what's your thought on this

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to chess artist

theres no such thing as prehistoric man, thats just the silly darwinian goobly gook that they try and spoon feed you at school.

There is a wealth of evidence to support the existence of prehistoric man. Do you think it is all fabricated?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't recall asking for proof for anything. What I have asked for in the past is justification for some of your statements in the past, and you were not very forthcoming.

[b]You cant prove that a non existant thing, is non existant, because its non existant in the first place...get it !
No, I don't get it. I personally am quite convinced that I ...[text shortened]... the onus is on you, to prove that anything you say is not goobly gook, because I claim it is.[/b]

to twhitehead

OK you say you dont accept a creator/ intelligance, but you are intelligent, so what is the source of your intelligence, and the source of your body, and the source of the universe you are in?

vishva

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There is a wealth of evidence to support the existence of prehistoric man. Do you think it is all fabricated?

to avalanchethecat

If you mean prehistoric ape-man, that origonally was an ape, and turned into a man, then there is no evidence, and to fool the general public, the darwinians manufactured the pilt down man, which turned out to be a hoax, bacause they didnt have the proof, so they decieved the people, and were found out, did you mean that proof, aaaah

vishva

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as you are aware my friend, the number of bones supporting a 'link', from apes to humans could fit on a medium sized coffee table, surprise surprise given the eighty or so thousand? million? squillion? of years this transition would have taken one would think that there would have been a plethora of evidence. You see what happens when your Catholi ...[text shortened]...
2.Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737

That's where genetics comes in Rob.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to avalanchethecat

If you mean prehistoric ape-man, that origonally was an ape, and turned into a man, then there is no evidence, and to fool the general public, the darwinians manufactured the pilt down man, which turned out to be a hoax, bacause they didnt have the proof, so they decieved the people, and were found out, did you mean that proof, aaaah

vishva

Do you not accept the fact we descended from apes?

If not where did we come from?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's where genetics comes in Rob.

my dear sir, we are not interested in a speculative hypothesis, where are the bones?, there should be squillions of them, so either make with the readies or be converted like twhitehead and agers.

edit - ooops wrong thread 😳

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my dear sir, we are not interested in a speculative hypothesis, where are the bones?, there should be squillions of them, so either make with the readies or be converted like twhitehead and agers.

edit - ooops wrong thread 😳

"we are not interested"? We, robbie, we? Why not say "I" when you really mean "I", meaning you are not interested.
Of yourse you are not interested in genetics. You are not interested in anything that threaten your fragile faith.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my dear sir, we are not interested in a speculative hypothesis, where are the bones?, there should be squillions of them, so either make with the readies or be converted like twhitehead and agers.

edit - ooops wrong thread 😳

Speculative hypothesis my bottom. That's what you're Adam & Eve bedtime story is.

Why should there be squiliions of them? Homo sapiens were but a small branch of the primate tree contained within a small part of Africa up until 80,000yrs ago. Genetic studies show that everybody out of Africa descended from a group of 200 or so pioneers who left Africa. So i fail to see how why there should be squiliions of them.

As you well know (or maybe you don't), for something to fossilize it has to die in the right place and under the right conditions. ie a river/stream/lake. That's not where we 'hangout'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Speculative hypothesis my bottom. That's what you're Adam & Eve bedtime story is.

Why should there be squiliions of them? Homo sapiens were but a small branch of the primate tree contained within a small part of Africa up until 80,000yrs ago. Genetic studies show that everybody out of Africa descended from a group of 200 or so pioneers who left ace and under the right conditions. ie a river/stream/lake. That's not where we 'hangout'.

Robbie is not interested in science.
But he believs in science when it proves his ideas.
The rest of science, he doesn't believe in.
That's Robbie, a member of a JW cult.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Speculative hypothesis my bottom. That's what you're Adam & Eve bedtime story is.

Why should there be squiliions of them? Homo sapiens were but a small branch of the primate tree contained within a small part of Africa up until 80,000yrs ago. Genetic studies show that everybody out of Africa descended from a group of 200 or so pioneers who left ...[text shortened]... ace and under the right conditions. ie a river/stream/lake. That's not where we 'hangout'.

80,000 years ago, well there should at least have been some remains, you know, more than enough to fill a coffee table, why is it so hard for you guys to admit that your evidence is scant, inconclusive and in some cases fraudulent.

News Flash, a bone does not need to be fossilised for us to examine it!

Now my friend, i must return to the Chile v Spain match, upon my return you shall make a public recantation of your atheistic vows and seek truth!

Viva España!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you not accept the fact we descended from apes?

If not where did we come from?

to Proper knob

Are you tempting me to answer the chikcen or the egg debate, which has raged for ever, well to come from an ape means that we came from the thing before the ape, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, back to nothing, so we didnt come from nothing....so it remains a mystery aaah

vishva

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
80,000 years ago, well there should at least have been some remains, you know, more than enough to fill a coffee table,

Can you give an actual argument as to why there should be more remains than have been discovered? So far, you have just repeated the claim several times, but given no reasoning as to why you believe it to be the case.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
OK you say you dont accept a creator/ intelligance, but you are intelligent, so what is the source of your intelligence,

I believe I am intelligent because that is the way my brain works. I don't think it has a 'source' beyond that.

and the source of your body,
What do you mean by 'source' here?

and the source of the universe you are in?
Again, what do you mean by source?
I do not know whether the universe had a beginning, or how it began, but I certainly think it highly unlikely that a creator intelligence was involved.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Are you tempting me to answer the chikcen or the egg debate, which has raged for ever, well to come from an ape means that we came from the thing before the ape, and the thing before that, and the thing before that, back to nothing, so we didnt come from nothing....so it remains a mystery aaah

I think he just asked an honest question ie where do you think we came from. You apparently don't know or have any beliefs on the matter - or don't want to say.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
If you mean prehistoric ape-man, that origonally was an ape, and turned into a man, then there is no evidence,

There is plenty of evidence. You may argue that the evidence is flawed or invalid in some way, but you would have to explain why. But to simply say 'there is no evidence' is false.

and to fool the general public, the darwinians manufactured the pilt down man, which turned out to be a hoax, bacause they didnt have the proof, so they decieved the people, and were found out, did you mean that proof, aaaah
And all the other evidence? Why did you pick on one known hoax? Why not address the evidence in question?