Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.
I mean those things they dig up and copy-and-paste together until it looks like something that walked around dragging its knuckles on the ground ... then calling it a "transitional species."
Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.
Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
Note: After looking at pics of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal, I see I'll have to come up with another species, as they walked upright.
Maybe scientists would give him is own classification.
Like: Homothisthing haroldcookii.
So does that make Australopithecus afarensis a hoax or is it just the Lucy skeleton?
How does the fact that it's incomplete make it a hoax?
It's quite a bold statement you're making accusing respected scientists etc of lying, I'm curious as to what extent you've studied the bones and in what way you're qualified to dispute their findings.
I'll assume that the fact that my questions remain unanswered is indicative that the posters claiming that Lucy is a hoax are talking out of their hats with nothing to back up their assertions.
Plenty of info on the net about it. Not to mention, scientists have a bad track record when it comes to fossils.
Are you saying that they're lying or mistaken? Either way it's quite an accusation. I suppose the fact that you've read something on a blog qualifies you to make such assertions.
I still don't know why Lucy is a hoax though.
Do some research friend, you will see.
I'll have a quick google this afternoon if I get a chance.
Apparently scientist do believe in unicorns
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-humans-unicorns-earth.html
QV please:Lucy is no hoax, Abraxos. Where on earth did you get that idea? Creation-science propaganda, I am guessing.
In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man." (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810. ) In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like." (Science 81, 2(2):53-55.) Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a brain case size the same as that of a chimp 450 cc and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1,979, pp. 68-69).
Did you intend to post something completely irrelevant, or was it an accident?
What I see going on here: is that people are claiming Lucy is not a hoax because they have something in their possession (40% of some skeleton whose gender happens to be in question), and therefore it is classified as "Lucy," and that's good enough for them.Did you intend to post something completely irrelevant, or was it an accident?
Ain't no thang.sfs said:ETA: Hmm, that came out a little harsher than intended. It was supposed to be snarky, but not that snarky.
I guess it depends on how you look at it.sfs said:Nonetheless, the posted quotations have nothing to do with the question of Lucy being a hoax.
LOL.
Unicorns are real. Of course the made-up Hollywood unicorns, where beautiful = good and ugly = evil , are not real just like Garfield, Mario, Mickey Mouse, Santa, Zelda, etc, as they are not meant to be real.
This is one place where those who wrote KJV didn't use the best word in their translation . It's should have been rhino instead of unicorn since a unicorn by definition has only one horn. It's even speak about one horn will be greater than the other (ten thousands of Ephraim vs thousands of Manasseh) just like you find on a rhino. No big deal since at that time they understood a unicorn to be a rhino.
There are many unbiblical ideas which are based on inaccurate translations of the original languages in which the Bible was written. Fortunately there are also translations that do not repeat those mistakes. Those who attempt to discredit the Bible, of course, prefer to use the ones that are known to be incorrect.
No translation is perfect. However, some are better than others. Its about seeking truth with the heart, not building a Rocket engine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?