Poll: Pick One

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 340

Thread: Evolution versus Creationism

  1. #31
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar View Post
    Chimpanzees learn how to hunt from their parents, learn how to make tools from their parents. They are more sophisticated than they were 10 million years ago, 5 million years ago they were the same species as us, Our common ancestry diverges about 4 million years ago.

    Species abandon their young at birth? Differing survival strategies you mean?
    Invest a huge amount of time and resources in a few offspring or produce swarms and hope some survive?

    As the Ecology alters so the conditions for survival change. Climate change is a major factor in this as forests advance or retreat, deserts grow or are reclaimed. AS the world warmed up after glaciation civilisation began at 4 points on the globe at about the same point in time. This happened because the conditions were favourable at that point and not before.

    We have perfectly verifiable archaeological sites going back to the Olduvai Gorge, we see the development of stone tools from simple to complex.
    The development of representative art from Cro-Magnon Man 30,000 years ago or is Lascaux's authenticity not up to the standards of jewish scribbles?
    You realize that everything you say above is nothing more than the party line and is assumed to be right today but can neither be proven or relied upon as factual. And even by your own rules, these so called facts are different than they were 10 years ago and will change and adjust again according to what is learned in the next 10 years.

    My question is, are there any absolutes upon which the science of evo is based upon ? Or is make it up as you go science.

    I Googled Lascaux's authenticity and came up with this link. Is this what you're referring to ? Cuz the artwork in Nevada ages out to around 10,000 years old. http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/arti...ews/news02.txt

    Here's a great link for the Paleolithic art work estimated to be 30,000 years old. http://www.hollanderart.com/sitepages/pid34.php

    2 questions please. 1) How did they date the art ? By carbon dating the rocks of the cave walls ? And shouldn't they age out to around 4.57 to 5.1 billion years old ? According to at least one pseudo intellectual around here. And have the animals evolved at all in the past 30,000 years ? Or are they as they were then. And prove to me beyond question that the 30,000 year date is absolutely right without question. scientifically of course. You can't at all. You must admit that it takes more faith in science to believe as you do based on the incredible assumptions evo boldly makes than believers need to have faith in the God of Israel.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    811
    warning! Steep learning curve ahead! That crunching sound is a paradigm shifting without a clutch!
    There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    BUT THE SKILLS THEY POSSSS TODAY ARE PRECISELY AND EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEY WERE AN ALLEGED MILLION YEARS AGO.
    How do you know that? Emotions expressed by animals, the capacity to plan, hunting behavior, and tool use don't fossilize. Those are all observations of modern animals. It would be foolish to claim that such behavior is exactly the same as a million years ago.

    However, there are suites of stone tools that are associated with certain hominid fossil sites that have been dated to about 2.5 million years. Of course, one would have to be a fool to claim that we are using the same stone tools today. The fossil record records several different stone tool cultures from then to the bronze age, including those in the Americas that were still extant when Europeans invaded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Why haven't they evolved anymore in the past alleged million years ?
    There's that annoying and illiterate space before a question mark again. Anyway, that question has already been answered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    If evolution is at play why haven't they become any more sophisticated today than they were over the past 10 million years ?
    How do you know that they haven't? Who said that they have?
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Science has proven that animals are BORN with instinctual knowledge where as children must be trained in the ways of life.
    So humans are less evolved than animals? I that what you are saying? Actually, animals must also learn from their parents how to get along in their society. Birds raised by humans don't learn to sing as they should and therefore don't reproduce. Carnivores raised by humans don't learn to hunt and don't learn to get along in the pack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    How else do you explain certain species abandoning their young at birth ?
    Do you mean animals who were born in captivity and raised by humans who didn't learn how to mother their own offspring?
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Oh wait, we don't want to even ask questions that conflict with our brainwashing do we.
    Please be more explicit. Exactly what questions and what brainwashing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Oh balderdash!!!!!!!!! So you're admitting that although we have been evolving for the last 200 million years or so, only in the past 10,000 years have we become social interdependent creatures who learned that living together and sharing social responsibilities was the most efficient way to survive when we have fossil evidence of lions, for example living in Prides and hunting as a pack for as far back as lions go.
    Can you say run-on sentence? "We" haven't been evolving for 200 million years. "We" separated from the chimps only about 5 to 7 million years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    And the same applies to Wolves, elephants, and migrating birds who live in flocks.
    None of the animals that you name have been around for 200 million years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    But you say this about Man because strangely enough we have no reliable archeological [sic] evidence that goes back beyond 10,000 years that shows we even existed.
    What? That's just not true. We have cave paintings and fossils in Europe dated to about 30,000 years. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming. There are older fossils in Africa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    So obviously according to the very flexible science of evo that simply tries to fill the gaps, that must be how it is. Like I said, a nice fairy tale this story of evolution.
    Fortunately, I have a new irony meter. It pegged but didn't XXXX. You believe that contradictory creation myths are absolutely true and then claim that science is a fairy tale. You haven't even bothered to learn the basics of what you oppose and yet you throw out years and assertions. How ignorant.
    From The Treaty of Tripoli, Art. 11, negociated under Washington, passed unanimously by the senate, and signed by Adams -- "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

  4. #34
    Archangel Guest
    Unfortunately one must take everything you say on faith that you and evo knows what you're talking about. And I submit you don't. You can't PROVE one thing you have stated above as though it's a fact. It is all huge assumptions made, based upon junk science and the need to fill the gaps by any means other than spiritual means. You state the 30,000 year age as if it's written in stone, {pun intended} when they could be between 1200 and 8000 years old in reality. You must understand that if I believed evolutionists were actually seeking the truth no matter where it led them, and if they combined all fossil and archeological evidence whether it confirmed evo or worked against it, then I would trust that you are seeking the truth no matter where it led.

    But the type of evidence we never see are the DNA tests on the fossils of accepted and declared descendants of humans but are shown not to have human DNA. So they don't issue a press release saying this discovery has just proven that LUCY or Cro-Magnun, or even Neanderthal have no connection to human DNA or RNA. But no, that info isn't released. It's buried and forgotten.

    So identifying a thigh and toe bone found in Africa as human when it could just as easily be an extinct man sized monkey is a fairy tale. You notice I have never denied a Wooly Mammoth existed ? Why ? Because one has been found whole and intact buried in ICE. But how do you explain that although it was perfectly preserved as if flash frozen, the contents of its stomach held flora and fauna from a tropical jungle ? Can you explain that with evo ? Or how evo fits into that type of scenario ? Has the study of evo shown a gap that would explain such an event ?
    Last edited by Archangel; 05-03-2007 at 08:29 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    You realize that everything you say above is nothing more than the party line and is assumed to be right today but can neither be proven or relied upon as factual. And even by your own rules, these so called facts are different than they were 10 years ago and will change and adjust again according to what is learned in the next 10 years.
    These are the discoverys made by researchers such as Jane Goodall et al. documented, filmed, seen repeated across many years, Indeed JG has been in the field since 1965 so that's the observations of 42 years straight off the bat. As usual you make up your deceit on the hoof which are as transparent as clingfilm.
    DNA on human relatives; this is difficult due to the nature of chemical decay inherant in the process of preservation however the Complete DNA profile of Homo neanderthalensis is due in the next few months. Already the preliminary results have shown that several genes (PDHA1, microcephalin, RRM2P4) found in the modern human population could have originated in neanderthals.

    Lucy as non-human ancestor; How many apes do you know of that walk with an upright posture? Lucy's pelvis and skull make this clear that she stood on two legs.
    Again all you post are unfounded lies that don't bear the merest scrutiny.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  6. #36
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar View Post
    These are the discoverys made by researchers such as Jane Goodall et al. documented, filmed, seen repeated across many years, Indeed JG has been in the field since 1965 so that's the observations of 42 years straight off the bat. As usual you make up your deceit on the hoof which are as transparent as clingfilm.
    DNA on human relatives; this is difficult due to the nature of chemical decay inherant in the process of preservation however the Complete DNA profile of Homo neanderthalensis is due in the next few months. Already the preliminary results have shown that several genes (PDHA1, microcephalin, RRM2P4) found in the modern human population could have originated in neanderthals.

    Lucy as non-human ancestor; How many apes do you know of that walk with an upright posture? Lucy's pelvis and skull make this clear that she stood on two legs.
    Again all you post are unfounded lies that don't bear the merest scrutiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar
    Already the preliminary results have shown that several genes (PDHA1, microcephalin, RRM2P4) found in the modern human population could have originated in neanderthals.
    Really ? Amazing, if it is actually proven to be true. But unfortunately even if it is, it does nothing to prove that Neanderthal was a human descendant because the modern day chimp has 98% of our genetic makeup yet is very obviously a lower animal. Here is the value of the massive assumptions you are relying on when using this flimsy science as evidence of mans evolution. The most dedicated evolutionist cannot overcome the problems and flaws with this junk science that is in fact the religion of the humanist. Let me tell you ripskar, your religion is a cult, and a false one at that.

    • NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.

    • PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.

    • NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole
    imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.

    • JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.

    • PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.

    • LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.
    Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.

    • LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.

    • KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.

    • ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.

    Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. National Geographic published a note in its March 2000 issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xing's observations and "revealed anomalies in the fossil's reconstruction."

    To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Scientists have sometimes come up with a few things that they have elected as candidates as transitions, but on a later closer examination these have been seen to be misinterpretations. There are no such things as missing links. ... Missing links are misinterpretations."

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    LOL! the Rickets hoax? been a long time since that last got ploughed into the ground.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/n...dna/index.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

    Wouldn't occur to you that the symptoms of rickets are different to what is observed in the Neanderthal skeletons would it?

    ‘If Scripture cannot err, certain of its interpreters and commentators can do so in many ways’
    -Galileo
    Last edited by Ripskar; 05-03-2007 at 05:54 PM.
    Why pray when you can Google?

  8. #38
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar View Post
    LOL! the Rickets hoax? been a long time since that last got ploughed into the ground.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/n...dna/index.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

    Wouldn't occur to you that the symptoms of rickets are different to what is observed in the Neanderthal skeletons would it?

    ‘If Scripture cannot err, certain of its interpreters and commentators can do so in many ways’
    -Galileo
    Interesting that you ignore this part.

    • NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone.
    The whole acceptance of Neanderthal Man was based on just part of an arm bone. Doesn't that embarrass you ? Is that enough evidence for you to accept that Neanderthal Man is an actual descendant of humans ? Are you that gullible ? The important point here anyway is that it is very likely he is nothing more than an Ape. No evidence you can produce can prove anything you say conclusively since the whole science is based on fraud and bogus assumptions. IT IS A FAIRY TALE BASED MORE ON WISHFUL THINKING THAN ANY RELIABLE FACTS. ONCE AGAIN, IT IS JUNK SCIENCE. LET'S LOOK AT:

    The Fossil Record

    A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.

    But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.

    If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.

    Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".

    There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.

    John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

    The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

    So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.

    "We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25

    The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups would have had to have survived for tens of millions of years [ET*] without leaving a single fossil.

    A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    It's interesting Arch how you ignore me when my link clearly shows your statement which followed mine to be false.

    Creationism: Doing what's easy rather then what's right.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    The whole acceptance of Neanderthal Man was based on just part of an arm bone. Doesn't that embarrass you ? Is that enough evidence for you to accept that Neanderthal Man is an actual descendant of humans ?
    You are an embarrassment to H. sapiens. I was going to jokingly call you a Neanderthal, but that is an insult to H. neanderthalensis as well.

    That is simply not true. There are hundreds of Neanderthal specimens that have been identified with many more hundreds of bones found.
    Did you bother to check more than one source as your authority?
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by thelmoose View Post
    Did you bother to check more than one source as your authority?
    Dude. He posted a Fox tv prop as proof of creation. That's pretty much a confirmation he doesn't check any facts whatsoever.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  12. #42
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by thelmoose View Post
    You are an embarrassment to H. sapiens. I was going to jokingly call you a Neanderthal, but that is an insult to H. neanderthalensis as well.

    That is simply not true. There are hundreds of Neanderthal specimens that have been identified with many more hundreds of bones found.
    Did you bother to check more than one source as your authority?
    There are now many more specimens but at the time that the first partial arm bone was discovered, the whole neanderthal myth was born and built upon that alone. It was years before another was found. And it was just a partial arm bone for crying out loud and you're insulting my intelligence ?

    And I love your respectful terminology of H neanderthalensis which my spell checker implies doesn't exist, and when i highlite it for a corrected spelling, it replied no guesses found. So your not even close to correctly spelling a non existent species. But far be it from me to destroy the gospel you base your existence on, so go ahead and believe what ever floats your boat. I'm enough of a Neanderthal to believe in the living God of creation. Oh, and how about some living fossils that your prestigious evolutionists have claimed were extinct for millions of years ?

    Living Fossils

    Since 1822 thousands of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.

    Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."

    Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.

    The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.


    Living Coelacanths

    The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look "primitive" and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can't be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years [ET*]. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks "primitive" and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago [ET*] in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged.

    Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look "primitive" but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today's environment.

    IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called "Jurassic and Cretaceous" periods. (65-200 million years ago [ET*]). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area.

    The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc.

    Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today.


    The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods.

    Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).

    If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million [ET*], 100 million [ET*] or even 200 million [ET*] years, then why should we believe that they (or anything) have evolved? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but not the large scale changes that evolution supposes.


    The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn't then and it's not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    811
    i'd really love to see where the living specimen of the trilobite is, given that the permian extinction finsihed them off
    Last edited by Mucusaur; 05-03-2007 at 08:56 PM.
    There was a demon that lived in the air. They said whoever challenged him would die. Their controls would freeze up, their planes would buffet wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at Mach 1 on the meter, seven hundred and fifty miles an hour, where the air could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no man could ever pass. They called it the sound barrier.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    There are now many more specimens but at the time that the first partial arm bone was discovered, the whole neanderthal myth was born and built upon that alone. It was years before another was found. And it was just a partial arm bone for crying out loud and you're insulting my intelligence ?
    Still not true. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    And I love your respectful terminology of H neanderthalensis which my spell checker implies doesn't exist, and when i highlite it for a corrected spelling, it replied no guesses found.
    So your [sic] not even close to correctly spelling a non existent species.
    Wrong again.
    Do you wait and try to think up really dumb things before you post, or is it more of an effortless, blurting process?

    Look here, genius
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell

  15. #45
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by thelmoose View Post
    Still not true. See below.


    Wrong again.
    Do you wait and try to think up really dumb things before you post, or is it more of an effortless, blurting process?

    Look here, genius
    Thank you, but I'm just a simple pragmatist

    Now you just show how impossibly naive you are if you accept those very different pictures that the naked eye can discern could not possibly have come from the same type of creature in life. Really moose, you claim I'm the ignorant one as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept it without question because your impressed by their scientific vocabulary. Duhhhhh, they use big word so they must be smart huh ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •