Originally posted by stellspalfie if you watch the full talk, your so called expert says apes dont have nasal bones .............why would your 'expert' make such a basic error?
What full talk is this? I have heard it said that apes do not have protruding nasal bones like humans so that wearing eyeglasses would be difficult for them. Perhaps that is what your expert was referring to.
Originally posted by SwissGambit I bet even the 8 year old knows how to spell waste.
So predictable with the attacks to make you evolutionist look so superior.
So yes I'm not as educated as you high and mighties are and I'm not ashamed of it.
But I know in the Bible God assures that he is not impressed with the knowlegde of man "at all" as "it is foolishness with him and compared to him" and their bragging of it but he is looking for the meek and simple ones to bestow his blessings on. It is no human I try to impress and worry about with the wicked insults that can come out of their hearts.
Perhaps if you'd try to answer the questions put before you about proving "what obviously can be proved" evolution, you may not make yourself look so juvenile by saying foolish syatements as you just did. It does not help your case...
Originally posted by checkbaiter It will be interesting to see how the evolution crowd here handles this. Let me guess...Hmmmm...do you think first thing is discredit, attack the good doctor Menton and David Pilbeam?
That is their MOS.
Originally posted by sonship Dr.David Menton: Lucy - - She's No Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ
If you take away the maniacal laughter and the partisan voice-over maybe
you could use your own mind and figure that maybe a 3 million year old
skeleton may be a little distorted?
Easier to believe than the disappearance of X million skeletons from 4,000 years ago. (The flood)
Originally posted by wolfgang59 If you take away the maniacal laughter and the partisan voice-over maybe
you could use your own mind and figure that maybe a 3 million year old
skeleton may be a little distorted?
Easier to believe than the disappearance of X million skeletons from 4,000 years ago. (The flood)
How about hungry shark eating the floating bodies or maybe other hungry fish or maybe whales swallowing them like Jonah? There has been a lot of human skeletons discovered with varing interpretations given. Don't be ignorant.
Originally posted by galveston75 So predictable with the attacks to make you evolutionist look so superior.
So yes I'm not as educated as you high and mighties are and I'm not ashamed of it.
But I know in the Bible God assures that he is not impressed with the knowlegde of man "at all" as "it is foolishness with him and compared to him" and their bragging of it but he is looking fo ...[text shortened]... elf look so juvenile by saying foolish syatements as you just did. It does not help your case...
Oh pfft, stop acting like you actually want to hear the case for evolution. That whole thread of yours is mere trolling. Your mind is locked down tighter than a SuperMax prison on high alert when it comes to the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by RJHinds What full talk is this? I have heard it said that apes do not have protruding nasal bones like humans so that wearing eyeglasses would be difficult for them. Perhaps that is what your expert was referring to.
The Instructor
the full version of the clip posted in the op. his words are 'apes do not have nasal bones'.
Originally posted by stellspalfie neither does he, so maybe he shouldnt be stood up there acting like he does know, filling a gullible, sheep like audience with mis-information.
Originally posted by sonship Dr.David Menton: Lucy - - She's No Lady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RfIEVO6YQ
Lets pretend that the pelvis is as he suggests.
By his own arguments Lucy would not be able to walk upright.
So how does he explain all the other features which point to bipedalism?
(I think the strongest is the curved spine)
??????????????????????????????????????
AND FINALLY
Not everyone is convinced Lucy is our ancestor anyway -
could be a dead-end. An extinct cousin.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Lets pretend that the pelvis is as he suggests.
By his own arguments Lucy would not be able to walk upright.
So how does he explain all the other features which point to bipedalism?
(I think the strongest is the curved spine)
??????????????????????????????????????
AND FINALLY
Not everyone is convinced Lucy is our ancestor anyway -
could be a dead-end. An extinct cousin.
And maybe it is just another hoax. Yeah, that's it. Problem solved.