take a different approach when it comes to some of our beliefs...

That said, If the BCE were serious about getting UBL, you'd think he could be found by now?

The "war on terrer" included Iraq BEFORE 9/11. Clarke, Wilson, and others all can't be lying about their hard-on for Iraq from day one.

Nonetheless, it appears that UBL is doing quite well in northwest Pakistan. Looking to set up shop again in another unstable corner of the world? I see a pattern here, Mr. President.

BTW, whatever happened to "we will make no distinction between the terrists, and the nations that harbor them"?

Coincidence? Ignorance? Or is FORD right?

You decide.

And for Lemmy's sake, stop blaming Clinton for everything Bush fucks up on his own...it's only been 8 years. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't think we want to get him. The NW corner of Pakistan is a tribal area. General Pervez Musharraf has no control of that area. We could set off a major war Between India and Pakistan. Where can you show me that I blamed Clinton? This Goes back to 1979, when the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini (who was a Shia) called for a Fatwah on the great Satan. And again in 1993 when UBL (who is a Sunni) called for a Fatwah on the US. When you have both the Shia and Sunni leaders calling for a Fatwah on the US, that's 1 billion people. We should be thankful that the majority of the Muslem's don't want war. Bush and along with 4 other presidents and many advisors got us into this trouble. Everybody Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem like a fair guy (unlike 90% of people here.) Please excuse my grammer, some people on this site can't argue my points, instead, they make fun of my grammer.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-07-2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
FORD and I take a different approach when it comes to some of our beliefs...

That said, If the BCE were serious about getting UBL, you'd think he could be found by now?

The "war on terrer" included Iraq BEFORE 9/11. Clarke, Wilson, and others all can't be lying about their hard-on for Iraq from day one.

Nonetheless, it appears that UBL is doing quite well in northwest Pakistan. Looking to set up shop again in another unstable corner of the world? I see a pattern here, Mr. President.

BTW, whatever happened to "we will make no distinction between the terrists, and the nations that harbor them"?

Coincidence? Ignorance? Or is FORD right?

You decide.

And for Lemmy's sake, stop blaming Clinton for everything Bush fucks up on his own...it's only been 8 years. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don't think we want to get him. The NW corner of Pakistan is a tribal area. General Pervez Musharraf has no control of that area. We could set off a major war Between India and Pakistan. Where can you show me that I blamed Clinton? This Goes back to 1979, when the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini (who was a Shia) called for a Fatwah on the great Satan. And again in 1993 when UBL (who is a Sunni) called for a Fatwah on the US. When you have both the Shia and Sunni leaders calling for a Fatwah on the US, that's 1 billion people. We should be thankful that the majority of the Muslem's don't want war. Bush and along with 4 other presidents and many advisors, got us into this trouble. Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem like a fair guy (unlike 80% of people on this board.) Bush and his advisors have made tons of mistakes, if you were the President right know, what would you do? And please don't say that you would never have attacked Iraq or Afganistan. We are there NOW, so what should be done? Please excuse my grammar, some people around here ( like matt19) can't argue my points. Instead, they attack me, my grammar and my Spurs. I smoked all my brain cells away in the late 70's early 80's, listening to Classic Van Halen! What can I say.:D

GO-SPURS-GO
06-07-2007, 05:04 PM
See what I mean. I didn't even know I double posted. Sorry Sheep, read the 2nd one. :o

GO-SPURS-GO
06-07-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
See what I mean. I didn't even know I double posted. Sorry Sheep, read the 2nd one. :o

Sheep was not a proper thing to call you around here.

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Sheep was not a proper thing to call you around here.

Call me a relic call me what you will;

Say I'm old-fashioned, say I'm over the hill;


Today's music ain't got the same soul,

I like that old-time Roth-and-Roll!.... :drive: :smoke:

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Let me ask you a serious question, since you seem like a fair guy (unlike 80% of people on this board.) Bush and his advisors have made tons of mistakes, if you were the President right know, what would you do?

I would have listened.

I would have paid attention.

Not to what my "base" wanted me to do,
but what was good for our national security.

Sept.11 may not have even happened had our beloved president actually gave a shit about what was happening prior to it.

Leaving the borders wide open and immigration laws unenforced that my big buisness base could post big numbers in the next quarter using cheap labor is no way to govern the free world. Neither is ignoring the warnings given to me after the USS Cole bombing simply because Clarke wasn't my "guy".


Right now?

1) Give Musharriff the same ultimatum given to Hussein-you have 48 hours to get that rat bastard or we get him ourselves. YOU WITH US, OR NOT?
2)Make a deal with the shiias in Iran-help with the rebuilding and security of Iraq-we're done. Mission Accomplished.Give us a call if you need anything, my brother. 1-800-UN-COALITION.. It's not all us anymore.

3)Keep an eye on the Iranians-they're nervous. They're surrounded by us infidels right now....wouldn't you be? When the US seems to invade at will these days? And given their history with taking hostages and all...Remember what Ronnie and Ollie did?

4)Start the draft.

5)Watch the Persians some more (Iran)

6)Start evicting all the illegals.

7)Raise taxes on the oil comanies...they can afford it. The profits shure as shit didn't go towards research and development of alternative fuels, now did they? You see the severance packages given to theose assholes?

8)Tell North Korea we love them.

9) Tell China to tell North Korea to STFU.

10) Issue an Exexcutive order to the members of Van Halen that a CD and tour with Dave has to be completed and approved by me, or I will seize all their assets, declare them a threat to national security,and have them sent to Gitmo to await trial...


I'm drunk with power now.....

Sgt Schultz
06-11-2007, 02:42 PM
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k225/ECMarm/RadicalIslam-1.gif

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 02:57 PM
WTF did radical islam have to do with Iraq?

You're an idiot...

That's why you voted for one.

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
We could set off a major war Between India and Pakistan.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AH7pOUm5s9k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AH7pOUm5s9k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

GO-SPURS-GO
06-11-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
WTF did radical islam have to do with Iraq?

You're an idiot...

That's why you voted for one.

Never voted in my life. Can't stand Politicians. That's why I wrote this to FORD. They all think I'm a Neo-Nazi because I'm Pro-Military.

“ Originally posted by FORD

Jesus Christ your an idiot.
Someone close this lying unsourced bullshit. ”


From GO-SPURS-GO
Hey Buddy. It took you 6 minutes to respond. Man, you are slipping. Yesterday, you responed in 2 minutes to my post. I knew you would respond to my post, that's why I said that. Think I have you believing I work for the BCE, or work for the men in black, that you think are following you. Come on FORD, lighten up. DC and Nick, I think, knows I'm just kidding around with them. I just throw crazy crap out for you guys to bite on. THE TRUTH IS... I can't stand politicians. BOTH SIDES. Especially the ones who runs for President. I don't believe Bush is a true Christian, just like I don't believe that Gore or Clinton, would stop and help a poor black person who is broken down on the side of the road. Bush uses Christians, just like Clinton or Gore uses the black vote. These people are multi-millionaires. My whole family can put our houses inside Edwards house, with room to spare. And he says the system is fixed. NO SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You said, "that this country has gone down hill since Bush got elected."
He has helped, but the truth of the matter is.... This Country has gone to the shitters when we turned a blind eye to the modern day Holocaust. 100 million and counting.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resou...orted/index.htm

hideyoursheep
06-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Pick the lesser of the two evils they have to offer you and roll with it.

Unless....

You're planning an "insurgency"...

I don't know you.:D

Sgt Schultz
06-11-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by hideyoursheep
WTF did radical islam have to do with Iraq?

You're an idiot...

That's why you voted for one.

My post was related to the topic "Christians have 10 Days to Convert to Islam in Pakistan "

Satan
06-11-2007, 04:16 PM
I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention that this story is now nearly a month old (far beyond 10 days) and I have yet to hear of any "mass executions of Christians" in Pakistan.

Could this have been another fabrication of the neocon/zionfascist media??

Seshmeister
06-11-2007, 04:36 PM
I don't get that sig.

Assuming the christian superstition of eternal damnation is true then the number can only rise, given the word eternal and so forth.

Satan
06-11-2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't get that sig.

Assuming the christian superstition of eternal damnation is true then the number can only rise, given the word eternal and so forth.

I'm afraid it's not the best constructed animation. I'm sure the last three digits were supposed to be counting up constantly, but they didn't use enough frames to create that appearance.

knuckleboner
06-11-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I don't get that sig.

Assuming the christian superstition of eternal damnation is true then the number can only rise, given the word eternal and so forth.

um...it doesn't need to rise. near as i can tell, if my math works, the graphic shows the population as about 758 TRILLION.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Satan


Could this have been another fabrication of the neocon/zionfascist media??

Probably... Hey Satan let me ask you a question. Are the doctors who did this, are they in hell?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

Satan
06-11-2007, 06:09 PM
The Devil doesn't get involved in that particular debate.

Suffice it to say there are a LOT of doctors in Hell these days, due to the general corruption of the medical industry.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-11-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Satan
The Devil doesn't get involved in that particular debate.

Suffice it to say there are a LOT of doctors in Hell these days, due to the general corruption of the .

You're right about the medical industry. I bet you loved the ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That ruling has kept you busy, 70,000,000 million and counting in the USA alone. And all of you who turn a blind eye to this modern day Holocaust, should be ashamed. You guys will protest for the poor trees and those cute Polar Bears that are drowning because of Global Warming, but don't say shit about this..
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

ODShowtime
06-11-2007, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
You're right about the medical industry. I bet you loved the ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That ruling has kept you busy, 70,000,000 million and counting in the USA alone. And all of you who turn a blind eye to this modern day Holocaust, should be ashamed. You guys will protest for the poor trees and those cute Polar Bears that are drowning because of Global Warming, but don't say shit about this..
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

Overpopulation is clearly one of the key sources of poverty and human misery. You're not going to convince anyone here with your web links.

Seshmeister
06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
You're right about the medical industry. I bet you loved the ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That ruling has kept you busy, 70,000,000 million and counting in the USA alone. And all of you who turn a blind eye to this modern day Holocaust, should be ashamed. You guys will protest for the poor trees and those cute Polar Bears that are drowning because of Global Warming, but don't say shit about this..
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

Plus a priest can't fuck a polar bear...

matt19
06-11-2007, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
You're right about the medical industry. I bet you loved the ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That ruling has kept you busy, 70,000,000 million and counting in the USA alone. And all of you who turn a blind eye to this modern day Holocaust, should be ashamed. You guys will protest for the poor trees and those cute Polar Bears that are drowning because of Global Warming, but don't say shit about this..
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

I disagree, sometimes its not a choice its a necessity. How can you justify not giving someone a choice? What if it is a danger to the mother herself? It really is a tougher choice than you think, most of those women agonize over that decison. Don't condemn someone for having to make the most difficult decision of their life. Whether you agree or not its most likely the best decision for their life at that point

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by matt19
I disagree, sometimes its not a choice its a necessity. How can you justify not giving someone a choice? What if it is a danger to the mother herself? It really is a tougher choice than you think, most of those women agonize over that decison. Don't condemn someone for having to make the most difficult decision of their life. Whether you agree or not its most likely the best decision for their life at that point

Sure I believe that they should have a choice. Should be some consequences for that choice. Like some jail time. If we make it a crime, I think a women or a man would think twice about not using birth control. Or better yet. A woman would think twice about getting drunk, and screwing anyone she meets at the bar. There would be less STD's and less AIDS. I didn't condemn the women, I was talking about the doctors. You are right Matt, MOST women DO agonize after that decision. But the doctors know damn well what the fetus looks like after the murder. That's why the doctor won't show the aftermath of the murder to the patient. Of course there are accepptions to the rule, like incest and rape. My Sister-in-law had one, and she was very depressed and angry at herself. It took 10+ years for her to get over it. She killed the baby because she thought it would interfere with college. The good side of that story is that she turned her life around. She was an angry bitter person before, and 10 years after. She got a 2nd chance in life, and now, she's beautiful person. And I love her. Most women are not at fault, it's the doctors who will burn. I'll be fair now and say, a good argument for abortion is my neighborhood. You have the gangs like "La Eme" (The Mexican Mafia,) The Bandidos or the VCG's (The Victoria Court Gansta's) around here, and they have kids that grow up to be the same way. They have 6 year old kids with tattoo's and earrings, and by 8th grade they drop out. I should know because my Father-in-law, 2 Brothers-in-law and a couple of cousins are in prison, for murder. Luckly my wife and my Sister-in-law escaped that crazy stuff. I STILL think it should be a crime. Either way, society is screwed up.....

matt19
06-12-2007, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Sure I believe that they should have a choice. Should be some consequences for that choice. Like some jail time. If we make it a crime, I think a women or a man would think twice about not using birth control. Or better yet. A woman would think twice about getting drunk, and screwing anyone she meets at the bar. There would be less STD's and less AIDS. I didn't condemn the women, I was talking about the doctors. You are right Matt, MOST women DO agonize after that decision. But the doctors know damn well what the fetus looks like after the murder. That's why the doctor won't show the aftermath of the murder to the patient. Of course there are accepptions to the rule, like incest and rape. My Sister-in-law had one, and she was very depressed and angry at herself. It took 10+ years for her to get over it. She killed the baby because she thought it would interfere with college. The good side of that story is that she turned her life around. She was an angry bitter person before, and 10 years after. She got a 2nd chance in life, and now, she's beautiful person. And I love her. Most women are not at fault, it's the doctors who will burn. I'll be fair now and say, a good argument for abortion is my neighborhood. You have the gangs like "La Eme" (The Mexican Mafia,) The Bandidos or the VCG's (The Victoria Court Gansta's) around here, and they have kids that grow up to be the same way. They have 6 year old kids with tattoo's and earrings, and by 8th grade they drop out. I should know because my Father-in-law, 2 Brothers-in-law and a couple of cousins are in prison, for murder. Luckly my wife and my Sister-in-law escaped that crazy stuff. I STILL think it should be a crime. Either way, society is screwed up.....

So what you are saying is that by making an abortion a crime, will help stop A.I.D.S. and H.I.V. as well as a host of other S.T.Ds? That isnt a solution, education is a solution. Outlawing abortion would accomplish nothing, and it still isnt your decision, its a womans choice. Maybe they should be counsiled beforehand, and afterward, but it is THEIR choice, you can't force your beilefs on anyone.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by matt19
So what you are saying is that by making an abortion a crime, will help stop A.I.D.S. and H.I.V. as well as a host of other S.T.Ds? That isnt a solution, . Outlawing abortion would accomplish nothing, and it still isnt your decision, its a womans choice. Maybe they should be counsiled beforehand, and afterward, but it is THEIR choice, you can't force your beilefs on anyone.

Come on Matt, I said less, not stop. education is a solution? Not in the US. Abstinence is working in Africa, but has not done crap here. You can educate all you want in the US, but teenagers have way too much access to sex and Porn. A kid can read about his favorite band CVH on this site, and that kid can see some sick stuff that KATYDID'S MINGE puts on here. Outlawing abortion CAN accomplish something. It can teach people about responsibility, which is terribly lacking in this country. If 1 cent of my tax money goes to Planned Parenthood, then I have a right to force my beliefs on somebody. That doesn't mean you have to do what I say. Right? Talk to you tomorrow Matt...;)

ODShowtime
06-12-2007, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Sure I believe that they should have a choice. Should be some consequences for that choice. Like some jail time.


:rolleyes:

A woman would think twice about getting drunk, and screwing anyone she meets at the bar.

Yeah, great idea asshole. How about we just get rid of bars too? Too many drunk drivers.

What are you doing here? You have not taken DRL's message to heart and you are an obvious bandwidth wasting trolltard. FUCK OFF

ODShowtime
06-12-2007, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
My Sister-in-law had one, and she was very depressed and angry at herself. It took 10+ years for her to get over it. She killed the baby because she thought it would interfere with college. The good side of that story is that she

The good side of the story is that she didn't end up as a waitress as Shoney's with some poor neglected kid sitting around deciding what gang to join.

ODShowtime
06-12-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Abstinence is working in Africa

I dispute your assertion. Do you have proof?

Seshmeister
06-12-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I should know because my Father-in-law, 2 Brothers-in-law and a couple of cousins are in prison, for murder.

That's a risky game you are playing. First you marry into a family of scumbags and then you start fucking the sister in law too?

Crazy!

Hyman Roth
06-12-2007, 08:09 AM
OUCHIE!!

Seshmeister
06-12-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
The good side of the story is that she didn't end up as a waitress as Shoney's with some poor neglected kid sitting around deciding what gang to join.

Eggfuckingzactly.

The case he desctribes is exactly the kind of people that should be getting abortions. It's a shallow gene pool that the world doesn't need.

Statistics prove Roe v Wade cut US crime significantly!

Angel
06-12-2007, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Like some jail time. If we make it a crime, I think a women or a man would think twice about not using birth control.

It used to be a crime... instead of going to jail though, they went to the cemetery... coat hanger abortions are nasty things.

Nickdfresh
06-12-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
You're right about the medical industry. I bet you loved the ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That ruling has kept you busy, 70,000,000 million and counting in the USA alone. And all of you who turn a blind eye to this modern day Holocaust, should be ashamed. You guys will protest for the poor trees and those cute Polar Bears that are drowning because of Global Warming, but don't say shit about this..
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

When do you adopt a black baby that wasn't aborted?

Seshmeister
06-12-2007, 05:13 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Satan
06-12-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
When do you adopt a black baby that wasn't aborted?

Probably just in time for the farm labor season.....

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
That's a risky game you are playing. First you marry into a family of scumbags and then you start fucking the sister in law too?

Crazy!


At least I have a hot wife. What does your wife look like? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT! NOW GO SIT DOWN!

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Angel
It used to be a crime... instead of going to jail though, they went to the cemetery... coat hanger abortions are nasty things.

Show me those articles, proving all those horrible coat hanger deaths. :confused:

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
When do you adopt a black baby that wasn't aborted?

Nick my friend, my wife and I, has helped more black people in 1 day, than you have in your entire life. How much money/time did you contribute to the Katrina victims? Hell, I'll have more black people here at my house watching the Spurs tonight, than you have ever talked to in your entire life. I'f I'm wrong, then i'll apologize to you Nick.

Hyman Roth
06-12-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
At least I have a hot wife. What does your wife look like? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT! NOW GO SIT DOWN!


Hey man - can you post a picture of her tits?

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Diffantly NOT a Catholic. I disagree with almost everything they say, accept this issue. No wonder why all you anti-baby people have kids that are EMO and cut themselves. You guys care more for trees and chickens from KFC, than for innocent babies. PATHETIC....

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Hey man - can you post a picture of her tits?

I'll mail them to you, give me your address...

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Satan
The Devil doesn't get involved in that particular debate.

Suffice it to say there are a LOT of doctors in Hell these days, due to the general corruption of the medical industry.

You know these murders are screwed up, when FORD, I mean SATAN wants no part of this.

Hyman Roth
06-12-2007, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I'll mail them to you, give me your address...

Righteous!

My address is:

Hyman Roth c/o Correctional Facility 639 Exchange Street Rd, Suite 2, Block 1, Attica, NY 14011.

Angel
06-12-2007, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Show me those articles, proving all those horrible coat hanger deaths. :confused:

Do your own fucking research. It's fairly common knowledge that prior to legalization, women often took matters into their own hands. The majority of deaths were from the Quacks that set up "back alley" filthy shops and performed the operations.

The majority of deaths were caused by infection, or blood loss... Why don't MEN learn not to fuck drunk women who are picking them up in the bars, or at least always use a fucking condom....

Satan
06-12-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
You guys care more for trees and chickens from KFC, than for innocent babies. PATHETIC....

Well, without trees, there's no oxygen. Then what the fuck would all those babies breathe??

And until recently, KFC fried their chicken in trans fats. You wouldn't want to feed that to a baby would you?

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Righteous!

My address is:

Hyman Roth c/o Correctional Facility 639 Exchange Street Rd, Suite 2, Block 1, Attica, NY 14011.

Real name please... not a fictional name. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO5qSQRG9GxHABuCS7lcYF;_ylu=X3oDMTE1MTdjN3F oBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANTUE9UX zE-/SIG=11rrfshit/EXP=1181783568/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Roth

What's the name of the Correctional Facility, and what prison gang runs your unit?

knuckleboner
06-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Angel
Why don't MEN learn not to fuck drunk women who are picking them up in the bars, or at least always use a fucking condom....


for the same reason women don't learn not to get drunk and go home with the 1st yahoo they see, or at least insist that he use a condom...;)

jhale667
06-12-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
Diffantly

WTF? :D



You guys care more for trees and chickens from KFC, than for innocent babies. PATHETIC....

OK, between your abysmal spelling, "Evolution is not fact" bit and your idiotic anti-abortion rhetoric, you have proven yourself to be a complete moron....

And I don't believe for a second your wife is hot. Or even has all of her teeth. ;)

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Angel
Do your own fucking research. It's fairly common knowledge that prior to legalization, women often took matters into their own hands. The majority of deaths were from the Quacks that set up "back alley" filthy shops and performed the operations.

The majority of deaths were caused by infection, or blood loss... Why don't MEN learn not to fuck drunk women who are picking them up in the bars, or at least always use a fucking condom....

I did, and I didn't find crap.

GO-SPURS-GO
06-12-2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by jhale667
WTF? :D



OK, between your abysmal spelling, "Evolution is not fact" bit and your idiotic anti-abortion rhetoric, you have proven yourself to be a complete moron....

And I don't believe for a second your wife is hot. Or even has all of her teeth. ;)

Give me your e-mail address, and I'll prove it to you.
As for my spelling, I forgot to use spell check, what can I say.
A 7th grade education, Sleeping in a car and the Ferguson unit in La Mesa, Texas didn't provide any classes at that time. So give me a break on the spelling.