[best part is at the end]
Evolutionist... there is something weird about your fossil evidence...?
ardi has two different sized feet... has a pelvic bone broken into 4 pieces, and badly degraded to the point where it does not even look like a pelvic bone. and also, a artical written in the july 2010 issue of national geographic magazine on pages 57-58:
"as the sun was setting, yohannes haileselassie found a hand bone not a stones throw to where they found the teeth the previous year...a search of the area produced a tibia, eventually came the skull and pelvis, both crushed."
stating these bones were found on different DATES and in different LOCATIONS. plus nothing remains in the bone in order to tell if every part came from the same being. also, since the bone was found in the dirt, and were highly subject to contamination, no dating method can accurate date any of these fossils.
36 comments
You find fossils in rock. Heck, fossils are rock. Guess what? We can date rocks!
And these fossils were all found at the same site. So I wouldn't say they were found in different locations. They were found next to each other. What, do you expect all the fossilized bones to inhabit the same physical space?
Also, how does the time difference matter? Do you think a fairy came down and sprinkled the fossil bones of a different animal into the rocks during that time? Fossils don't get up and walk from one place to another.
Given that National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I normally wouldn't quote it as a source for scientific information. However, if I did, I think I'd copy keep the same capitalization in the quote I used. I somehow doubt that National Geographic usually fails to capitalize things like the beginnings of sentences and people's names.
Word of advice - take an ecology class and geology class.
Words of ridicule - Officer, you mean the murder victim's head and torso were found on different DATES and in different LOCATIONS! They were found in the DIRT?! Oh, no there is no way they can be the same individual. There is no way you can deduce important information from them.
Dumbass.
Yes, Zelda, there IS something weird about our fossil evidence. Even though it is quite simple to understand, there are a great number of people like yourself that cant figure it out.
Also, what is the point that the bones were found on different days? How does that invalidate the find? Different locations? After many years, for bones to be scattered about due to various disturbances is what one would expect. But...they were in the same general location, again, as one would expect.
But you do have one good point. The bone was found in the dirt. Well......now that just disproves the entire find. I mean, why would the bones ever be found in dirt as opposed to say, a cloud. Or perhaps just floating in air. Resting on a tree limb, whatever. So, obviously anything found in dirt can never be accurately dated. What an astute geological discovery.
ok....sarcasm switch off.....
Rule one in fundie communities:
Don’t believe Satanists
., I mean scientists no matter what they say. It’s all a lie.
Rule two:
Don’t believe evidence it’s all false no matter what they present.
Rule three:
The bible is always right.
Rule four:
If it looks that the bible maybe wrong on something, Jesus will come down, blow your brains out and cast you into hell right between the teeth of Satan for eternity!!!!!!!
So you better follow rule three at all times, or else
The quote you made is just to show how difficult and time consuming fossil hunting is.
You don't believe in evolution, so when did you become a fossil expert?
A protip, zelda; before you start attacking scientists, who have studied geology and archaeology for years and years, learn how to use the English language properly. Being able to form a grammatically correct sentence, with few spelling errors, will make you look a little less foolish.
I call bullshit on that being an accurate citation from the National Geographic. I doubt they use elipses in their texts, just to name one thing.
"since the bone was found in the dirt, and were highly subject to contamination, no dating method can accurate date any of these fossils".
Because everyone knows we can only accurately date things that are found in hermetically sealed, sterile containers.
Someone's been watching too much CSI.
Somehow I'd bet that the artical (sic) in the National geographic was better written and easier to understand than this drivel, but in any case what difference would it make to evolutionary "theory" if the bones came from one body or different bodies?
Or have I misunderstood your mishmash of a post?
Hmmm, remains damaged and spread over a small area. Remains found in the ground. Remains discovered over a period of time, likely due to the fact they were not articulated (and in the ground).
What about this is weird?
I don't think that many fossils have been found floating above the ground. And even then, you'd say that they would be contaminated by the air.
And from the text it sounds like they were found in the same location. "Not a stone's throw" is a phrase that means "not far away," in case you didn't know. With fossils that have been laying there for thousands of years, it's not unusual to find them scattered around, but in the same general area.
A hand bone, "not a stone's throw" from where they found the teeth the previous year, followed by a tibia, a crushed skull, and a crushed pelvis. This actually sounds perfectly consistent, given that "not a stone's throw" means that the bones were all found quite near to one another, and a bone distribution like this could easily happen over the course of millennia. The Earth isn't static. It moves. It changes. Bones move with it.
Contamination is irrelevant to radiometric dating without very specific kinds of contamination.
It is very presumptuous of you to believe that you are smarter than biologists and geologists that have trained in their respective fields for years when you fail at basic capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling.
So if you stumbled on an ancient graveyard with a bunch of bones from a bunch of different people, you'd say what, that we can't really know if they're all from a human because we can't match the leg with the hip it came from? I'm missing the point of the argument here.
"since the bone was found in the dirt, and were highly subject to contamination, no dating method can accurate date any of these fossils.
"
Uh... then radiometric dating would be impossible to do you dumb bitch.
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.