for the last time click here BN.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2762997832693663864&q=fundamentalism&pl=true
for the last time click here BN.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2762997832693663864&q=fundamentalism&pl=true
Originally posted by Da preacher
READ a book.U no? with letters in it. Some of them even depict the interesting story of the evolution of a primate (the missing link) in2 man also Idiot.
australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time
some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans
And still no transitional forms 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonbut funny and true.
Please tell us what book to read. 🙄Please don't say "read a book" it sounds insulting.
Originally posted by Da preacherI also gave him proof, but he ignored it. Suprised?
READ a book.U no? with letters in it. Some of them even depict the interesting story of the evolution of a primate (the missing link) in2 man also known as Homo sapiens sapiens.
How's this 4 a proof:
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
[B]australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same timesome of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans
And still no transitional forms 😆 [/B]
"The first category, the genus Australopithecus, means "southern ape," as we have said. It is assumed that these creatures first appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago, and lived until 1 million years ago. There are a number of different species among the australopithecines. Evolutionists assume that the oldest Australopithecus species is A. afarensis. After that comes A. africanus, and then A. robustus, which has relatively bigger bones. As for A. Boisei, some researchers accept it as a different species, and others as a sub-species of A. Robustus.
All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics-such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. However, evolutionists claim that, although australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans."
"That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. "
"The great similarity between the skeletal and cranial structures of australopithecines and chimpanzees, and the refutation of the claim that these creatures walked upright, have caused great difficulty for evolutionary paleoanthropologists. The reason is that, according to the imaginary evolution scheme, Homo erectus comes after Australopithecus. As the genus name Homo (meaning "man"😉 implies, Homo erectus is a human species, and its skeleton is straight. Its cranial capacity is twice as large as that of Australopithecus. A direct transition from Australopithecus, which is a chimpanzee-like ape, to Homo erectus, which has a skeleton no different from modern man's, is out of the question, even according to evolutionist theory. Therefore, "links"- that is, transitional forms-are needed. The concept of Homo habilis arose from this necessity."
"The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both moved in a similar way to apes of our own time."
So guess what they aren't transitional forms
Originally posted by Da preacheranother blow to evolutionTell me something I don't know.
The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged
Yet in the second law of thermodynamics it states everything weather living or not breaks down over time so how does molecules come together over time.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
"The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both moved in a similar way to apes of our own time."So guess what they aren't transitional forms
Show your proof. I need a link, because I think that study is false.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
"The claim that Australopithecus and Homo habilis walked upright was disproved by inner ear analyses carried out by Fred Spoor. He and his team compared the centers of balances in the inner ears, and showed that both moved in a similar way to apes of our own time."So guess what they aren't transitional forms
Even if you could disprove Evolution, it would not prove Creationism to be true. I suggest you start providing evidence to support Creationism or reserve your challenges to Modern Evolutionary Theory to the "Prove Evolution... Win Money" thread.
It isn't because the Homo Habilis 'didn't' walk upright he can't be a linked to man. They used tools, were very similar in the way their body was built.
Pikaia didn't walk upright, he didn't even have lungs, still he is seen as the first animal that can be linked to man.
(sorry, I don't really speak english that good).
Originally posted by Blue nocturnenot even close. A 1950s scientist mixed some chemicals simelar to the chemicals in the soup of early earth. He shocked the soup he had and made Amino acids. Amino acids become RNA, then DNA then cells. Now that is life my friend. But he could only get to DNA.
another blow to evolutionThe theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged
Yet in the second law of thermodynamics it states everything weather living or not breaks down over time so how does molecules come together over time.
We've shown you proof that support evolution. Now where's the proof for ID?
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
not even close. A 1950s scientist mixed some chemicals simelar to the chemicals in the soup of early earth. He shocked the soup he had and made Amino acids. Amino acids become RNA, then DNA then cells. Now that is life my friend. But he could only get to DNA.We've shown you proof that support evolution. Now where's the proof for ID?
Some scientist what's his/her name plaese.