in terms of species

THE MISSING LINK.

Do you know what that is or what that means?

Where are all the bones and fossils? A couple bones here and there are not nearly enough to prove the theory of evolution. IF evolution were reality there would be the bones of “half species” everywhere.

How do people not understand this????

We have dug up tons of bones of dinosaurs, much earlier than the supposingly half man/half ape. We have only found a couple of skulls. They are very rare indeed. How come apes are not still evolving now? Why because it’s not true. Natural selection may be true (to a certain extent only, but natural selection is notreallyy evolving but survival of the fittest. to me that's not evolution in it's essence). But a fish turning into a human? Don’t think so. It seems very foolish to me. *Some idiot finds one fossil of a tadpole with legs and he now thinks we all came from the sea. Would we not see a TON of more evidence if this were true? We sure would, there would be overwhelming amount of evidence. But the fact is there is not the link between humans and apes. It’s missing. A fly will not morph into a bird, I don’t care how long you wait.

So my question to you sir is : where are all the damn bones?

There should be hundreds of thousands. not just one or two bones.

One or two of anything should not be considered the norm, more like a defect.

+ after the dinosaurs and most all life were wiped out by a meteor thus resulting in the ice age. Man or any other creature you see today did not have time to “evolve”. Correct? It takes millions of years right?

PS: half-man/half-monkey was not around at that time. no bones dating back that far. Do you understand?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------moved over there----->>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the example - you may not tie in: feelings. Anger would not apply. Zero 'rewards' attached.

Killing anyone and eveything around you for no reason at all, could not be a learned moral.

If you wanted to be alone? nope does not count, there is a goal attached.

Someone hands you some very good food.. "Thank you now you die."

KILL

Let's say someone helps you from falling of a cliff to your death. "woohw - that was a close one, thanks." "Now you die bastard".. Now you push him off the cliff. How does one feel good about that? it does not work like that.

Killing other humans is something that we know to be wrong. We do not want to die ourselves. (most of the time) It's not a learned thing. If it hurts me it may hurt others is not a hard concept for a human to grasp.

I don't see it. How could this be taught to be a good? It can't.

Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law.

Resent use of modern neuro-imaging of the human brain reveals that acting virtuous actually feels good. "Moral" Behavior sends reward-related brain systems into a pleasurable state even more so than the prospect of self-interested gain. The brain's activity in the process can be detected or illuminated using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI technologies. As humans struggle to resist doing what is learned to be bad and immoral that are inherent in self view, that regions of the brain fire 'squelch' to interfere with chemically reacted impulses.

This can support that the feeling of duty toward general happiness for all is internal for all of us.

http://www.neuroquantology.com/repository/index.php?option=com_content&view;=article&id;=111:i-didnt-sinit-was-my-brain&catid;=99:free-will&Itemid;=72

-- with that , and the example let me clarify.

How would it be a 'learned' moral that killing without reason is a good thing?