16 May 14
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy are you bringing up science here as if you were actually interested in the truth in science?
[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]
17 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease 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).
take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field:
Incidentally, Robbie loves a similar quote, which involves a coffee table and which is also untrue and ancient in origin.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
17 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI 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.
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.
17 May 14
Originally posted by redbaronsI have tracked it down. It was said by this man:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyall_Watson
In Science Digest in 1982
And it was untrue when he said it.
17 May 14
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 yearsFossils 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.
17 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou 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.
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.
EDIT: Didn't see that the above poster already addressed this. Sorry.
18 May 14
Originally posted by vivifyYeah, I think fossilization needs something like a worldwide flood.
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.
18 May 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAlso 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.
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.
18 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe don't have any human ancestor bones because apes are not our ancestors.
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.
22 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you weren't so programmed by your fantasy world you would know that fossils cannot form in oxygenated water.
Yeah, I think fossilization needs something like a worldwide flood.
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?
22 May 14
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI 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.
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?
Under What Conditons Do Fossils Form?
http://www.k5geosource.org/1content/1sc/fossils/pg6.html
Read it again.