Flower Fossils 100,000,000 Years Out of Place? (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | Oct. 11, 2013 | Brian Thomas

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Skulls classified as erectus are considered by evolutionists to exhibit key characteristics that differentiate them from modern humans. Key characteristics include: prominent browridges; insignificant chin; large mandible; forwardly projecting jaws; a flat, receding forehead; a long and low-vaulted cranium; occipital torus; relatively large teeth; relatively large facial skeleton; and a thick-walled braincase.77 A major problem for evolutionists is that many (if not all) of the above-mentioned features, which supposedly differentiate erectus from modern humans, also occur in modern humans. This is illustrated in recent native Australians by the prominent browridges of cranium 3596 from Euston,78 and the closer affinity of the modern human cranium from Australia, WLH-50, with the Ngandong erectus, compared to modern human late Pleistocene Africans and Levantines.79 According to Shreeve,

‘While some of the early modern humans from Australia look much like people today, others bear all the markings of a more robust kind of human, with thick skull bones, swollen browridges, and huge teeth, even bigger than those of Homo erectus in some specimens.’80
Examples of other typical erectus-type features in modern humans, such as flattish receding forehead and insignificant chin development, can be seen in a photograph of a living native Australian, published in the late Victorian age, when there was appalling racism within anthropology.81 Native Australians are as human and ‘modern’ as anyone else, and so the above erectus-type features cannot be considered ‘primitive’.

Stringer and Gamble, advocates of the Out of Africa theory of modern human origins, referred to the presence of the erectus-type features in Australian Aborigines as perhaps ‘apparent evolutionary reversals’,82 triggering a heated response from a group stating ‘such statements and their implications are unfortunate’.83 Controversy aside, the statement does illustrate the chameleon-like nature of evolution theory, which appears plastic enough to accommodate almost any scenario. Clearly, there is no valid basis for rejecting erectus fossils as being fully human because of skull features that some evolutionists regard as being ‘primitive’ characters. “

http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-1-the-genus-homo

[Jeremiah Jr]

Here's the formula.

1000 (years) = 1 (day)
1 (day) = 1000 (years)

Tehillim 90

Say you want to know the age of the 6000 years of human history...

First plug in the lunar year numbers. After all the Hebrew word for year is Shana, Shin Nun Hei.

Gematria of Shana is 355

Shin = 300
Nun = 50
Hei =5

Which is the number of days in the year, the lunar year...

A lunar calendar is a calendar that is based on cycles of the lunar phase. Because there are about twelve lunations (synodic months) in a solar year, this period (354.37 days) is sometimes referred to as a lunar year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar

So: 354.37 x 1000 (day) = 354370 x 7000 (1 week) = 2480590000 x 6 (millennium) = 14,883,540,000 years.

Note: This criteria differs from the scientific age. The scientific age measures from the big bang to the present day, my calculations are from the Tzimtzum to 6 millinum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum

Still confused see: Genesis 2 ''but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Adam did not die the 'day' he ate from the tree of knowledge. He lived 930 years.

For more background See: The Missing Link in the Debate, Isibiel Myrna Cohen
http://www.yashanet.com/library/missing_link.htm

[Religion Moderator]

Do not bring disputes from prior threads to new ones - and do not make the thread “about” another Freeper. That is also “making it personal.”