human life began in Africa, is this not what the bible tells us?

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
[FONT=&quot]Loudmouth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
No, we don't. No modern human has a backwards sloping skull like that found in H. erectus. NONE. No modern human has the wrist morphology found in H. erectus. NONE. No modern human has a brain shaped like H. erectus. NONE.
All you are doing is avoiding these facts.
[/FONT]
There are some modern humans who display some of the features of Homo Erectus. As I said it wont be all of those features together but there will be some here and there. Erectus is older so these features would have dwindled out. But we can see the remnants of their shapes and features still in humans today. But you can see more of the Neanderthal features because they are more recent. Esp in the native people of the world.

Despite you disagreeing why would we see such a difference in humans in the natives of today from other humans that live in the cities. Why do we see the neandathal features in some of these natives like the Aborigines or the Inuits for example. There is a definite difference which shows that modern humans have a great range of variation. Why do we see modern looking humans in times where there was suppose to be ancient looking humans. Why do we see ancient looking humans in times where there are only suppose to be ancient looking humans. This shows that even going back in time there was a great amount of variation from ancient robust looking humans to modern looking humans together at the same time.

The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more ‘archaic’ humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia. How could people with such archaic traits exist only 9000–15,000 years ago when more modern-looking and gracile people had been at Lake Mungo in south-west NSW 40,000 years ago?

[FONT=&quot]Kow Swamp remains are re-dated to more than 20,000 years old : News : The University of Melbourne[/FONT]

So these Kow swamp people look like Homo erectus but only lived around 9,000 years ago. So this is an example of the erectus features in modern humans.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]After analyzing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.
[/FONT]
Mungo Man - Turning Evolution Upside Down
So here we have an example of a modern looking human in a time where the features of humans found were robust. So once again we see the possible great range of variation that was possible with humans living at the same time. Not only that Mungo man didn't have any mitochondrial DNA.

Then show us the evidence to back this claim. Stop claiming it and produce the data.
I could say the same for you. See it’s all a matter of opinion and interpretation. You can show no evidence for Darwinian evolution either. But I believe the evidence that is coming out is contradicting Darwinian evolution and I have posted several links showing this. At the very least it casts doubts of the links that evolution has created. Anyway here is some evidence for what I am talking about which I have linked many times before.


Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples

https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples



Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution!

[FONT=&quot]Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution! - English pravda.ru[/FONT]

Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection
[FONT=&quot]Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection[/FONT]

Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution

[FONT=&quot]Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution[/FONT]

Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins

[FONT=&quot]Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins[/FONT]

There is great variation among dogs. Does this mean that dogs are also human?
No but what it shows is the great variations with the dog species. That is consistent with what I am saying about humans. If you look at all the dog’s shapes they have a vast range of size and features.
Within the human DNA they are finding traces of other groups of humans. They call them different names like Neanderthals or Devonian's but they are just humans who were isolated in groups and developed their own DNA. So when they cross bred we can still see traces of the other groups DNA there. But it is being blended out over time. There maybe several groups of humans that was around to being with. It’s the same for the different races. Within all the races will be larger groups of races like all the Asians and all the Africans and Europeans.

And now you are going to ignore the evidence altogether.
No I am not ignoring anything. I am the one bringing up all these anomalies and new data that scientists are finding. Even they are not sure what is going on. The picture cannot be clearly mapped out as yet. But so far they will want to make the evidence fit a certain model being evolution. But the evidence can also support other models. There is an out of Africa model and there is a multi generational model where there were many groups of humans around the world that intermixed. But the many groups of human model can also be argued that it is showing a great variety of the one species. Its hard to believe that one line of humans evolved from apes let alone many.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

We have the genomes of both anatomical modern humans AND neanderthals from 30,000 years ago. The 30,000 year old AMH samples match our genomes today. The neanderthal DNA does not. They were separate populations with only limited crossbreeding. That is what led to the differences between the genomes.
Then why do they say we could have had up to 70% of Neanderthal DNA in us. If they find a section of Neanderthal Genes in one group of modern humans of say 4%. Then they find a different section of Neanderthal DNA say 4% in another group. Both those different lots of genes add up to 8% of the Neanderthal genes because they are different parts of it in different groups. So you times that by all the bits of Neanderthal genes they have found in modern humans and you get a lot of pieces of the original Neanderthal DNA in all the modern groups of humans adding up to the 70% they are saying. The different groups had kept that particular section of genes while the other groups kept a different section. But it is all part of the same original Neanderthal DNA when added all together. That is how I understand it and that is how I believe they are explaining it.
"If you are 2 percent Neanderthal and I'm 2 percent Neanderthal, we might not have the same Neanderthal DNA between us," said study lead author Benjamin Vernot, a population geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We might have inherited different portions of the Neanderthal genome.
This logic suggested a significant portion of the Neanderthal genome might survive within the genomes of present-day humans. Past calculations suggested that anywhere from 35 to 70 percent of the Neanderthal genome could exist in modern people.
At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans
Plus it wasn’t just the Neanderthals that we cross bred with. There were several other groups. So we have been very active in our past.
[FONT=&quot]The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia : Article : Nature[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Those same studies link humans and chimps to a common ancestor, but you ignore those studies because it contradicts your beliefs.
No they don’t. The evidence for this is even more contradictory.


Those same studies link humans and chimps to a common ancestor, but you ignore those studies because it contradicts your beliefs.
No they don’t. The evidence for this is even more contradictory.
Again, the genetic studies disprove your claim. There were separate populations with only rare cross breeding.
Well so far they have found at least three groups that may have cross bred. There maybe more. They have found bits of the DNA of those groups all around the world in different groups of people. If it was such a small amount why would we have such a wide spread in nearly all of us. If we just mated with a small group in the corner of the world then that is where the DNA would end up. But its spread right across the globe. If it was such a small amount it would have been blended out by now. It seems the genetic evidence is supporting a larger role for these other groups of humans.
First, you lie outright about the 86%. Second, the 98% is a base to base comparison. The sponge comparison is not a base to base comparison. They are simply looking to see how many genes we share. If those genes differ by 50% at the nucleotide level it still counts as a 100% match. Those are two completely different comparisons, yet you dishonestly treat them the same. You do this type of thing over and over and over.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why you have to use such deception.
Like I said before I don’t use any deception. I am merely quoting what the sites state. When they say that we are 70% like sponges in our genetics they don’t say it is to do with any particular part of the DNA. They just state it like its an amazing discovery that we are so much like a sponge in our genetics. I am not a geneticist like I said so I rely on the experts. Which are not religious ones I might add? So if anyone is lying it’s the scientific sites that are outing out this info. I would say a lot of this info maybe new as they are sequencing the genomes of different animals so new info may come out.
Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin

“The sea urchin is surprisingly similar to humans," said co-director of the sea urchin sequencing project George Weinstock, of Baylor College of Medicine. "Sea urchins don't look any more like humans than fruit flies, but about 70 percent of sea urchin genes have a human counterpart whereas only about 40 percent of fruit fly genes do."

Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin

Now look at that headline and read the write-up. This is from a science site. It is making out that we are so much alike sea urchins that their our cousins. And I thought the chimp was out cousin.

Here is another little bit of interesting info. It seems the simple sea sponge is more complicated than we thought. It even has the codes for muscle building when it doesn’t even need it. Now why would it mutate these things if it’s just a simple sponge? Maybe this shows that all creatures have a vast ability in their genomes to call upon that has always been there. I mean why have all that extra stuff sitting there when all they needed was the simple codes for being a sponge. It would have been hard enough mutating random genetics just for the sponge let alone a whole bunch of un needed genetic info.
Sponge genome goes deep : Nature News
Now here is that chimp comparison. Its actually only 70% similar if you take all things into account.
To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million ’letters’ align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless”junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Chimpanzee? - Reformatorisch Dagblad
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
[FONT=&quot]Loudmouth
[FONT=&quot]I meant to add this picture to show how modern humans still have a [FONT=&quot]resemblance[/FONT] to Homo erectus.
[/FONT][/FONT]
159.jpg


The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
[FONT=&quot]Loudmouth
[FONT=&quot]I meant to add this picture to show how modern humans still have a [FONT=&quot]resemblance[/FONT] to Homo erectus.
[/FONT][/FONT]
159.jpg


The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

You failed. Look how far above the brow ridges the top of the skull is for the modern human. That is NEVER seen in H. erectus.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
There are some modern humans who display some of the features of Homo Erectus.

As the post above demonstrates, you are wrong.

Despite you disagreeing why would we see such a difference in humans in the natives of today from other humans that live in the cities. Why do we see the neandathal features in some of these natives like the Aborigines or the Inuits for example. There is a definite difference which shows that modern humans have a great range of variation. Why do we see modern looking humans in times where there was suppose to be ancient looking humans. Why do we see ancient looking humans in times where there are only suppose to be ancient looking humans. This shows that even going back in time there was a great amount of variation from ancient robust looking humans to modern looking humans together at the same time.

Why do none of those humans fall within the variation found in H. erectus?
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]After analyzing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.
[/FONT]
Mungo Man - Turning Evolution Upside Down
So here we have an example of a modern looking human in a time where the features of humans found were robust. So once again we see the possible great range of variation that was possible with humans living at the same time. Not only that Mungo man didn't have any mitochondrial DNA.

Those are remains, not living humans and not anatomically modern humans:

"The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more ‘archaic’ humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia. "


I could say the same for you. See it’s all a matter of opinion and interpretation.

No, it isn't. It is about you misrepresenting the facts. The FACT is that no modern human falls within the H. erectus variation. Your own examples prove this fact.

You can show no evidence for Darwinian evolution either.

I have shown you the ERV evidence over and over and over. Where is your honesty?



Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
The Phylogenetic Tree Topples



https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2006/3/the-phylogenetic-tree-topples



Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution!

[FONT=&quot]Mutations Can't Produce Upward Evolution! - English pravda.ru[/FONT]

Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection
[FONT=&quot]Top Evolutionist questions role of Natural Selection[/FONT]

Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution

[FONT=&quot]Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution[/FONT]

Biologic Institute's Groundbreaking Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins

[FONT=&quot]Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins[/FONT]

And yet more science you don't understand and refuse to discuss.

No but what it shows is the great variations with the dog species.

Then why do you cite great variation in H. erectus as evidence that they were modern humans? If it is true of H. erectus, then why isn't it also true of dogs?

Within the human DNA they are finding traces of other groups of humans.

If we were the same species, you would find more than traces. That is the fact you keep ignoring.

Then why do they say we could have had up to 70% of Neanderthal DNA in us.

They don't. They say it is around 5%.

"Neanderthal-derived DNA accounts for an estimated 1–4% of the Eurasian genome, but it is significantly absent or uncommon in the genome of most Sub-Saharan African people."
Archaic human admixture with modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If they find a section of Neanderthal Genes in one group of modern humans of say 4%. Then they find a different section of Neanderthal DNA say 4% in another group. Both those different lots of genes add up to 8% of the Neanderthal genes because they are different parts of it in different groups.

It is this type of dishonest math that stop these conversations.

Like I said before I don’t use any deception. {/quote]

Like I said before, yes you do. You do it all of the time like your deceptive math above.

I am merely quoting what the sites state.

No, you aren't. You are the one who misrepresents the data. You are the one who is saying that a base to base comparison is the same as a comparison of number of homologous genes. THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME.

When they say that we are 70% like sponges in our genetics they don’t say it is to do with any particular part of the DNA.

Again, this is extremely dishonest. They say it RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE YOU CITED.

"An international team of scientists was recently surprised to discover that sea sponges -- one of the oldest multicellular life forms -- share nearly 70 percent of the same genes as human beings, according to a study published in the journal Nature."
Humans share 70 percent of genetic code with sea sponges - NaturalNews.com

70% of the same genes. Not 70% homology between every base in the genome. 70% OF THE SAME GENES. In order to be the same gene, they could share as little as 40% homology at the base level. On top of that, genes only make up 2% of the genome. The percentage given for humans and chimps is a base to base comparison of the entire genome (>90%). THE TWO NUMBERS ARE NOT COMPARABLE, and yet you keep pushing this dishonest comparison. When will this stop?

They just state it like its an amazing discovery that we are so much like a sponge in our genetics.

Why would it be amazing? We share a common ancestor with sponges.

I am not a geneticist like I said so I rely on the experts.

You dishonestly mispreresent what the experts say. Not the same thing.

Until you can start being honest, there is really no reason to continue this charade.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You failed. Look how far above the brow ridges the top of the skull is for the modern human. That is NEVER seen in H. erectus.
I never said we would expect to see all the features together. I could go and find a modern human who does have a shorter area above the brows. Put them together and we have both the features of Homo Erectus with the modern humans. If we have all those features in varying degrees within the modern humans genetic ability then its shows that the genetics for those features is still there and probably always has been. If you look at that native and other natives with features of robust humans you will see the features of Erectus and more so Neanderthals because they are more recent in many natives. You have to ask yourself why do many natives look so different to other humans that live in the cities. Natives look ancient and have the varying degrees of protruding brows, sloping foreheads, shorter foreheads, bigger jaws. Native are more isolated from main society so they retain these features from the past more. You have to admit that example does look different to other mainstream humans ans looks more along the lines of how they depict Neanderthals esp. Here are some more examples.
aborig2.jpg
mongoloid_race_raza_mongoloide.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I explained how the evidence for those theories were not written by men. It is entirely possible that the theories men have constructed are wrong. The point is that you can determine if a theory is wrong BY LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE.

I'm glad you admit they can be wrong. But I'm going so far as to say that it is often fraudulent. Scientists want to fit in with their peers and get ahead in life the same as anyone else, and there's pressure to do so. Here's a science source for you: Ask Us Anything: How Common Is Scientific Fraud? | Popular Science
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Something that happens 2% of the time is happening "often"?

When asked whether they’d ever seen misconduct among peers, 14 percent said they had. Fanelli then compared survey answers between decades to spot changes in how these shenanigans come to light. “Scientists have become less likely to admit misconduct,” he says, “but they’re no less likely to report the misbehavior of their colleagues.”

Papers out of U.S. labs tend to give stronger or more positive results than the same research queries in Europe or Canada, perhaps due to greater competition or pressure to publish. Growing awareness of misconduct might have made rogue scientists savvier. “They now know where to stop before what they do is considered intentional fraud,” Fanelli says.

Ask Us Anything: How Common Is Scientific Fraud? | Popular Science
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
When asked whether they’d ever seen misconduct among peers, 14 percent said they had. Fanelli then compared survey answers between decades to spot changes in how these shenanigans come to light. “Scientists have become less likely to admit misconduct,” he says, “but they’re no less likely to report the misbehavior of their colleagues.”

Papers out of U.S. labs tend to give stronger or more positive results than the same research queries in Europe or Canada, perhaps due to greater competition or pressure to publish. Growing awareness of misconduct might have made rogue scientists savvier. “They now know where to stop before what they do is considered intentional fraud,” Fanelli says.

Ask Us Anything: How Common Is Scientific Fraud? | Popular Science

"Ask Us Anything: How Common Is Scientific Fraud? Short answer: At least one in 50 scientists is doing something fishy"

It's right there in the title of the article. One in 50 is 2%.

Fraud is not the only form of misconduct.

BTW, if you're going to copy/paste something straight out of an article, it is polite to put it in italics or put the whole thing in quotations, especially when you cobble together something and leave out parts of paragraphs in between. That way people don't think you're committing plagiarism.

For example, the following comes right before your second unquoted paragraph

"Whatever is driving the trend, interesting patterns emerge. Fanelli found that bias varies between fields: Psychology and psychiatry are most afflicted, while astrophysics shows very little bias."

Gee, isn't astrophysics one of the fields YECs need to be full of liars for the YEC paradigm to be accepted?

As a good Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't want people thinking of you as a plagiarist, would you?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
As a good Christian, I'm sure you wouldn't want people thinking of you as a plagiarist, would you?

Hey genius, I included the link so anyone could go to the source. Quit looking for something to complain about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Hey genius, I included the link so anyone could go to the source. Quit looking for something to complain about.
Please point out where you indicated that you had deliberately chopped out several portions of the text you copypasta'd that undermined your argument.

You must really be desperate.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Like most creationists,

Now I'm being labeled as a part of a group. You seem to like labels.


you know that evidence is not on your side

Now you're a mind reader? I think you give yourself way too much credit.

so you try to falsely cast doubt on that evidence.

If you have your doubts, that's your problem. Address your doubts rather than throw them around as "false".

It is a slimeball tactic.

One of your many opinions.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Now I'm being labeled as a part of a group. You seem to like labels.

Like most creationists, you like to misrepresent the facts. You don't like the evidence, so your only tactic is to try and make it go away by whatever dishonest means are necessary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Please point out where you indicated that you had deliberately chopped out several portions of the text you copypasta'd that undermined your argument.

If you want something that I supposedly indicated pointed out, that's for you to do.

You must really be desperate.

Desperate for what? Winning some kind of prize for making my point on an internet forum?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You are desperate to make the evidence go away.

I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to say that you and yours are desperate to convince me that your "evidence" is a fact and that nobody is allowed to argue with it because, after all, you can't be wrong. Sort of like a cop who keeps asking the same question until he hears what he considers to be the truth, regardless of whether it is or not.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to say that you and yours are desperate to convince me that your "evidence" is a fact and that nobody is allowed to argue with it because, after all, you can't be wrong. Sort of like a cop who keeps asking the same question until he hears what he considers to be the truth, regardless of whether it is or not.

Why shouldn't we consider fossils to be a fact?

Turkana%20Boy.jpg


These fossils are so obviously transitional that your only recourse is to try and accuse scientists of faking the fossils. That is a despicable accusation, and one that you should be embarrassed by.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Why shouldn't we consider fossils to be a fact?

Turkana%20Boy.jpg


These fossils are so obviously transitional that your only recourse is to try and accuse scientists of faking the fossils. That is a despicable accusation, and one that you should be embarrassed by.

You can call them transitional simply because they're different, but that doesn't make it so. You saying it does doesn't make it so either.

BTW, fossils aren't facts. They're objects.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.