25 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI dunno, you slacker atheists!
Please re-quote for my benefit. I must have missed it.
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.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuAnd this from the same person who earlier in the thread said:
But when a system is false, and is only created to deny the existance of a creator, then the false system does not require to be studied, and so having full academic facts relating to that false system is not a requirement to discuss the origons of man.
.....without study and research, is just lazy on your part, and is evidence of insincerety
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRob you are absolutley crackers.
there is a biblical text , which , as far as i can discern was written under inspiration, either i can give credence to the text or i can dent it. I have no reason at this moment for doing so. there is little or in some no evidence for any transition from apes to humans, if you like i shall detail the efforts that evolutionists have attempted and h ...[text shortened]... ossils and evidence! You'd be just as well believing in angels and a lot happier for it too!
All the fossils we have show a clear progression from ape to human. The genetic evidence backs this up, even you're beloved Prof Behe accepts that we descended from apes and he's a Professor of Biochemistry.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI still don't see it. Which one of those quotes supports your claim? Which one answers one of my questions? Which of my questions does it answer?
I dunno, you slacker atheists!
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 a ...[text shortened]... 4, 1982, p. A18.
3. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRob you're quotes are thirty years old!!!! That's almost antique in the study of human evolution.
I dunno, you slacker atheists!
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 a ...[text shortened]... 4, 1982, p. A18.
3. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by Proper Knoblol, very funny and very cunning, using the Master himself, well he should have stood up in court and said that God did it, the wussie!
Rob you are absolutley crackers.
All the fossils we have show a clear progression from ape to human. The genetic evidence backs this up, even you're beloved Prof Behe accepts that we descended from apes and he's a Professor of Biochemistry.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI still don't see it.
I still don't see it. Which one of those quotes supports your claim? Which one answers one of my questions? Which of my questions does it answer?
go see an optician
here is the original quote, but no licking the monitor once you read it
New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”1
“The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”2
1.New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.
2.Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain I say, the fossils exist. They clearly demonstrate convergence towards our current anatomy over time, despite occasional revisions and retractions. So do countless articles of material culture, a good number of which I myself have excavated. This is hard evidence that you dismiss on the strength of a bunch of stories which you choose to believe were divinely inspired, although you can show no evidence to support this belief.
there is a biblical text , which , as far as i can discern was written under inspiration, either i can give credence to the text or i can dent it. I have no reason at this moment for doing so. there is little or in some no evidence for ant transition from apes to humans, if you like i shall detail the efforts that evolutionists have attempted and h ...[text shortened]... ossils and evidence! You'd be just as well believing in angels and a lot happier for it too!
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that I am not happy! In fact, my dear fellow, I am a very happy person indeed, and I trust that you are too. Personally I think you would be happier if you were to study a little palaeontology (it's very rewarding), but I'm prepared to accept that I could be wrong on that point.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehead
And this from the same person who earlier in the thread said:
[b].....without study and research, is just lazy on your part, and is evidence of insincerety [/b]
Listen you twit head, if something is false, it does not need to be researched and studied, is that crystal clear enough for you to understand
vishva
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuAll you have to say on this subject can be summed up with this frankly embarrasing quote -
hey everybody.
Robbie Carrobie has all the details of the fossil evidence, or lack of, so iam going to dip out of this one thanks, and leave it in his capable hands!
vishva
Robbie Carrobie has all the details of the fossil evidence
Rob's got three quotes from nearly thirty years ago which are so outdated he might as well think the sun goes round the Earth.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's my destiny to make you see sense.
dear friends i am gonna be booted from computer by number one son, wish you well, remember dear Noobster, it is your destiny!
A grown up intelligent man still believing in Adam and Eve.
(Proper Knob shakes his head).
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuOn precisely what grounds do you make this claim that evolutionary science and the study of hominid origins is false?
to twhitehead
Listen you twit head, if something is false, it does not need to be researched and studied, is that crystal clear enough for you to understand
vishva