Ok I will post 3 good arguments and then you can discuss them...
(Prefix "arg" so you reference the point if you want)
Why do humans all have different faces when no other form of life has different faces including apes?
And if you say that it is due to sexual selection or natural selection you need to make a sound argument and show how such a modification of the
genetic code could be possible to account for this major difference. For instance one mutation is not even close to good enough to accomplish this.
And if you say well gee dogs look like they have faces to me, thats not a scientific argument. Do a google search for images, they all look the same.
Face recognition software will not work on anything but humans. And not only that, but there are 7 billion humans, so you need to account for the fact
that they all have distinct faces.
Arg 2) Why are there elongated skulls in Peru which have no fontanel? In fact their skulls are not plated in the same way homo sapiens are, In fact
then, they are not homo sapiens. Not even close. So where did they come from and what is the evolutionary argument regarding them?
And if you say these are skulls that have been modified by planking etc as per common practices of South American Indians that is not true. Those
skulls are easily identified. If you want more info look it up. Its there.
Arg 3) This will be divided into facts A, B and C.
Fact A) The Royal Society, held a special exhibition, in 2005, at the British Museum, displaying footprints in lava discovered in central Mexico of
modern man. And I quote...
Adds to the global archive of human prints.
The presence of ancient human and animal prints is a rare occurrence in nature, because it requires special conditions for their preservation. The
Valsequillo Basin footprints add to this literature and reflect specific environmental conditions for their preservation within this area of Central
(Quoted from their Mexican Footprints Exhibition webpage from the Research link on the main page.)
Fact B) From the prestigious journal Nature Dec 1 2005
Paul R. Renne,, Joshua M. Feinberg, Michael R. Waters, Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales, Patricia Ochoa-Castillo, Mario Perez-Campa and
Kim B. Knight
Here we show by 40Ar/39Ar dating and corroborating palaeomagnetic data that the basaltic tuff on which the purported footprints are found is
1.30plusminus0.03 million years old.
- Berkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, California 94709, USA
- Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
- Departments of Anthropology and Geography, and Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
- Laboratório de Arqueozoología, Subdirección de Laboratórios y Apoyo Académico, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06060,
- Subdirección de Arqueología, Museo Nacional de Antropología, Reforma y Gandhi s/n, CP 11560, México
- Proyecto Cuicuilco, Instituto Nacionál de Antropología e Historia, CP 06700, México
For those not familiar with the Royal Society, Charles Darwin was elected a member of the Royal Society on Jan. 4 1839
For those not familiar with Paul Renne his publication record would be too large to post. To say he is the leading expert on lava dating in the world
would be an understatement. He is currently a professor at Berkely.
link to accreditation
And fact C) The lava was also examined as to whether or not it was sediment, or fresh when the footprints were placed in it, and it was determined
that the grains were magnetically aligned, hence the prints were placed while the lava was fresh, at the time of the volcanic eruption. As stated also
in the journal Nature.
Saying since they are 1.3 million years old they can't possibly be human footprints is not a valid scientific argument. See the quote above. Members
of the Royal Society, home of Charles Darwin, through thorough scientific study, determined the prints were human, and should be preserved. If you
want I can quote from a BBC science reporter who was taken there in person by a professor, and showed the prints, and he stated, clearly some of these
are human footprints.
If you try to discount this evidence I am presenting by quoting articles from Evolution magazine, I will quote Bible passages as a reply. Otherwise
you may do your best. Scientific approaches only please.
If you are unscientific in your arguments, with mere appeals to authority, I will quote Bible passages as a reply.
Look at it like a gong.
Evolution theory and the Out of Africa hypothesis have been disproved.
If you want my personal opinion, I think we are down to aliens did it. Maybe someday I will give you my theory.
But first, I would love to hear you defend the dead beetle of Evolutionary theory. The theory that was.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Rocketman7 because: