Is Erectus an anatomically modern human?

[Justatruthseeker]

First of all, I apologize. I thought that I was responding in the "Evidene for Evolution" thread - where you were shown to be mistaken. It gets confusing when you post the same nonsense in every thread.

Now, I asked a simple question, cant you answer?

How is your denying reality shown to be a mistake on my part?

I'll ask again, show me the different infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record?

The only nonsense I see is people trying to deny their mistakes in classification.

 

[Jimmy D]

How is your denying reality shown to be a mistake on my part?

I'll ask again, show me the different infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record?

The only nonsense I see is people trying to deny their mistakes in classification.

Good grief, you're like a broken record. I have never identified any 'infraspecific taxa' in the fossil record nor have I ever classified any species.

My first post to you was...

"Is there anything that might convince you that you're mistaken or will you cling to these weird ideas no matter what?"

It's quite straightforward, if you don't want to answer then fine, just say so.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, they are not modern humans, but simply another infraspecific taxa in the human species.

All life on this planet follows those guidelines: Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. We could do this for every species in existence.

Now look at the fossil record and notice there exist no infraspecific taxa, because they have incorrectly listed them as seperate species. The fossil record is divorced from reality due to this incorrect classification of the different infraspecific taxa within a species as seperate species. This led them to an incorrect belief in gradual evolution of species to species, when it is simply a mistaken classification of the various infraspecific taxa.

Are chimps and humans infraspecific taxa? What about humans and huskies?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please read the following article:

Technically, Earth Does Not Orbit Around the Sun

Technically, the Earth is not stationary. Geocentrism falsified.

 

[Radrook]

Technically, the Earth is not stationary. Geocentrism falsified.

I did not claim that geocentrism is true or that the Earth is stationary.
You need to desist from misrepresenting what I say.
The link I provided doesn't make those claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not claim that geocentrism is true or that the Earth is stationary.

Theologians in previous generations did claim that the Bible spoke of the Earth as being stationary, and that all of the heavenly bodies sped around the Earth. That's what I am talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theologians in previous generations did claim that the Bible spoke of the Earth as being stationary, and that all of the heavenly bodies sped around the Earth.

Did scientists agree with them back then ... that the Bible claims a stationary Earth?

Just like they do today?

 

[Loudmouth]

Did scientists agree with them back then ... that the Bible claims a stationary Earth?

Just like they do today?

We are talking about the theologians, not the scientists.

 

[Radrook]

Theologians in previous generations did claim that the Bible spoke of the Earth as being stationary, and that all of the heavenly bodies sped around the Earth. That's what I am talking about.

There are Theologians today who challenge the existence of Jesus and who tag much of the Bible as myth.
I met a pastor who was living in fornication and preaching righteousness.
The Popes peached love but approved of the Inquisition.
What theologians understood and preached isn't necessarily what the Bible meant.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are Theologians today who challenge the existence of Jesus and who tag much of the Bible as myth.
I met a pastor who was living in fornication and preaching righteousness.
The Popes peached love but approved of the Inquisition.
What theologians understood and preached isn't necessarily what the Bible meant.

And now we have theologians (i.e. creationists) who claim that all of science has to be wrong because their findings conflict with the Bible. How are those theologians (i.e. creationists) any better than the theologians you speak of?

 

[AV1611VET]

We are talking about the theologians, not the scientists.

Back then, theologians and scientists were the same.

Just like today.

 

[Loudmouth]

Back then, theologians and scientists were the same.

Just like today.

Prove it.

 

[Radrook]

And now we have theologians (i.e. creationists) who claim that all of science has to be wrong because their findings conflict with the Bible. How are those theologians (i.e. creationists) any better than the theologians you speak of?

That depends on the individual creationist and what his specific claim might be.

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends on the individual creationist and what his specific claim might be.

They wouldn't be creationists if they accepted science.

 

[Larniavc]

Back then, theologians and scientists were the same.

Just like today.

Theologians can take a hike?

 

[AV1611VET]

They wouldn't be creationists if they accepted science.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theologians can take a hike?

A long one on a short pier.

 

[Papias]

Sort of like the brain size between say a pug and a Mastiff?

So that really doesn't show evolution at all, just the variation in size and appearance that occurs within the different infraspecific taxa in the species itself. It proves no gradual evolutionary changes from species to species any more than a pug or Mastiff prove evolution to different species.

Sure it does. It easily shows the gradual change of several chimp-like features gradually to human features, over dozens of fossils, in chronological order. You could do the same with with many wolf to mastiff fossils, if you had them and had the correct dates from 50,000 years ago until now. If you'd like to do that as well, feel free.

Here's the data again:

Also, Radook - I haven't seen a response to my posts to you, #s 40 and 47. Did you see them? Does that make sense now?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

These guys were posed, weren't they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

These guys were posed, weren't they?

Yes, they all smiled real nice for the camera. As usual you have no point.