All based on the tooth of a pig, I think it is time you guys pulled the hands away from your own eyes!
. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
All based on the tooth of a pig, I think it is time you guys pulled the hands away from your own eyes!
. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Of course you can't.
but this link does show Nebraska Man on the cover of other magazines.
Really? *WHAT* link? You didn't post one.
My original source might be mistaken,
Of course it might, you rely on creationist sources, which is a huge mistake if you're looking for accuracy.
for Nebraska Man was in LIFE Magazine,
It was? Feel free to document *that* if you think you can. The image you posted was actually from the Illustrated London News, in a puff piece. The artist actually modeled his imaginative drawing on REAL hominid fossils (Pithecanthropus), so it's not like he was actually basing anything on the Nebraska tooth.
Furthermore, even the discoverer of the Nebraska tooth immediately disowned the Illustrated London News illustration, saying "such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
I most likely had a memory blurb and said TIME, sorry. All based on the tooth of a pig, I think it is time you guys pulled the hands away from your own eyes!
Even if you can document your *new* claim (and I won't hold my breath, when did we *ever* suggest that "Life" magazine (or for that matter, the London Illustrated News) was a reputable science journal, or accurately represented scientific findings? The *actual* scientists immediately criticized the drawing.
We have nothing to apologize for here. On the other hand, *you* need to explain how an alleged flub by "Life" magazine is somehow supposed to reflect badly on science.
Those who would like to learn the actual history of the "Nebraska Man" issue, instead of the wild creationist spin which dishonestly implies that scientists jumped to crazy conclusions or acted irresponsibly, are invited to read:
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManThe role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate
That wasn't Life. And it was NEVER accepted by science. And notice you again are unable to refute one thing I said in my previous post and in the previous thread.