• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

more Darwinist self-defeat

7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Now, I had been under an impression that, according to Darwinists, the earliest ancestors of humans were some sort of one-celled, pond-scum animalcules they claim lived billions of years ago. But it has now occurred to me that at least some, professional Darwin-cheerleaders at the Smithsonian reject (out of the other side of their mouth) that asinine, false claim:
White and his colleagues assembled it to mark the place where they first found traces, in 1994, of “Ardi,” a female who lived 4.4 million years ago. Her skeleton has been described as one of the most important discoveries of the past century, and she is changing basic ideas about how our earliest ancestors looked and moved.
Click to expand...
There you have it, from Darwinists' own propaganda mill, that the earliest ancestors of humans had bones, skeletons, and thus were not single-celled organisms. They are admitting that "one of the most important discoveries of the past century" is (what rationally-thinking people have already known for thousands of years prior to the past century) that the earliest ancestors of humans "looked and moved" not as single-celled organisms, but rather, as creatures equipped with skeletal systems. Not only that, but, therein (by their erroneous "4.4 million years ago" figure) you also have Darwinists admitting that no ancestors of humans -- not even the earliest ones -- lived billions of years ago.
www.smithsonianmag.com

The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors

Studies of hominid fossils, like 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi," are changing ideas about human origins
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
Quote which proposition I stated that you are accusing of being false.
Click to expand...
7djengo7 said:
There you have it, from Darwinists' own propaganda mill, that the earliest ancestors of humans had bones, skeletons, and thus were not single-celled organisms.
Click to expand...
False on several levels. 1. the Smithsonian article did not say that, The Smithsonian article was discussing hominids. It made no reference to single celled organisms.. If you can show me where in the article it suggested otherwise, feel free to do so_Or are you suggesting that the science indicates A. ramidus just popped up from nowhere> Plus it is 14 years old, did you just discover it?
2. Go back far enough and the ancestors of all life of earth were single celled organisms.
Question, were all these hominids on the ark?there are at least 15 different mentioned. Did Noah take a pair or 7 pair on the ark? Or did they go extinct prior to the Great Flood, and how would you be able to figure that out?
Thanks, so much.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
It made no reference to single celled organisms..
Click to expand...
That's false. By their admission of the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans featured (among other things) arms and legs, they are denying the Darwinist falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms. It matters not a whit that they did not write the phrase, "single-celled organism". Cry to the people at the Smithsonian, not to me; they chose to title their article (which you say made no reference to single-celled organisms) The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors, which you would already know, had you actually read my post.
Avajs said:
Go back far enough and the ancestors of all life of earth were single celled organisms.
Click to expand...
That's false, and you are contradicted in your claim by the Smithsonian, who, in writing their article, stated that the earliest ancestors of humans were not single-celled organisms. Doesn't matter a whit that they did not use the words, "The earliest ancestors of humans were not single-celled organisms," since, by affirming the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans had skeletons, they are (like it or not) denying the falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were skeletonless things, such as single-celled organisms.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7 said:
That's false. By their admission of the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans featured (among other things) arms and legs, they are denying the Darwinist falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms. It matters not a whit that they did not write the phrase, "single-celled organism". Cry to the people at the Smithsonian, not to me; they chose to title their article (which you say made no reference to single-celled organisms) The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors, which you would already know, had you actually read my post.

That's false, and you are contradicted in your claim by the Smithsonian, who, in writing their article, stated that the earliest ancestors of humans were not single-celled organisms. Doesn't matter a whit that they did not use the words, "The earliest ancestors of humans were not single-celled organisms," since, by affirming the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans had skeletons, they are (like it or not) denying the falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were skeletonless things, such as single-celled organisms.
Click to expand...
Maybe they were single-celled skeletons
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7 it appears you have some issues with reading comprehension. please direct me to the specific language in the article that suggest the earliest hominids appeared fully formed with arms, legs, etc. Are you suggesting the scientists who did the work suggested that?
Here’s a thought—-google them and contact them ask them if your interpretation of the article is correct and report back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top