Originally posted by CLL53At least try and get your facts straight.
Only two missing links I know of, one being the mythical monkey man evolutionists have been trying to find (create) since Darwin,.
At about Darwins time, they were looking for evidence that man and other great Apes had a common ancestor, so they were looking for an ancestor of man that had characteristics more like other great Apes than modern man. This became known as 'the missing link'.
Many such ancestors and relatives have been found since then and the 'link' is no-longer 'missing'.
Your mention of 'monkey man' shows that your knowledge of the Biological classification in this area is limited at best.
The current common usage of the term 'monkey' is for two groups of primates Old World monkeys and a New World monkeys and excluding apes.
Humans are apes and any 'missing link' would be a link between humans and other apes rather than monkeys.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are no real links between the monkey and man. The ones you are probably referring to are not missing links and the ones claiming to be missing links have all proven to be fakes just like some of the fake giant human skeletons. So you need to get your facts straight before criticizing someone else about it. What does it matter if we choose to use the word mokey instead of ape? This just shows how ridiculous the idea of the theory of evolution is IMO.
At least try and get your facts straight.
At about Darwins time, they were looking for evidence that man and other great Apes had a common ancestor, so they were looking for an ancestor of man that had characteristics more like other great Apes than modern man. This became known as 'the missing link'.
Many such ancestors and relatives have been found si ny 'missing link' would be a link between humans and other apes rather than monkeys.
Originally posted by checkbaiterInteresting that the evolutionists whole heartedly believe that humans evolved from ape-"like" creatures, and denounce all who don't believe their unfounded theoretical pseudo-science as stupid, but they just can't wrap their tiny brains around the giant skeletons. The reason being, that if the ancient skeletons are real (at least one) then the whole theory of human evolution is blown apart.
Google ..."The Nephilim"
Originally posted by CLL53That's a pretty big 'if' you got there buddy. Crackpot tinfoil-hat nonsense aside (honestly RJ, do you even watch the videos you link?), have you come up with an example for us to consider?
Interesting that the evolutionists whole heartedly believe that humans evolved from ape-"like" creatures, and denounce all who don't believe their unfounded theoretical pseudo-science as stupid, but they just can't wrap their tiny brains around the giant skeletons. The reason being, that if the ancient skeletons are real (at least one) then the whole theory of human evolution is blown apart.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's all well and good but those bones were from people who were no bigger than the largest humans of today, smaller in fact. I think he said one of them was judged to be 7 foot 7 inches. We have basketballers bigger than that now.
Here is one link for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lm-N9cuflc