Originally posted by RJHindsAre you normally this thickheaded? The science of archaeology is based on evidence for sure.
The article says "possible" ancestors. So it is just a guess like I've said
before. There is no science fact in guessing. Anybody can do that. They
don't know what this imaginary ape ancestor even looks like, no fossil
records to prove any ideas even. This is more evolutionary bull crap.
I though scientist needed hard evidence, not just speculations.
When they say 'possible' it is because the fossil record is very hard to come by and what knowledge we have of the past is very hard won I can assure you. So to say science is just guesswork is belittling the efforts of over 100 years of solid research.
Every week new fossils are dug up. You do realize the earth shakes, volcano's cover older layers and continents move don't you?
For instance, the entire island of Hawaii is practically brand new from a geological perspective, formed by a moving upwelling of magma that shoots off as a volcano every few million years but it covers a track from the south to the north so the youngest islands are in the north and the southern end of Hawaii have inactive volcano's. So think what that system of events can do to a fossil record.
That means we have to find places that are stable enough that fossils don't get totally destroyed by the forces of nature.
99.999 % of all fossils are destroyed by many separate effects like the one I showed you.
Therefore the fossil record is very thin versus how many life forms have been alive in the past.
So we are left with an incomplete record at best and have to work with what we have.
That is life in the big city, we have to live with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
=====================================
But evolutionists get artists to draw out their theories in pictoral form. And what we see as a near ancestor to humans USUALLY LOOKS LIKE AN APE.
Maybe Evolution is really a movememt among imaginative artists.[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseI am not trying to belittle them. All I'm saying is wait until you got
Are you normally this thickheaded? The science of archaeology is based on evidence for sure.
When they say 'possible' it is because the fossil record is very hard to come by and what knowledge we have of the past is very hard won I can assure you. So to say science is just guesswork is belittling the efforts of over 100 years of solid research.
Ever ...[text shortened]... have to work with what we have.
That is life in the big city, we have to live with it.
the solid evidence before you declare something like this fact. You
need to take your smart pill.
Originally posted by RJHindswow, this is epic desperateness. out of all of dawkin's life's work, all you can dig up is an 11 second edited video from a creationist propaganda channel?
Look and listen to it yourself if you don't believe me. After all this time
of man being reported as having descended from apes, suddenly after a
questioner asks him to put up or shut up he can not answer the question
and finally comes back accusing the questioner of misunderstanding and
admits that man is not a descendant of apes at all. Then makes up ...[text shortened]... the question because he can't give the example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
i think you were better off with "Do you really think I want to listen to this liar?"
Originally posted by RJHindsi see. so you would prefer to continue getting your information from creationist propaganda sites rather than the sources. all fair and good. keep up the good work.
No.
Except for when he would not answer the question and
started talking about how we were not descendants of apes.
