There's NO missing link in Human evolution

In September 1890, Eugene Dubois's workers found a human, or human-like, fossil at Koedoeng Broeboes. This consisted of the right side of the chin of a lower jaw and three attached teeth. In August 1891 he found a primate molar tooth. Two months later and one meter away was found an intact skullcap, the fossil which would be known as Java Man. In August 1892, a third primate fossil, an almost complete left thigh bone, was found between 10 and 15 meters away from the skullcap.
In 1894 Dubois published a description of his fossils, naming them Pithecanthropus erectus, describing it as neither ape nor human, but something intermediate.
Java Man, especially if reconstructed with gibbon-like body proportions, had an index of 1/2, which placed it nicely in the gap between apes and humans, thus providing the missing link. (Gould 1993)

Is there a reason why you needed to make multiple threads on the same subject?

"Java Man" was the missing link?

Well lets take a look at what was found. Within a wide area over a year, flimsy evidence was found in a femur, a skullcap and three teeth. The bones were found with human remains and the skullcap was from a large ape.

This was most certainly not "the missing link".

Go read more on The Java Man, the point is that it's an intermediary between man and ape, period.

Yup, finding a human femur and an ape's skullcap is definetly "proof" 😆

Ive read plenty on java man. There is one thing common with naturalists.

They dont want to know the truth. They constantly dismiss observed scientific data to keep parading on their philosophy.

Java man the missing link? 😂

Whatever.....you are indeed a lost case. 🙁 You're the one avoiding and dismissing observed data.

Again, further evidence of your being in denial. I am well aware of what "Java man" was. You most certainly are not.

😆 I suppose you can also proof to me with your immaculate knowledge where they dug up the skeletons of god? 'Cause it sounds like you really have 'objective scientific evidence' of god's existence.

Definetly, dont continue with the subject at hand but instead make nonsensical statements in an attempt to divert.

Just as I predicted, naturalist hate the truth. It is a like sunlight to a vampire.

Its unfair and ridiculous of you to demand scientific evidence and objectivity from me, while you yourself don't provide that for your belief in creationism.

Its unfair and ridiculous of you to demand scientific evidence and objectivity from me, while you yourself don't provide that for your belief in creationism.

Im pointing out to you which kind of boat you are sitting in. You have blind faith, you dismiss observed scientific data and call it meaningless and then you turn around and say that science proves your philosophy.

😆

I am objective here in regards to science, im not the one trying to pass off phoney for fact. Ive already stated why I refute evolutionism, it fails on so, so many levels. It is not scientific theory, it is a wild philosophy. Giving it credence is not a demonstration of scientific objectivity as it fails to pass the standard for science.

So, proof to me that belief in a creator/god is not blind faith. 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 💃

It is not inconsistent with observed scientific data, unlike evolutionism.

Point one, point two I can just call it a philisophy and not parade it around like fact and you have nothing to say.

There is a big difference here.

One fits with science (creationism) and one does not (the philosophy of evolution).

Obviously logic matters not to you and blind faith is all that you use.
The fact that you believe something that is illogical and unsupported if not refuted, shows that you have blind faith. Not the case with me.

Evolution is not inconsistent with observed scientific data there's been hundreds of research done on it and it is widely seen by leading scientists to be very much consistent with scientific data, unlike creationism.

There is a big difference here.

One fits with science (evolution) and one does not (the assumption of creationism).

Obviously logic matters not to you and blind faith is all that you use.
The fact that you believe something that is illogical and unsupported if not refuted, shows that you have blind faith. Not the case with me.

Evolution is widely supported by science, creationism is not.

Evolution is not inconsistent with observed scientific data there's been hundreds of research done on it and it is widely seen by leading scientists to be very much consistent with scientific data, unlike creationism.

Evolution is widely supported by science, creationism is not.

You dont even know anything about the "evidence" . Hell you thought that java man was the missing link.

Evolution consistently fails to meet observed scientific evidence. It is an uncorroborated philosophy.

To tell me that creationism does not fit observed scientific evidence is to tell me what little you know. Scientific evidence does not refute creationism, it is clearly consistent with it.

Anyway......... My request as you know is as stands.

You have NO idea what you're talking about. Cheers idiot.

PLEASE READ THE FIRST POST, clickclick MESSED UP THIS THREAD WITH HIS UTTER IDIOCY.

Petty insults will get you nowhere. Information and an understanding of the subject matter will get you somewhere. Unfortunately for you, you fail misreably on both accounts as you are not well informed. I actually pitty you to be honest, not simply because you dont know much but because you revel in it. Should somebody more mature yourself aswell as more knowledgeable wish to discuss this subject matter, I would do it without problem. You however arent worth much of my time and I dont have delusions about having a fruitful discussion with you. You are incapable. You are a sad boy with many mental problems, something that you have made sure to inform us of.

I will be the bigger person and just wish you peace and good luck.

all these evolution threads ought to be merged into one

Of course a normal person would have had it all in one thread.

yeah well normal persons would be satisfied with just one church denomination too