1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    16 May '14 21:24
    Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

    If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“

    http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

    Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

    If Dinosaurs were on the earth about 100 million years ago and man 2 million years ago, then why don't we find more skeletal remains? It seems to me that we are finding hardly enough bones to confirm a few thousand years, not millions of years.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    17 May '14 14:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

    If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have ...[text shortened]... that we are finding hardly enough bones to confirm a few thousand years, not millions of years.[/b]
    Why are you bringing up science here as if you were actually interested in the truth in science?
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 May '14 15:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field:
    Please tell us who the expert was and when he said it. It is untrue, but might have been true when it was said (probably over 50 years ago).
    Incidentally, Robbie loves a similar quote, which involves a coffee table and which is also untrue and ancient in origin.
  4. Standard memberredbarons
    BADGER BANNED
    Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Feb '14
    Moves
    1339
    17 May '14 16:26
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Please tell us who the expert was and when he said it. It is untrue, but might have been true when it was said (probably over 50 years ago).
    Incidentally, Robbie loves a similar quote, which involves a coffee table and which is also untrue and ancient in origin.
    I read the article the skulls were homo erectus and at least 1.6 million years old they were found in Georgia(old part of USSR) they think they had migrated from Africa and at no point dose the anthropologist say that they were not what homo sapien EVOLVED from.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 May '14 16:46
    Originally posted by redbarons
    I read the article the skulls were homo erectus and at least 1.6 million years old they were found in Georgia(old part of USSR) they think they had migrated from Africa and at no point dose the anthropologist say that they were not what homo sapien EVOLVED from.
    I have tracked it down. It was said by this man:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyall_Watson
    In Science Digest in 1982

    And it was untrue when he said it.
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78517
    17 May '14 18:22
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

    If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have ...[text shortened]... that we are finding hardly enough bones to confirm a few thousand years, not millions of years.[/b]
    If Dinosaurs were on the earth about 100 million years ago and man 2 million years ago, then why don't we find more skeletal remains? It seems to me that we are finding hardly enough bones to confirm a few thousand years, not millions of years
    Fossils don't form that readily. The conditions have to be right, if the soil is too acid the bones dissolve without becoming fossils. I think the oldest burials were about 250,000 years ago, so the rate of human fossils drops as one goes back in time.
  7. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    17 May '14 20:161 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If Dinosaurs were on the earth about 100 million years ago and man 2 million years ago, then why don't we find more skeletal remains? It seems to me that we are finding hardly enough bones to confirm a few thousand years, not millions of years.
    You do realize that bones biodegrade, right? Fossilization needs some specific conditions in order to happen. Scientists are actually quite fortunate to get the amount of fossils that they do.


    EDIT: Didn't see that the above poster already addressed this. Sorry.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    18 May '14 07:26
    Originally posted by vivify
    You do realize that bones biodegrade, right? Fossilization needs some specific conditions in order to happen. Scientists are actually quite fortunate to get the amount of fossils that they do.


    EDIT: Didn't see that the above poster already addressed this. Sorry.
    Yeah, I think fossilization needs something like a worldwide flood.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    18 May '14 07:49
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Fossils don't form that readily. The conditions have to be right, if the soil is too acid the bones dissolve without becoming fossils. I think the oldest burials were about 250,000 years ago, so the rate of human fossils drops as one goes back in time.
    Also note that we have many more dinosaur bones than human ancestor bones because 'dinosaurs' are not a few species mostly living in Africa, but rather a large number of species living worldwide - and for a much longer period. If we were to look at the fossil record of mammals (a group comparable to dinosaurs) then the comparison would be much more reasonable.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    18 May '14 09:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Also note that we have many more dinosaur bones than human ancestor bones because 'dinosaurs' are not a few species mostly living in Africa, but rather a large number of species living worldwide - and for a much longer period. If we were to look at the fossil record of mammals (a group comparable to dinosaurs) then the comparison would be much more reasonable.
    We don't have any human ancestor bones because apes are not our ancestors.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    22 May '14 13:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We don't have any human ancestor bones because apes are not our ancestors.
    How could apes be our ancestors when they are alive as we speak?

    Other species WERE our ancestors though.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52612
    22 May '14 13:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Yeah, I think fossilization needs something like a worldwide flood.
    If you weren't so programmed by your fantasy world you would know that fossils cannot form in oxygenated water.

    IF there was a world wide flood, the water would for sure have been oxygenated.

    In that case any proto-fossils would be dissolved in short order, a few centuries at most.

    http://www.k5geosource.org/1content/1sc/fossils/pg6.html

    So do you have any OTHER pseudoscientific nonsense to feed us, troll?
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    22 May '14 14:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    We don't have any human ancestor bones because apes are not our ancestors.
    The creationist grandfathers have no spine. Is it this you tell us?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    22 May '14 18:19
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    How could apes be our ancestors when they are alive as we speak?

    Other species WERE our ancestors though.
    What other species?
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    22 May '14 18:393 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If you weren't so programmed by your fantasy world you would know that fossils cannot form in oxygenated water.

    IF there was a world wide flood, the water would for sure have been oxygenated.

    In that case any proto-fossils would be dissolved in short order, a few centuries at most.

    http://www.k5geosource.org/1content/1sc/fossils/pg6.html

    So do you have any OTHER pseudoscientific nonsense to feed us, troll?
    I did not say anything about oxygenated water. The worldwide flood should kill many animals; and these dead animals will be buried in mud layers as the flood waters subside. I believe that is why we have so many animals fossilized all over the world, including marine fossils on high mountains.

    Under What Conditons Do Fossils Form?

    http://www.k5geosource.org/1content/1sc/fossils/pg6.html

    Read it again.
Back to Top