Mr Laurier
Well-Known Member
- Mar 26, 2021
- 1,141
- 366
- 59
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
Why would they have been "sequestered"? And by who?That doesn't surprise me, as they would have been sequestered from the rest of the population, as were those who had leprosy.
Bingo!Look closely. Look very closely. You are covered with fine hair.
As would I if it had actually happened.
Oh brother!!Bingo!
I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?
That's how far science will go to make us look like them, isn't it?
Which one of these two pictures is the man? which one is the ape?
(No fair peeking at the urls!)
Remember what I said earlier? it's a disease?Why would they have been "sequestered"?
I would assume they did it voluntarily.Mr Laurier said:And by who?
And yet no evidence of disease is found on any of the remains.Remember what I said earlier? it's a disease?
Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
huh? Whyfore doeth thou spakest of plagues? Or maybe they were not "sequestered" at all.I would assume they did it voluntarily.
Or nether.Or maybe with a little help ... or both.
But you hath yet to showeth that the remains of Habilis are those of thy chief priest Azariah. Not hath thou showed that there was any sign of leprosy amongst yon remains.2 Chronicles 26:20 And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.
So where does that leave you?Bingo!
Depending on the ape.I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?
huh?That's how far science will go to make us look like them, isn't it?
Both are apes. One is a gorilla, the other is a human.Which one of these two pictures is the man? which one is the ape?
pft(No fair peeking at the urls!)
Amazing how they managed to sequester them by time too!That doesn't surprise me, as they would have been sequestered from the rest of the population, as were those who had leprosy.
The fact that it's not covered in cooties doesn't change my opinion one bit.And yet no evidence of disease is found on any of the remains.
Now you know why God called it "wonderful," don't you?Mr Laurier said:Habilis is not a disease.
Ya ... that's a whole different ball of wax.Amazing how they managed to sequester them by time too!
So more lies then?
No evidence of Homo habilis being found with hu Homo habilis being found with man remains.
They don't have complete skeletons, but the thing about evidence and analysis is that you can study multiple animals and multiple species to learn about how the work.
The remains of habilis we have show us that it was a primate, but differently formed from a human or an australopithecus.
Do you have the context of the quote? If it's actually from an expert I assume it's exactly the kind of internal disagreement where they don't dispute that the remains are that of a transitional primate, but don't think habilss shouls be defined as a distinct species.
A few problems with this argument.
The most recent sediment beneath the basalt layer labelled 'Tpw' is dated from the mid Pliocene age around 3 million years ago.
Dating the top most basalt layer indicates the nearby extinct Anakie volcanoes which is the source last erupted 1.5 million years ago.
Clearly these ages are too old in the context of a biblical global flood.
If creationists want to argue the dating is incorrect there is the sediment labelled 'Qpe' on top of the basalt layer.
This sediment is dated from the Pleistocene-Recent period and contains fossilized marine life due to changing sea levels as a result of climate change not the remnants of a global flood.
The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood in this region.
Debated by who? When? On what evidence? Treated by who?It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.
Bingo!
I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?
So what? What's your dog in this fight, anyway? You are constantly harping about uncertainties or parts of evolutionary theory that are less well evidenced than others, as if that was some kind of a "gotcha." Why?It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.
No, I don't.No. But you need to look closer at us.
I know what you're doing to dilute my point, as I'll show below.I don't need a biologist to tell me the difference between an ape and a human.
Just look at an ape: strong, hairy, no reading and writing skills, limited domiciles. No. Actually they aren't.
You're taking "hairy" to mean, "covered in hair follicles," whereas I mean "hairy" to mean "shaggy."Bradskii said:"Per square centimetre, human skin has as many hair follicles as that of other great apes."
As compared to what? Right now it's the best theory we've got, no matter how shakey you think it is.Because they show how shakey the whole theory is.
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?