Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Robert_js, Feb 20, 2004.
It isn't. It is scientific fact.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The day that Darwinian evolution is a "scientific fact" is the day that monkeys will fly out of my ass, but you're entitled to cultivate a delusion, afterall, if you're gonna lie, lie big.
After a couple of generations of Darwinian indoctrination by the public schools of America, over 50% of Americans still believe that Darwinism is fallacious, and that number is climbing.
That is a clear indictment of the public school system, not of Darwinism.
How are you going to feed all those monkeys?
Oph, don't forget all those nifty Darwinian "documentaries" which flood the cable TV systems, and the Darwinian propaganda proliferated as fact at our institutes of higher learning.
It is a fact.
It's certainly possible. There is no proof we evolved from apes, we might be a seperate species entirely that evolved from the same sea mammal that apes evolved from. I mean this is like saying turkeys evolved from chickens, that might not be true even if they are of the same family.
I spent some time researching your theory and rejected it...now in fairness you should directly address the issues I raised.
Humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. DNA studies prove it.
The only reason the marine mammal theory exists is because certain people refuse to believe how easy it is for humans to migrate all over the planet, and how long this has been happening. Sea levels have changed recently, covering land bridges. Also, I think ancient humans were capable fishermen, and no doubt knew how to float on a raft. After the tsunamis in asia, people were found floating on debris hundreds of miles offshore.
What supposed common ancestor was that?
What do you mean by "what"? It was a common ancestor, no doubt ape-like in appearance.
The big seeming consesus among Darwinists is that is was an "ancestor" of the tree-shrew," hardly "ape-like in appearance," I guess the Darwists have no agreement on this afterall, and if it supposedly was of "ape-like appearance," why not just call it an ape?
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. The common ancestor of modern apes and humans probably looked more like an ape than a human, but not having seen one, it's impossible to determine it's exact physical characteristics. We do know, however, that it must have existed.
Then the great number of Darwinists who say it was a shrew ancestor also "don't have the slightest idea," you'll have to take it up with them, not my problem.
How can you say that "it must have existed," when you don't even know what "it" supposedly looked like, cart before the horse?
You still haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. The common ancestor of all mammals was likely a small shrew-like animal. The common ancestor of humans and modern apes was some kind of ape.
How can I say that there must have been a common ancestor, even if I don't know what it looked like? Just like I know you had a great, great grandmother. I don't know what she looked like, but I know she existed.
Hmmm...I think your bluff has been called now....the God Gametes fable has no basis in fact and would be better explored in the psuedo-science forum
You are ostensibly ignorant, spidergoat, of what a large swath of Darwindom is saying about this, but better to stick to your guns and go down with flair.
Darwinists even say that "Neanderthal man" is not in the alleged human evolutionary lineage, better catch up on what your compadres are writing.
If you had studied human evolution instead of fabricating it then you would appreciate the rich and complex diversity of human ancestors. It is important when proposing a hypothesis that you respond to valid criticism (that you invited after all) in a manner befitting the rationality of a scientist.
"Rich and complex diversity of human ancestors," huh?
Separate names with a comma.