Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

Originally posted by christianpatrick

Originally posted by KarlG

P.S. Did you know dolphins are the only creatures other than Man to have sex purely for pleasure and not for procreation? Interesting, no?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by KarlG]

I'll try to remember that the next time my uncle's dog tries to hump my leg.

No offense, and I'm becoming COMPLETELY serious here, but maybe ur dog is attracted to ur leg.

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by Lurch

 

Hi Lurch/

The Bible Scriptures teach that it is the Word of God, why should man change Gods Word to fit in with Modern ideas?
At least the Bible has been consistent with what it teaches and doesn't change it's mind every few years or so!

EDIT...spelling..
ICXC NIKA
helen

[edit on 10/3/2009 by helen670]

That's the point... IT HAS TO CHANGE!

Times are different, things are improving, life is changing, and discoveries are being made everyday! No one can still take their scientific knowledge from a 2000-year-old book and expect to still be able to make progress! Perhaps that is why not many devout Christians are Nobel-prize-winning scientists!

It's like being in feudal Japan, where the samurais shut themselves off with the rest of the world, refusing to trade and improve, until they opened their doors one day and realized while they were still wallowing in century-old tradition, the rest of the world had improved tremendously.

the skeleton skull does not look like an ape. it looks like a reptilian. he had probably killed an ape and the bones are close enough together it is assumed they are from the same being. look how they assume so much data from it, such as its rib cage, which is non existent.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/23a8c40a541cea31.jpg[/atsimg]

source
tiny.cc...

check out the drawing side view of the supposed skeleton they've constructed and note that they claim the jaw of the drawing is the same jaw as the bones you see in the photo of the actual bones

news.nationalgeographic.com...

not even the same jaw. what are they doing?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by undo]

Not true about cranial capacity being "the convention" for naming a new species. There are many criteria.

For example, adult humans have a cranial capacity between 1200cc and 1850cc. So if John Doe has a cranial capacity of 1300cc and Fred Nurks has a cranial capacity of 1600cc, it doesn't mean they are different species.

I stand corrected, I should have said "one of the criteria" is cranial capacity. The cranial capacity of Neanderthal is considered much larger than homo sapiens. My point though is that there is no linear "man from ape" path, many of the hominid species in our evolutionary tree became extinct.

reply to post by Sed Non Credo


*ahem*

And yes I think that the earth is millions of years old. What egotistical fools we are for thinking that we could possibly be the ONLY stage of creation God has ever made! HELLO! We believe that God is eternal. That means always there... always going to BE there. Does anyone HONESTLY think that He waited MILLIONS of years in NOTHINGNESS just to create us!? Dinos were just a different stage of creation than us. I believe that He's created "aliens" on other planets. We may not even be the only sentient species out there... who knows? The bible states that a day is as a ten thousand years and ten thousand years are as a day to God. He lives outside time.

ALL Christians don't believe that the earth is young. Some think outside the box and have read apologetics and love debating....
Like me!

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

reply to post by undo


Oooo It's LIZARD MAN!!!

Maybe we evolved from Lizards! *sarcasm, sarcasm*

reply to post by sisgood


we didn't evolve from reptilians. they are seraph (plural seraphim).

according to the bible the seraphim are an angelic race. they were created before humans.
strongs hebrew and greek lexicon says:
Result of search for "seraph":

8314 saraph saw-rawf' from 8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.

source
www.eliyah.com...

it's the serpent race, referred to in the garden of eden texts. people think eve talked to a snake. but he had legs. how do you remove legs from something that doesn't have legs?

may have also been a race of amphibians since the oldest texts refer to the sea serpents, which would suggest a race of bipedal, sentient, water beings. kinda fits in with the stories of enki, ea, dagon, triton, poseidon and so on.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by undo]

reply to post by undo


It's possible but I think it's more likely a nephillum they were the same creature... I think but the nephillums were the ones that breeded with man.

Interesting theory. But it states in the book of Enoch that the children of all the Nephillm (sp?) were killed and the Nephillum were sealed away for a certain time by God.

Perhaps it's a half Nephillum half human?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

reply to post by sisgood


not to take the thread off topic but actually, they aren't gone. check this out:

the sumerian-akkadian stories of enki and enlil, suggest a biblical parallel that predated the biblical texts and seem to support the biblical texts. for example, the flood story in the epic of gilgamesh, finds gilgamesh going on a long journey to visit a noah type figure, who has was the king of sumer and survived the flood because the god enki warned him and told him to build an ark, put animals on it, and so on. it's almost identical to the biblical flood narrative.....EXCEPT, enki has often been characterized as the tricky god, whereas enlil has often been shown as the biblical jehovah.

apparently what happened was, enlil (the head god of the sumerian pantheon) had decided to wash the earth clean because it was polluted, genetically and environmentally. he told the members of his divine council not to warn the people and made them swear an oath on it. but the humans were already nearly non-existent due to being eaten as a food source by the nephilim when pollution had made the flora and fauna inedible and wars had destroyed the environment, resulting in massive droughts.

enki, the tricky god, swore he wouldnt reveal it, but got around the oath by talking within earshot of the king of sumer (who was a nephilim).

so here we have the story of how the nephilm were also in the earth AFTER the flood, because enki warned the king of sumer.

enlil, on the other hand, warned the remaining line of humans. so after the flood we find both humans and nephilim. in fact, king david had some nephilim help of his own and a few wars with nephilim as well.

reply to post by undo


This is way off topic. U2U me with what you just said. It's very interesting. See if you can find a source on the king David thing and I will look up the Enoch passage.

I'll be gone for a few hours though

[edit on 3-10-2009 by sisgood]

reply to post by sisgood


alrighty. i think you will find this interview i did with dr. michael heiser on the subject.. reptilians. i betcha that's what most of the fossils of upright bipedals are and they are just mixed with other bones of either pets, servants or
kills

thestargates.com...

here's the reference material for the interview
tiny.cc...

[edit on 3-10-2009 by undo]

there have been a series of "missing links" found...this one is just further back in time than the previous links that were found. ah yes science...guess this kind of puts the kabash on the ole time bible creation thing. that's why religion tried to kill off as many scientists during the dark ages as they could. the church loved their power over people and they didn't want to give it up.

reply to post by jimmyx


you need to quit banging that drum since there are literally millions of christians who don't agree with the theories of the roman catholic hierarchy of 500 or more years ago. ya know, it's like beating a dead horse.

What I don't understand is why we are having so much trouble finding proof of our "missing links" when we have museums full of dinosaur fossils from 65million years ago.

Why is it so easy to find 65m year old dinosaur bones compared to far more recent fossils of our "ancestors"?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by mc1km]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by jimmyx

 

you need to quit banging that drum since there are literally millions of christians who don't agree with the theories of the roman catholic hierarchy of 500 or more years ago. ya know, it's like beating a dead horse.

but there are millions who still do!! not everyone is as enlightened and resonable as you appear to be. and it's obvious this doesn't apply to you. but thanks for setting me staight on being lazy and trying to include all christians.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I'm not trollin anyone when I say this...

We were put on earth IN CURRENT HUMAN FORM.
There are no missing links, they are just "different species"


/thetruth.

By "Truth", do you mean "A Belief with no physical or scientific evidence what-so-ever"?

"Ardi" goes 1.2 million years further back into the fossil record. This find does not "Disprove Missing Link" it indicates that the "missing link" is likely another 1 million + years older than Ardi.

The published account regarding this find comprises over a million pages of information, research, back-up data and physical artifacts..."Belief" not required.

Originally posted by sisgood
reply to post by undo

 

Oooo It's LIZARD MAN!!!

Maybe we evolved from Lizards! *sarcasm, sarcasm*

Actually we might have evolved into lizard people if that meteor hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs:

Here's a reptilian in the Ottawa Museum
(Thanks for posting this in the other thread Zorgon).

The jaw might be a better match but the hands and feet don't look like a match though...maybe it's not lizard man.

Excerpt from "The Other Side of Evolution" by Jon Gary Williams
(I might also paraphrase a bit)

Chapter V "Problems of Evolution"

(I'm skipping statement one, The Origin of Life as it deals with how life began not how it continued on after life began.)

(I'm also skipping most references to one-celled animals.)

The Fossil record... (paraphrased)

Evolution states that life began as one celled organisms and worked their way up from there.
FOSSIL record (from the Cambrian Period) Shows that A: there was no life on earth before this time, B: Life began not as one-celled organisms but as simple celled animals and sea creatures (some just as complicated as creatures found in our oceans today)
(My words: I also can't help but mentioning that in the Bible, birds and sea creatures were first created.)
The fossil record DOES NOT show a layer before this time with more simply formed creatures.

Sudden appearance of flowering plants (paraphrased)

Like the animal, record, the plant record is equally as troubling to evolutionist. There is no sign of a "gradual evolution" of plant organs. The pistol, stamen, roots and other parts of flowering plants appear in the fossil record... fully formed.

No intermediate forms (paraphrased)

There are no intermediate links between different animals. There are not just missing links, the whole chain is missing! If evolution were true, the fossil record should be full of "links". There should be just as many dinos-birds as there are birds and dinos.

Unbridged gaps between body structures (paraphrased)

Focusing on the change from reptile to mammal, there is no half reptile half mammal on record. Also, in the jaw lines of the reptiles (the quadrate bone)
is required to link the jaw to the rest of the skull.
In mammals, the jaw is directly linked to the skull. There is no record of a transition in the fossils.

Origin of Vertebrates (paraphrased)

I'll make it simple. There's no evidence of a shift between invertebrates to vertebrates in evolution... nor is there evidence of a shift from exoskeleton to indoskeleton. They just. aren't. there.

Necessity of perfection in animal organs. (paraphrased and this is a huge one)

For spiders, if evolution were true, they wouldn't exist. What use would a half-formed spinneret be to a spider? Could a spider exist today if such an important organ of their bodies took millions of years to evolve.
Answer... NO!

It's the same way for bees! How in the world do evolutionist explain how the bee survived without their pollen baskets for millions of years?

There are millions more of these examples of how a half-formed organ simply WOULD NOT WORK!!!

Necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination (paraphrased... again)

Did you know that the Yucca plant could not survive with out the pronuba moth? The moth takes pollen from the plant, flies to another Yucca plant and lays it's eggs in the plant. The moth larva eat about a fifth of the plant seeds and the rest... well, they are the reason we have Yucca plants now.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that these two species could have evolved the way they are now.

What about the Portuguese man of war and the Nomeus fish? The man of war catches the fish and the Nomeus is the bait! The nomeus is immune to the poison of the jelly fish. Not only does a half-evolved system like this not work but it would be impossible for evolution to improve the situation. Poisoned, dead fish can't lay eggs.

(There are about fifteen other such examples and sections in the book that I will not touch on as I think I've proved my point in this and it's getting redundant. The other facts stand for themselves so I will just list them.)

"Extinct forms still are living and these creatures have remained unchanged for millions and millions of years."

Metamorphosis, cold to warm blood... I could go on and on.

Evolution cannot explain any of this.

Or can anyone prove me wrong?

Originally posted by sisgood
The Fossil record... (paraphrased)

Evolution states that life began as one celled organisms and worked their way up from there.
FOSSIL record (from the Cambrian Period) Shows that A: there was no life on earth before this time, B: Life began not as one-celled organisms but as simple celled animals and sea creatures (some just as complicated as creatures found in our oceans today)
(My words: I also can't help but mentioning that in the Bible, birds and sea creatures were first created.)
The fossil record DOES NOT show a layer before this time with more simply formed creatures.

The above is a lie. Easy to follow Wiki sources:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
etc.

Sudden appearance of flowering plants (paraphrased)

Like the animal record, the plant record is equally as troubling to evolutionist. There is no sign of a "gradual evolution" of plant organs. The pistol, stamen, roots and other parts of flowering plants appear in the fossil record... fully formed.

Just like the first, this is also a lie:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...
etc.

No intermediate forms (paraphrased)

There are no intermediate links between different animals. There are not just missing links, the whole chain is missing! If evolution were true, the fossil record should be full of "links". There should be just as many dinos-birds as there are birds and dinos.

Again, a lie. There are:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
(Pay attention to the timeline in the above link, some random examples of animals are below)
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Unbridged gaps between body structures (paraphrased)

/SNIP

See above for further information that renders this completely null and void.

Origin of Vertebrates (paraphrased)

I'll make it simple. There's no evidence of a shift between invertebrates to vertebrates in evolution... nor is there evidence of a shift from exoskeleton to indoskeleton. They just. aren't. there.

You are misunderstanding the timeline/tree. To keep you focused (I can't believe I'm actually spending the time getting these easy to find links for you) I'll just post one link and you can research anything along this timeline for yourself:
io.uwinnipeg.ca...

Necessity of perfection in animal organs. (paraphrased and this is a huge one)

For spiders, if evolution were true, they wouldn't exist. What use would a half-formed spinneret be to a spider? Could a spider exist today if such an important organ of their bodies took millions of years to evolve.
Answer...

YES! (well, at what point is a spider actually a spider?)
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

There are millions more of these examples of how a half-formed organ simply WOULD NOT WORK!!!

Are we finally beginning to get the picture? Just because you are ignorant of how these things are formed it doesn't mean everyone is:
answers.yahoo.com...

Necessity of perfection in both plants and animals for cross-pollination (paraphrased... again)

See above.

(There are about fifteen other such examples and sections in the book that I will not touch on as I think I've proved my point in this and it's getting redundant

Thanks, I agree that it's taken me far too long to google your answers as you're too lazy to do it yourself...

Or can anyone prove me wrong?

You've done a good job of that yourself by repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance and inability to research even basic things yourself. A scientific theory is not the same as my theory that the moon is made of spanners and cheese. You might want to look up why there are different because I've already done enough of that for you. Hope I've been some help.

reply to post by jimmyx


erm, well i dunno if it's as many as you think. i've read books by people written almost 40 years ago, who were hard core, fundie christians that didn't believe the earth was only 6k years old, but much older.

i'm not enlightened, just read alot and try to figure out what all the ancient texts have in common.