i believe tih postulated that here a long time ago.
Is that supposed to be an improvement?? lol
I am convinced we know nothing or next to nothing about anything =o)
ping!
Relying on deliberate misstatements and misinterpretations is never going to get the ‘thumpers far. . . unless, of course, the goal is to prove idiocy.
bookmark to read later
And then their equally convinced about that!! It’s insane.
“most important ever”
They just don’t care. As long as it’s not the Bible way, then they might have to question their own behavior, and have a population who sees God as the source of their Rights, rather than SCOTUS.
Hmmm.
This is just a theory (can I get a government grant?), but I postulate that our early ancestors, faced with a growing body of lazy, inept, whining, morons in their population (liberals), excised them from the rest of the group in order to save the remainder.
Over time, they (liberals) evolved into the hairy, orifice-scratching, sub-humans that we know as apes and monkeys.
Maybe that’s why they’re into Gaia worship - think of it as a generational retirement plan.
Could have been the offspring of Tarzan and Jane...
As I understand it, the consensus idea of evolution has for at least a century been that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. I don’t see how this discovery changes that in the least.
These images, provided by the journal Science, show reconstructed frontal views of "Ardi," a hominid who lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago.
How does that 4.4 million year figure work with the young Earth theory?
It either blows up the YEC theory or blows up the article in YEC eyes.
You can't have it both ways.
Well the question I always ask evo’s is if we evolved from apes, why did we evolve with the immediate need to clothe ourselves. Seriously, if we aren’t bundled up immediately we would die. Makes no sense. The best answer I got was basically, hairless was more sexy, and that’s why we are here. So this argument makes sense inthat respect. Still blatantly false.
You posted an actual evolutionist link to debate. Good, I have no negative comments for that. Go at it.
This is all speculation of course.
Any "scientist" who can say such a thing with a straight face is an idiot.
If humans have evolved less than chimps in a given timespan it's because humans were better suited to their environment to begin with. Or because humans soon started adapting the environment to fit themselves rather than the other way around. Which doesn't exactly sound "primitive" to me.
“Among other things, research on the 4.4 million year old creature suggests that humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than the great apes — like chimps and gorillas — of today. “
GGG. You are posting another pro-evolution article! Amazing. That is two just today!
How would that work, exactly? I mean, the hippies tried this in the ‘60s, but most of them can still talk. Sort of.
This evolution stuff is still happening. I have this brother-in-law . . .
One massive slapdown was not enough for you today?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2353460/posts
What do Zera and Cornelius have to say about this?