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.“
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.
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?
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.
Removed
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.