A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

i bet you they well find Janet Reno fossils 20.000 years later. AND say thats the bitch that burn out those people in Waco texas.

 

"Jesus would not be shocked at all, because He already stated that before His return there would be a great falling away from the faith. He stated that men would love themselves more than they would love God. Jesus got it right on. God stated that when the world see Him return all the tribes of the earth will morn because of Him, an the people will be crying for the rocks and the mountains to bury them to hide them from the face of God. No, Jesus will not be shocked at all, He already told us what is going to happen."

So then, you admit that your version of Christianity is incorrect and very far from the truth.

 

There are such fossils, and first let me say I do believe in species changing because of enviromental conditions or ditary habits. I donot believe in species changing into other species creating a totally new species. Fossils of humans and cows have been discovered and information of this kind is easy to find.
P.S. I never said the Earth was 6,000 years old. If you believe I said that, tell me what post I stated that.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050117/hominids.html

 

Actually what I just stated comes right out of the scriptures. All I admit, is what I just stated is the truth.

 

No, you see ImFuzzynuts said that Jesus would be suprised to see how people like you have twisted his words and made a mockery of his philosophy, and then you said no, Jesus would not be suprised because he knew it would happen. So you pretty mcuh just called yourself a crazy zealot, the type of crazy zealot which Jesus warned us about.

 

That's not a fossil of a modern human, as the article states. Good try, though.

 

Revelation 6:14,15,16,17.

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the cheif captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

If Paul said he was a fool for Christ, I guess you can call me a crazy zealot. I would rather be a crazy zealot, than to watch you burn in Hell. God's day of Wrath, will come. No twisting of words hear, just scripture which will be fulfilled.

 

The question was, are there fossils of humans? And the answer is, yes.

 

A different species of human.

 

yeah you silly goat humans evolved didnt you know that?

 

homonid is diferent from human

 

Different species? And here is where we leave science behind and we are now entering the world of speculation. Now could you explain to us what those major differences are? Were these humans covered with hair or did they walked humped over? Did they have extra sharp teeth, or smaller brains? Please explain the differences.

 

This is not where we leave science behind, this is where we turn even more to science. Earlier hominids were shorter, they had smaller brains, their faces were shaped differently...you can read for yourself at http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html and many other sites, such as Time, National Geographic, Scientific American, the Smithsonian Institute, the Museum of Natural History, and so on and so forth.

Not that I expect you to do anything but start claiming that this is all a pack of lies and it has been disproven.

 

almost everything they know is based on skull remains isnt it? I just watched a show on it yesterday.....how they know the earliest humans (covered in fur) walked up-right because of the would-be spine location on the bottom of the skull would require an up-right spine.

 

Earlier hominids were shorter? Well that depends on which evolutionist your are talking to, because if you believe in evolution you can have it anyway you want, because it is not based on facts. Now according to Dr. Barry Bogin, who is a professor of anthropology at the University of Michigan, one of your people, he states that we all envision our Paleolithic ancestors as being short, bent-over people with small brains. Actually, they were a tad taller with brains as large as ours. And, if alive today, they would not require hospitalization for so much degenerative disease. Admittedly, most stone-age people did not live as long as today's North Americans.
Like I said, if you want your early stone-age people small, you can find one of your people who will swear thay are small, if you want them big, another one of your people will swear they were big. It's your choice. And National Geographic just finished recanting for the Archaeoraptor hoax, Feathered fossils. Yes, real sound Science here. And if you read your own link, the Homo Habilius scull, was titled the magnificent re-creation. They should called it the magnificent phony. Yes, I'm very impressed with fake evidence.

 

It is due to science that Archaeorapter was proven to be a hoax. There are two sides to the coin.

And I suggest that you go visit some historical sites - you'll find that Europeans and colonials, just for example, were much shorter in the 18th century than Europeans and Americans are today. We have never been taller than we are now.

 

same thing happen in japan after the war japanase average height change and schools desk size have been change several times since 1945. The drastic change in diet did it. rice was no longer the only source of food along with a few vegi.

 

Yes some scientest did come forward because it was such an obvious fake that they could not hold themselves back. But that did not stop National Geographic from running the story that other scientist knew was untrue. Yet many on this same post would say, how can you not believe in evolution, have you never read National Geographic? And because some Europeans were shorter than those of today, this has little to do with Evolution but more with diet. In 1769 the average Frenchman was said to be 5 foot 6 and a half inches tall. Neanderthal man is said to be 5 ft. 6 inches tall, and it's brain is said to be slightly larger than modern man's. So what's the difference? In the November 2004 issue the editor of National Geographic stated that humans are not descended from apes, and Charles Darwin never claimed we did. This whole theory is so screwed up, that those who are pushing it don't even know what their talking about anymore. And with all that has transpired, I still see people on this post talking about fake feathered fossils and calling them trans-species. National Geographic did the most convinicing artical on Archaeorapter, and all of their art work looks so good, at least until the facts come in.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

 

National Geographic made a mistake, and they openly admitted it and corrected themselves. People make mistakes. The New York Times ran several false articles because of one of their trusted employees blatantly lied about his stories. Does that mean everything that the New York Times publishes is untrue? No.

You say, "oh, that's just diet" as though diet has nothing to do with evolution. For most people, there is still a point at which the body knows to stop growing. That our bodies now allow us to regularly grow to 5'10" or 6', and that that number is increasing because many people find tallness attractive, is a sign of development.

And finally, it is a common misconception that evolution says that humans descended from apes. Everyone quotes the process that way, and it's simply incorrect. Humans and apes are contemporaries; we both descended from a common ancestor, which we are getting closer to finding.