Thoughts on Atheism, Religion, Philosophy, and Counterapologetics.
Well of course you only comment on the things that help your cause, never the things that are against it. LOL
LOL I clicked on the link and the latest comment was just laughable. They're saying a child with a defect wasn't left to die which makes it seem they didn't abandon young with severe birth defects. But the child they're speaking of seems to have had a defect that probably wasn't visible. I'd think the child could have been left to survive because of this. Not to mention the remains were of a 5 to 12 year old which could argue that when the child didn't develope properly he wasn't treated as well as the healthy children. Only comment on the facts that sound like it supports of your theory right...
I forgot to mention the remains were 500,000-year-old, is there a way to edit my posts?
Can't really edit. You can delete and repost though.
i totally noticed that, rabbit.Actually, i have a friend whose 3rd child was born with that exact defect. without modern medicine, it wouldn't be noticable until, oh, about 2-5 years old, when it became apparent the child wasn't developing.Archeological interpretation fail.