Posted on 08/21/2004 7:25:32 PM PDT by blam
I'll bet you can't make him remember that. I'll bet you couldn't shoot it into his brain on a notched bullet.
He was a case study in grasping at a particular worldview despite evidence to the contrary.
He was a case study in posting and reposting and re-reposting his canned crap no matter how thoroughly you blew it out of the water.
Well, I don't remember it either! (what did I have for breakfast.. did I even HAVE breakfast...)
Just how do we know this FACT??
Gee, anthropologists simply followed the trail of prehistoric remains back through the archaeological record and drew conclusions based upon the evidence. 'Course, being a creationist means never having to connect the dots, doesn't it?
Instead of just repeating your belief, why don't you try supporting that assertion, if you can?
how is a claim that we are more than we see without merit?
Because it is no different than stating that "the Easter Bunny did it". A naked assertion is meaningless, a non sequitur, a fundamental exercise in illogical thinking.
You got that?
How many of his pseudonyms have been banned so far?
Well, for one thing, Homo erectus seemed to have been the first hominid to spread out of Africa to establish itself over much of Europe and Asia as far away as Java. That, and it looks like a probable ancestor, although the branching off of Neanderthal probably comes somewhere in the Archaic H. sapiens line. Some of the earlier Neanderthals in the Middle East look less "extreme Neanderthal" than the robust later European specimens (which were the first found and formed our idea of what a Neanderthal is). People fully dot-connect-enabled can see a pattern in the data.
This is probably his fourth or fifth time back. It's the first in a while (maybe a year?) so I've lost count.
Which does nothing to obviate my statement. Homo Erectus didn't just up and disappear once Neanderthals came on the scene, just as it didn't disappear when Archaic Homo Sapiens appeared.
Claiming that since we could not be descended from neanderthals, therefore we must be descended from HE or AHS is like claiming that dogs couldn't be descended from wolves and must therefore be descended directly from fish.
Ted, statements like this prove you've never been able to grasp concept one when it comes to evolution.
At least two, though he's angling for another one.
If either were LESS primitive, you can bet we'd have heard THAT as a rebuttal, too.
No, it's more like a dozen. Some lasted only an hour or so. Difficult to keep score. I'll give this one maybe another 24 hours.
Is it that hard to tell the difference without dates?
"Of those links, however, this ARN page lists it as an H. sapiens specimen."
I thought all Neanderthals had been reclassified to Homo Sapiens Neanderthal?
"Typically, you have to earn some trust before you can abuse it but there are historical exceptions. Two people named Clinton come to mind."
If I ever agreed that evidence for evolution existed, the Clintons and America's election of them would be it. Then again, I think that supports de-evolution more than evolution.
"Ask your butt why it thinks this is a question."
My butt said, "Evolution is a bunch of cr*p".
Could it be you just don't like the answers since about 1859?"
I don't like some of the conclusions and I'm doubtful of some of the observations. You know I have long been a critic of radiometric dating, so to see multiple researcher's prehistoric finds being re-dated into a creationist timeframe is sweet.
Which you refuse to employ, Ted. The "more primitive" appearance (your claim) of H. Erectus and Archaic H. Sapiens does not negate the descent tree the archaeological record indicates.
Geez, you'd think Saturn was hanging over the north pole, or something.
Are you following the conversation? I do not believe that any of the others were proposed as Neanderthals, as I have not heard of any 13,000-year-old, 18,000-year-old, etc. proposed Neanderthals in Germany or anywhere else. The latest date of which I had heard was a proposed hybrid, Lagar Velho in Portugal, 26,000 years old. The differences are supposed to be quite striking in adults, although the Lagar Velho case is a child, harder to tell. Some argue that it's just a chunky "modern."
I thought all Neanderthals had been reclassified to Homo Sapiens Neanderthal?
The trend is running against. Note that on the same linked page, neanderthals are listed as "H. neanderth" or simply "Neanderthal." Thus, any interpretation of the Hahnofersand find as a Neanderthal was less than universally accepted already. You and your pal Mikey-Mike could check a few things rather than creatively misunderstanding everything in sight.
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.