1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusLucy was just another missing link fraud.
She walked upright and was therefore a hominid (not a monkey). Furthermore, she's not missing.
She's your ancestor, and she was [b]black; deal with it, dude.[/b]
Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link
By Editorial Staff
Published December 22, 2007
The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”
And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a “knocked kneed” condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees.
Does this make her an upright walker? Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers. Some experts argue that the higher angle makes her a better climber. This appears to be a knee-jerk reaction rather than clear scientific thinking.
Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
Originally posted by RJHinds
Lucy was just another missing link fraud.[b]Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link
By Editorial Staff
Published December 22, 2007
The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of ...[text shortened]... tomical similarities).
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html[/b]Whether it was Lucy or some other individual doesn't matter. All the people alive today are descendants of black Africans.
1 edit
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/index.html
A long read, but interesting. The author compares the various hypotheses (young earth creationism, deep-time divinely-guided evolution, naturalistic evolution), in light of the fossil record. One thing is clear: the fossil record shows a gradual morphological transition with lots of intermediate stages between apes and man.
We came out of Africa; we were all black. Just accept it.
EDIT: BTW, the link was from the Southwestern Adventist University in Keene TX. Even they can see transitional forms! You'd have to be blind not to.
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusI don't believe apes morphed into humans. Seeing transitional forms between apes and humans is a form of self-deception. 😏
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/index.html
A long read, but interesting. The author compares the various hypotheses (young earth creationism, deep-time divinely-guided evolution, naturalistic evolution), in light of the fossil record. One thing is clear: the fossil record shows a gradual morphological transition with lots of intermediate ...[text shortened]... versity in Keene TX. Even they can see transitional forms! You'd have to be blind not to.
Prehistoric Ape Men Are Frauds
Originally posted by RJHindsLeave aside for a moment the question whether anything ever morphed into something else. You do see that there are intermediate forms, don’t you? There are literally thousands of hominid fossils which together exhibit a spectrum of intermediate forms between creatures which were clearly totally apes and creatures which were clearly totally human. I grant that this or that jaw bone or femur might be disputed, but the preponderance of fossil evidence indicates a gradation of creatures ranging from those which exhibit mostly ape-like features and some primitive human characteristics (teeth, leg-angles, cranial sizes and shapes, etc.), to those which exhibit mostly human-like features but with a few ape-like bits (prominent eye ridges or whatever). Moreover, the ones towards the predominantly ape-end of the spectrum are without exception older than the ones towards the predominantly human-end of the spectrum. Leave aside the issue whether they are thousands or millions of years older--just considering the levels at which they were buried is evidence enough of their ages relative to the other intermediate stages (deeper equals older), if not indisputable proof of absolute ages in years.
I don't believe apes morphed into humans. Seeing transitional forms between apes and humans is a form of self-deception. 😏
[b]Prehistoric Ape Men Are Frauds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LhPtcBk1k8[/b]
Since you deny that any one of those intermediate forms morphed into the next one, I think you are left with only one option: that God created each intermediate creature as an immutable substance, independent of every other creature; each was a totally separate phenomenon, unrelated to those which came before or after.
One has to wonder, why would God do that? Why would God leave a trail of bread crumbs and say, “Don’t follow the trail!” It makes no sense. It would be like saying, “I see the seed, I see the wheat, and I see the stalk wither--but I refuse to believe they have anything to do with each other. They are totally separate phenomena.”
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusNo, I don't see any intermediate forms for apes becoming humans. There may be many fossils that were apes and others that were humans, but I don't see any of them that clearly shows an ape becoming a human.
Leave aside for a moment the question whether anything ever morphed into something else. You do see that there are intermediate forms, don’t you? There are literally thousands of hominid fossils which together exhibit a spectrum of intermediate forms between creatures which were clearly totally apes and creatures which were clearly totally human. I grant tha ...[text shortened]... efuse to believe they have anything to do with each other. They are totally separate phenomena.”
There are people with different cranial sizes and shapes today. Children and women usually have smaller cranial sizes and old men have the largest cranial sizes and shape may depend on race too.
Things buried deeper does generally mean older, but that is only if you ignore the possibility of catastrophic events and especially the worldwide flood in Noah's time. Why do you think marine fossil are found on the highest mountains?
According to the Holy Bible, God made all kinds of plants and animals, plus humans as the ruler. All these plants and animals, including man, were created with the ability to reproduce after their own kind. That does not mean God created every species or race within that kind. The species of plants and animals and races of humans are just variations allowed by God's programming of the DNA and the genetic processes in reproduction. So to me it all makes perfect sense, but the evolution theory only makes sense to Satan and his followers.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've not read my post carefully. I've not suggested that an ape became a human. I've said that the extant fossils clearly show evidence of creatures which were neither totally apes nor totally humans. They were in-between forms--regardless whether one became another or, as creationists say, they were so created and never changed.
No, I don't see any intermediate forms for apes becoming humans. There may be many fossils that were apes and others that were humans, but I don't see any of them that clearly shows an ape becoming a human.
There are people with different cranial sizes and shapes today. Children and women usually have smaller cranial sizes and old men have the largest c ...[text shortened]... t all makes perfect sense, but the evolution theory only makes sense to Satan and his followers.
So the question stands, what is more plausible: a jumble of intermediate forms but having no relation to each other--or a series of stages which developed by increments? Follow the bread crumbs!
How did fossils get on top of mountains? The mountains rose from what was once a sea bed through tectonic activity. A flood covers things under water, it doesn't raise mountains.
Yes, I'm sure the Biblical version does make sense to you. But you really should broaden your informational input. “Watched a lot of YouTube” doesn’t look so good on a cv.
PS on the catastrophic flood theory:
Even supposing that a flood would have carried fossils to the tops of mountains, it would not have buried them under hundreds of meters of solid stratified sediment (which is what we dig up, in the main). They would have been thoroughly stirred up in time (which is contrary to what we actually dig up, in the main), and the ‘sediment’ would have been mostly mud-slime which would have been flushed back down the mountains as the flood waters receded, which would mean that we would find more fossils at the bases of mountains than anywhere else (which is not what we dig up, in the main). The catastrophic flood theory does not fit the data.
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusThe fossils don't clearly show in-between forms. That is just the speculative interpretations of evolutionists who wish to support their imaginary theory of evolution.
You've not read my post carefully. I've not suggested that an ape became a human. I've said that the extant fossils clearly show evidence of creatures which were neither totally apes nor totally humans. They were in-between forms--regardless whether one became another or, as creationists say, they were so created and never changed.
So the question stands, ...[text shortened]... hould broaden your informational input. “Watched a lot of YouTube” doesn’t look so good on a cv.
RJHinds: How did fossils get on top of mountains?
moonbus: The mountains rose from what was once a sea bed through tectonic activity.
You almost agree with the Holy Bible on how God got rid of the water covering all the land after the flood.
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:5-9 NASB)
Originally posted by moonbusYou can believe what you want, but the catastrophic flood theory makes since to me for it agrees with the Holy Bible and the evolution theory does not. I could not be the kind of Christian that Suzianne is by believing in all this evolution nonsense and believe in Christ at the same time.
PS on the catastrophic flood theory:
Even supposing that a flood would have carried fossils to the tops of mountains, it would not have buried them under hundreds of meters of solid stratified sediment (which is what we dig up, in the main). They would have been thoroughly stirred up in time (which is contrary to what we actually dig up, in the main), a ...[text shortened]... (which is not what we dig up, in the main). The catastrophic flood theory does not fit the data.
We're not likely to meet in the middle on Earth's pre-history. No matter. At the Last Judgement there will not be a quiz in geology.
Getting back on topic from the OP: are you collecting signatures for a petition to compel Obama to get a paternity test? He’ll be gone in a few months anyway, so what’s the point of complaining about it this late in the day?
Every 4 or 8 years, there is likely to be somebody in the White House you didn’t vote for; that is how pluralistic democracy works. It's not a perfect system, but the alternatives are all worse; that's why people fled Europe with its state religions, settled the New World, and wrote a constitution which enshrined the separation of church and state. “In America, anybody can become president. That’s just one of the chances you take.” --Adlai Stevenson