That is not an anatomically modern human. Skin tone is based on human norms for the lattitude that the fossil was found at. Dark skin is not limited to Africa, by the way.
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.
We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?
So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
God created those too.
Remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth. (Deut 8:18).
Evolution is real, but the explanation of it is false.
If God backs them up they are.
That is how the Bible remains true for over 3500 years.
God is watching over the written word to perform.
We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?
So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?
It MATTERS if the FACT and THEORIES don't agree.
Correct.So evolution theory may be false but you have no reason to believe it is, right?
Undoubtedly, and I bet I can guess what your reasons are...Well, some of us have reasons to believe it is false, even if you don't.
How disgusting and offensive.We all evolved from Kunta Kinte?
So the black race survived all those millions of years, eh?
Does that include you?
Evolutionists do not know what a theory means most of all. That is why they call the garbage bin of falsified irrefutable evidence past, a fact.
Perhaps you can answer the quandry of how your fossil evidence supports ancestry to chimp like as well a ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp?
Now I again challenge you evolutionists to do the same thing yourselves. After all this is your scenario of human evolution.
Go on...give us creationists a description of what an intermediate before the rise of modern man should look like as we evolved from some kind of ape?
Given you have no idea what the comon ancestor looked like you are going to have fun. Are intermediates supposed to have a mix of chimp/human characteristics now that your researchers know the common ancestor was not chimp-like? Perhaps you wil go with ape like. In this case which ape? Mankind shares more morphology with an orangutan than a chimp.
Homo Erectus is much more primitive than once thought due to new finding on sexual dimorphism akin to Gorillas.
New fossils reveal different theory on human ancestors - CNN.com
There is no order in the fossil record of human ancestry at all.
The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull
You evolutionists also have no fossil evidence to demonstrate chimp ancestry back to any common human/chimp ancestor.
You go right ahead and defend your science. None of you will be able to is my expectation. I predict more excuses and no resolution.
Evolutionists all like to sprooke about the huge amount of evidence you have to support evolution. However you evolutionists are unable to put any substance to just one line of evidence re human ancestry.
At present the research supports creationist paradigms.
Homo erectus is very primitive and ape like. I have already spoken to Turkana Boy and his ape features that demonstrate discontinuity with mankind. Huge ape like sexual dimorphism further supports my claim. Habilis was not the ancestor of erectus as the two coexisted for millions of years apparently and according to your current thinking. Now you need another ancestor 2-3mya. Was it Lucy, Afarensis? Lucy is a 3.5ft ape with curved fingers and likely not the maker of the Laetoli footprints. It is also unlikely that the human femor and human metatarsel belonged to her.
Now you or any evo please tell me what you look for in human intermediates that suggest mankind evolved from a question mark.
Please put some substance behind your claims, otherwise creationists are going to win this round on human ancestry to a question mark....by miles.
Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!
How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.
Ahh yes, it appears that we have plumbed the depths of creationism, and it is quite shallow. If ever there was any doubt that creationists refuse to have an honest debate about evolution this post should clear it up for you.
Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!
How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.
Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!
How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.
The real living fossils that support our own evolution can be seen in the fetus as the embryo grows through undeniable evolutionary stages of development, retracing its own metamorphosis from earlier species that had fish tails and later, gills, and so on:
On your side you ignore what Genesis actually says so you can pretend it doesn't agree with evolution.
The heaven were created 13.5 billion years ago, and after a Cosmic Dark Age, light did begin to shine.
A pangea-type "gathering of all the waters under heaven into one place" occurred just before the Plant Kingdom appeared on earth, followed by the Animal Kingdom.
Every actual verse in Genesis conforms to what we now know.
Except, we could easily identify it as a true bird, not a 'seal to bird' intermediate (such a thing would disprove evolution entirely - according to evolution, species cannot cross taxa, they can only split into sub-taxa).Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!
Scientists, by and large, don't use the term 'transitional fossil', because they understand that, in evolution, every fossil is a 'transition'. To label a given species as a 'transitional fossil' begs the question as to what makes it a transition, and not a species in its own right. No, we fully understand why Creationists continually demand more and more transitional fossils: they don't understand what it is they're asking for.How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Imagine the cute and cuddly Penguin went extinct before we knew what it was. Some evo digs up a fossil of the cuddly critter. Look watson! We found a seal to bird intermediate! Or or, a bird to seal intermediate! Good job sherlock!
How many other birds/mammals/animals we could use for this illustration. Countless. Yet, somehow, amazingly, everytime an evo puts an "intermediate" tag on a fossil we're just supposed to accept it as such.
Uhhh, no thanks. Just because you call it a transitional, doesn't make it...transitional. They have NO IDEA. Whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.
Then there are those pesky "living fossils" that the evo's don't ever mention.
[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif'][/font]Erm...I maybe have misread this post, but this sounds a lot like recapitulation theory, which is disproven.
Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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?