what's your thought on this

Originally posted by vishvahetu
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

Nope.

I was asking you if you accept we descended from apes. If the answer to that question is a no, i'm asking you where do you think we came from.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

to twhitehead.

There isnt a person in existance, who knows the answer to that question, and you exspect me to know !

The answer is meant to be a mystery, its part of the game of life, and it shows how small and dependant we are on the unseen creator, but we certainly didnt come from nothing.

There is a creative principle at work here, and its inconcievable

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, 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 Ch ...[text shortened]... turn you shall make a public recantation of your atheistic vows and seek truth!

Viva España!

There are some remains Rob, and they tell us a lot. I'll explain why.

If we are to test the hypothesis that we descended from apes, we should expect to find fossils that are ape like, slowly changing into fossils that are more human like in a chronological order. By more human like i mean, bigger brain size, the ability to walk on two legs, parabolic jaw (we are the only species of primate to have a parabolic jaw), skulls joing the neck at the base of the skull.

And that is what we find. Granted there isn't a great deal, but they will be found. But the fossils that we have show a progression from ape to human in chronological order.

And then there is the genetic evidence to pile on top.

Feel free to interject your evidence for your 'alternative' hypothesis at any point.

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

Is that the full strength of your argument? The Piltdown Hoax? Let me get this straight, on the basis of a single hoaxed fossil you reject the thousands of other fossils that have been carefully examined by hundreds of archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists etc and considered to be genuine? Not to mention the tens, no, probably hundreds of thousands of artefacts of material culture? And you honestly expect people to listen to your ideas of what god is? You are clearly delusional. And incidentally, Charles Dawson (amateur palaeontologist and serial fraudster) faked the Piltdown remains in order to achieve personal fame and glory, not to validate Darwin.

Check out Bilsborough's text on Human Evolution for more information on reliable fossils - it's not quite up to date, but it's easily accessible with lots of clear pictures.

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 😳

Why would you imagine there would be 'squillions' of them? There should be a few... and (oh my goodness!) there are. No evidence for angels though, which I'm guessing you do believe in?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is that the full strength of your argument? The Piltdown Hoax? Let me get this straight, on the basis of a single hoaxed fossil you reject the thousands of other fossils that have been carefully examined by hundreds of archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists etc and considered to be genuine? Not to mention the tens, no, probably hundreds of t fossils - it's not quite up to date, but it's easily accessible with lots of clear pictures.

to avalanchethecat

Yes but, why does finding some bones make a man famous, because there not just anyold bones, are they?....but bones to support mr Darwin (you see)

Anyhow its all B/S, because they found some human like bones, and say its a progression of change, BUT its not.....what it is, is another species of human being.

There is more than one species of human, are you not aware of that, and they wrongly concude that the ape is changing to a human (how silly) and wrong

vishva

ALSO that is not the full streanghth of my comment, i am just warming up

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to avalanchethecat

Yes but, why does finding some bones make a man famous, because there not just anyold bones, are they?....but bones to support mr Darwin (you see)

Anyhow its all B/S, because they found some human like bones, and say its a progression of change, BUT its not.....what it is, is another species of human being.

There is more t ...[text shortened]... and wrong

vishva

ALSO that is not the full streanghth of my comment, i am just warming up

I take it you don't accept we descended from pirmates then?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
ALSO that is not the full streanghth of my comment, i am just warming up

Well maybe you should get warmed up before posting, because your cold starts are not much good.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I take it you don't accept we descended from pirmates then?

to Proper knob

whats a pirmates....please

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Proper knob

whats a pirmates....please

vishva

A primate is a member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains prosimians (including lemurs, lorises, galagos and tarsiers ) and simians (monkeys and apes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Put more simply, do you think we evolved from apes?

If not, what's your alternative theory?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There are some remains Rob, and they tell us a lot. I'll explain why.

If we are to test the hypothesis that we descended from apes, we should expect to find fossils that are ape like, slowly changing into fossils that are more human like in a chronological order. By more human like i mean, bigger brain size, the ability to walk on two legs, parabolic ape to human in chronological order.

And then there is the genetic evidence to pile on top.

haha, speculation built upon a hypothesis! we are not interested in what is plausible my dear friend, but what is true. alas you are clearly not ready for baptism yet i will need to postpone it until after the footie.

there isnt a great deal? what are we talking dear Noobster? let me spell it out for you.

'You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,' Elwyn Simons of Duke University.1

'The known fossil remains of mans ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years. - New York Times.2

'The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.' Science Digest.3



1. Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.
2. The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.
3. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, speculation built upon a hypothesis! we are not interested in what is plausible my dear friend, but what is true.

1. Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.
2. The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.
3. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

You don't know the truth, robbie, especially not you.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why would you imagine there would be 'squillions' of them? There should be a few... and (oh my goodness!) there are. No evidence for angels though, which I'm guessing you do believe in?

well in eighty thousand years you would think that they would have at least procreated to the extent that there was more evidence than that which can fit on a coffee table. What this has to do with my belief in angels, who can tell? are you saying that belief in a missing link is akin to belief in angels, that atheism founded upon Darwinian evolution is a religion like any other? well well, who'd have thought it. 😛

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A primate is a member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains prosimians (including lemurs, lorises, galagos and tarsiers ) and simians (monkeys and apes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Put more simply, do you think we evolved from apes?

If not, what's your alternative theory?

to Proper knob

Well its like this, i want to work backwards here, for instance.....

To come from apes means that the apes came from something, and that something came from another something back to WHAT....so what is that what that the darwinians say we come from in the beginning ?
vishva

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
haha, speculation built upon a hypothesis! we are not interested in what is plausible my dear friend, but what is true. alas you are clearly not ready for baptism yet i will need to postpone it until after the footie.

there isnt a great deal? what are we talking dear Noobster? let me spell it out for you.

'You could put all the fossils on th ...[text shortened]...  4, 1982, p. A18.
3. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

I've noticed all the books you quoted from are nearly 30yrs old!!!! Antiques in the anthropology world.

Nobody is denying the amount of fossils, but what we have shows a progression from ape to human. Do you doubt that??? All you seem to be hankering on about is the amount of fossils.