In response to you saying human evolution is "beyond proven", here is why it's not. The history of so called Prehuman skulls is riddled with fraud. Sure, you see all these ancient skulls lined up before you, but what they don't tell you is sickening. Because many are modeled from a very small piece, some even a single tooth or jaw. Why is the fossil record full of all kinds of reptiles and animals but the number of human skulls is scant? Did you know from 1912 to 1949 the best example of a prehuman skull was called piltdown man, in 1949 the found it was a complete fraud. There are others. Today they marvel over Lucy, a 3' tall ape, yet like all their supposed examples they put faces to tell the story they want you to believe. Lucy was nothing more than a 3' tall ape. Do your own research, including what they are steering you away from, saving knowledge in Jesus Christ. It's your eternity, and it is truth you will find for those you love.
7 comments
"Why is the fossil record full of all kinds of reptiles and animals but the number of human skulls is scant?"
WHAT? That's exactly what we would expect if evolution happened how we think it did! Fossilisation is rare and humans haven't been around for long, so we would expect human fossils to be rare as well! Reptiles and animals (why the distinction? Reptiles ARE animals!) have been more numerous and are much older taxa. You are disproving yourself here!
Yeah yeah, the piltdown man, you only have one example (not really an example anyway) and you have the guts to call the hundreds of other humanoid fossils we found to be "riddled with fraud"? Slandering for Jesus as always.
Oh, also: Even if all fossilized human remains were a fraud that STILL wouldn't show that evolution didn't happen. We have an abundance of other proof for that. So your entire argument is pointless.
In response to you saying human evolution is "beyond proven", here is why it's not
image
...sorry, the Church of England couldn't hear you just then due to they reconciling their faith with proven scientific fact.
If they don't, then why have they buried & memorialised Charles Darwin in Westminster Abbey? And not only him:
image
The Big Bang must be "Beyond Proven" too, if Prof. Stephen Hawking is similarly there.
My research into the bible tells me that lying is a big no-no in your religion, one of the Top Ten. Now get yourself through college with advanced degrees in anatomy before you make a bigger fool of yourself, as well as a liar.
And don't you diss my Aunt Lucy!
Back to the early FSTDT-type submissions, nice.
Coincidentally I've been reading Lucy's Legacy , a recounting of the discovery of the Lucy fossil and many other hominids from the Afar region. Donald Johanson describes finding some of the parts of the dome of the skull but that wasn't the only thing we learned from Lucy. One of the primary things we learned from Lucy was that she walked upright, which was deduced from studying her leg, foot, and hip bones. This is a critical discovery, as we expect walking upright to occure before an increase in brain volume. And the time Lucy was walking upright matches very well with other hominid finds before and after her time.
Because many [skulls] are modeled from a very small piece, some even a single tooth or jaw.
Nobody does this in the relevant literature; documentaries may do it, but that isn't a scientific paper. The only time it could be done is if many pieces are collected across multiple specimens in the same species.
Also, I'm not an expert, but I think that those studying early hominids could reasonably estimate brain volume based off the the fragments recovered from Lucy's skull.
Why is the fossil record full of all kinds of reptiles and animals but the number of human skulls is scant?
Because non-human animals have been on this planet for 0.68 billion years and hominids have been around for less than 14 million years. Doing the math to see which has more fossils preserved isn't hard.
The skulls which have been discovered have given scientists a pretty clear picture of human evolution. Not to mention all the animal fossils which have also given us a clear picture of evolution overall.
I love it when they say "do the research" which really means "listen to people like Kent Hovind and read Answers in Genesis and ignore any information to the contrary" when we have real scientists doing real research to give us an accurate picture of what happened to species through time.
"Did you know from 1912 to 1949 the best example of a prehuman skull was called piltdown man, in 1949 the found it was a complete fraud."
Um, well, no. In 1912, the fraud was created to match the theory as it stood at that time. Well before 1949, though, other discoveries had been made and Piltdown Man was less and less a fit into the growing theory. By 1949, it was treated as a 'sport,' a mutant, and not part of the evolution of man. Most papers presented in the 40's ignored it entirely.
THEN it was discovered to be a fraud, exactly because it was no longer 'the best example' of prehuman evolution. The other skulls that were found directly contributed to examining Piltdown Man for signs of fraud.
As far as "modeled from a very small piece, some even a single tooth or jaw," you're talking about Nebraska Man. That wasn't a fraud. That was a mistake. And it was discovered to be a mistake long before it could make it into a textbook. No one ever taught Nebraska Man in a classroom, not as part of human evolution.
So, yeah, I agree, "Do your own research," sure. Just don't accept creationist comments who don't present the entire truth.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.