[_ Old Earth _] Funny (but true) pic

[John]

sorry its too big to be posted.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

 

[Heidi]

sorry its too big to be posted.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

That's great. In fact, the very first "transitional" species was sketched from a piece of bone no bigger than the palm of a hand. From that small bone that looked more like a rock than bone, a whole fictitious beast was sketched, replete with hair all over it and a Tarzan outfit. : That just proves that these beasts are the results of the imaginations of men. Boy if that's science, then if my son finds a small bone in the dirt, then he can make it into anything he wants and it will be true. :

 

[freeway]

or this..[attachment=0f350]evolution.jpg[/attachmentf350]

 

[Dunzo]

Or this:

[attachment=0:5328d]Bible.jpg[/attachment:5328d]

sorry its too big to be posted.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

That's great. In fact, the very first "transitional" species was sketched from a piece of bone no bigger than the palm of a hand. From that small bone that looked more like a rock than bone, a whole fictitious beast was sketched, replete with hair all over it and a Tarzan outfit. :

Give me proof you aren't making this up.

 

[kenan]

the verses on the second pic were too small to read, but the other ones were gold

 

[John]

Or this:

[attachment=0:6d789]Bible.jpg[/attachment:6d789]

sorry its too big to be posted.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

Yes i know this is a dual edged sword, the problem is your side is dull :

 

[jwu]

I don't see much true information in that picture.

- Lucy commonly considered a chimp? That's news to me...i smell a blatant lie.

- Homo heidelbergensis reconstructed from a normal human's jaw? A flat out lie:

This is neither just a jaw nor a modern homo sapiens.

- Nebraska man, we already have talked about this one. It was never accepted in the scientific community, much less "scientifically build up". A plain lie.

- Piltdown man: A fake exposed by science.

- Peking man: judging by the drawings of the fossil an ordinary homo erectus. The loss of this specific specimen is regrettable but not a big deal.

- Neanderthal man was prone to arthritis, but that does not explain the difference of the skeleton. Note that while the comic implies that only one specimen has been found, in reality many have been found. That includes children which are free of arthritis but still differ significantly from modern humans.

Here a direct comparison including specific features in detail:
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/200 ... _image.jpg

- New Guinea man? I have never heard of any such fossil. It appears to have been made up by Jack Chick. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

- Cro magnon is "at least equal in physique and brain capacity" - what about the different looking skeleton? A skull can be different and still house just as much brain matter.

Here is a direct comparison on that famous series of skulls: M shows a cromagnon skull, N a modern human one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... s2_big.jpg
Are these identical? I think the answer is a clear "no".
The comic's implication of them being identical based on just one matching criterion is pure deception.

 

[John]

Are these identical? I think the answer is a clear "no".
The comic's implication of them being identical based on just one matching criterion is pure deception.

Are these ?

Nope, but they are both 100% human.

 

[jwu]

Do you propose that cro magnon man is the result of a disease?

What about the other cases? Do you condone this blatant case of "lying for Jesus"?

 

[Heidi]

Do you propose that cro magnon man is the result of a disease?

What about the other cases? Do you condone this blatant case of "lying for Jesus"?

Sorry, jwu, but until scientists look at all possibilities instead of just one, when looking at skulls, then nothing they say is credible. Archeologists went looking for apemen to prove Darwin's theory. So talk about bias, their bias isn't even subtle!!! Inf act, before Darwin, all skulls and bones were just left alone. Scientists didn't even give them a second thought. Now every bone they find, they read into it what they want to read. then they brainwash the public into seeing what they see. And people too stupid enough to not understand why apes can't breed human descendants, believe anything they say, uh-huh,uh-huh. :crazyeyes:

 

[Heidi]

Or this:

[attachment=0:5a38b]Bible.jpg[/attachment:5a38b]

sorry its too big to be posted.

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... lution.gif

That's great. In fact, the very first "transitional" species was sketched from a piece of bone no bigger than the palm of a hand. From that small bone that looked more like a rock than bone, a whole fictitious beast was sketched, replete with hair all over it and a Tarzan outfit. :

Give me proof you aren't making this up.

All you have to do is research the first evolutionary archeologist who went looking to prove Darwin right. It took him 50 years before he found a small bone fragment in southeast Asia which turned out to be "piltdown" man which was a hoax. This "man" was sketched from nothing more than a small bone fragment that looked more like a rock than a bone. Then read my latest thread to see why it's impossible to know what kind of skin, eye and hair color these creatures had, if they were even covered in hair. That will show you that these creatures came from the imaginations of men, not evidence. ;-)

 

[jwu]

Sorry, jwu, but until scientists look at all possibilities instead of just one, when looking at skulls, then nothing they say is credible. Archeologists went looking for apemen to prove Darwin's theory. So talk about bias, their bias isn't even subtle!!!

And the one who would find a fossil that is incompatible with the ToE would be come famous. Papers which critique other people's finds are absolutely common. There is no confirmation bias.

Inf act, before Darwin, all skulls and bones were just left alone. Scientists didn't even give them a second thought.

That's just patently wrong. Paleontology predates Darwin by at least 200 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology

 

[kenan]

why does this have to turn into an argument, just laugh and the picture and get over it...

 

[jwu]

why does this have to turn into an argument, just laugh and the picture and get over it...

The picture is in line with a previous discussion about early human remains. See this post for reference:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31778&start=15#p371600