Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
You can have it back, i don't fancy having a beard and neither does my love interest.
Okay, let's go with your statement and examine it a bit. Where did Euglena get the eye-spot (it does see light from it). How did the eye of other species descend from Euglena? (and by that I mean through what species).
Note one thing, if there is a match between the eye-spot of the Euglena AND you can find the direct lineage of that trait through other higher species, then you can say that this is proof of evolution. However, if:
1. you cannot find where the Euglena got the eye spot.
The above is the assumption of evolutionists. Assumptions are not science. Assumptions are not facts. Assumptions are not proof of anything. To prove such a thing you need evidence and you have none at all.
The skulls were totally unclassified. If we knew indeed what species those skulls were from, then they would not be unclassified. More likely than not, those skulls were also not of very certain date either. Just a set of skulls from who knows where, from who knows what date, without any supporting scientific evidence are worth nothing. That is why the experts themselves do not count them in any account of the species of man. They don't have enough information to determine just what the heck they are. Vade, has even less knowledge to make such a determination. All he is doing is throwing garbage on the wall to see if it sticks. That is proof of nothing.
They have now been classified TOP SECRET "EMBRYONIC." You will be forwarded instructions on how to degauss your head.
And why doesn't he want one?
Yup, only fakes lift arguments. Only fakes try to prove their point by building strawmen out of the silliest things said by opponents. Only fakes try to discredit all opponents by using the most stupid arguments from some opponents. Lastly, only fakes do not source such a blatant misrepresentation of the oppositions arguments. You may have won one point through trickery, however that was only the fourth point against Rhodesian Man being a homo sapiens. You already had 3 strikes and you and your phony skull were out.
Since you seem to be making a habit lately of not answering to the posts you respond to but to other posts so that people cannot follow the thread, here are the other 3 strikes from post#1953:
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
lol, i realized that sounded strange after i posted.
That has got to be the most stupid, inane thing I have ever seen you post...all it needs is a few hyphens in it, and it will be right up there with you know who!
No, it is not a stupid post at all. It is called sarcasm. It is called making fun of what the opponents are saying. It is called humor - something which an ideologue like yourself knows nothing of.
So answer the question. Can kind of a tree is it which is built by drawing a few lines? What kind of a tree is it that has none it ressembles in reality? What kind of a tree can fit all the millions of species which have walked the earth since life began? I will give you the answer because like the rest of the evolutionists here you are good at hurling insults but not at answering serious questions. It is a fantasy tree. It is an unreal tree. It is a tree that does not exist. A diagram, a sketch, a chart, are proof of nothing. Their validity rests only on the underlying facts they purport to represent. You and your evo friends are trying to pass off a diagram as proof of evolution. It is proof of nothing. You are just avoiding giving a serious answer to a serious question: the evolution of species, where did they descend from, what is the proof of their descent from other species? You cannot answer those questions so you put up a phony tree as proof. Lame, very lame.
Nice spin. However, he knew he was attacking religion, he said so. He tried to cover up, was asking another whether he should try to cover it up even more. So yes, he was lying about his knowingly attacking religion with his theory. So my statement that he was a hypocrite in matters of religion is proven by the facts I presented.
No you are not. The Bible says "you shall know them by their deeds". Your deeds disprove your assertions.
The bones you were trying to pass off as the ancestors of homo sapiens were indeed the re-dated, re-classified remains of some Java fossils. Given the lack of scientific professionalisms in the articles you post the actual name of the re-classied specimen was never given in the article. To call me a lier for calling an un-named specimen of a man from Java 'Java Man' is really looking for excuses to insult someone - and I will be expecting an apology.
However, if you wish me to prove the above, I will gladly do so. I kept the article for laughs and can easily repost it if you like.
There's a thread based on the article, not linked, but it's full of sob-stories about freepers who lost their dogs, and they ignore the evolution angle.
Correct, these characteristics were determined by looking at evidence, evidence from living species. They were not determined by theory, by equations, or by some kind of mathematical proof. They were determined by observation. The phony science of paleontology is trying to replace observatioon with circular reasoning. It is trying to say that just because other mammals had those qualities all others must do so. As I pointed out many times already live bearing has a much greater necessary connection to mammary glands than ear-bones or anything else you mention above. The connections of those features to mammary glands are coincidental not necessary therefore the presence of those features in species which are supposed to be evolving proves nothing about other features which may have been present in those unknown, not living species.
The Fossil Hominids: References. TalkOrigins does no original research, of course. They compile from the publications of the original researchers.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
You asked for "after 200,000 years ago." Rhodesia Man's dating range centers nicely in the interval you requested. All of the older, non-C14-dated skulls have similarly large ranges. Thus, you apparently don't ever have to accept any older fossil skull, if any uncertainty in age will do as grounds for rejection.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
Yeah, they changed the name. Boy, that proves a lot! Actually, it's Homo sapiens (archaic), most would say. Recall that any erectus after 400,000 years is controversial.
I am asking exactly what is the ancestor of both Euglena and man. Where did Euglena get the eye-spot? Where did man get it? You cannot answer it so you insult. A theory cannot prove itself and that is what you are proposing. Sorry, I am not an ideologue like you, I require facts, I require evidence. You do not have them, you do not have the vaguest idea of what the evidence is. You are just trying to brazen it out with insults and sophistry.
With Viagra, all things are possible, but that would be pushing it a bit.
No, it is not plagiarism when you put something in quotes. It is only plagiarism when you try to pass something off as your own. Of course, any chance at insulting or discrediting someone you disagree with is fair game eh Oldcats? Guess it shows your Christian charity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.