Assumeing this is correct and there is no such thing as Evolution, what is an Australopithecus then really?
2006-10-18 05:17:24 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
A few australopithecus decided they didn't believe in evolution and refused to evolve further. Today they are more commonly known as creationists.
2006-10-18 10:47:40 · answer #1 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the remains of my poor old Uncle Bob. He lived a good life, wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but he worked hard, so hard, in fact, that he walked with a slight stoop. He never did learn to read and write, hated to wear clothes and couldn't find a hat to fit on his large brow to save his life. I saw my cousins, his children, at a Wal Mart in Princeton, West Virginia the other day.
2006-10-18 06:39:43 · answer #2 · answered by Smiley 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which one?
Fragments of more than 300 individuals of Australopithicus afarensis have been discovered so far, including a remarkably complete skeleton of an adult female (nick- named "Lucy"). "Lucy" was found in 1974 near Hadar in Ethiopia.
Ummm, bulding a complete example from peices again.
hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc.
An example of the poor evidence that evolutionists use is a hip bone `find' that they say marked a `hominid'.
Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey.
The famous find named Lucy was regarded as a hominid without reservation.
Popular `finds' were often based on nothing more than this and even these bones were not even found together or from the same individual.
Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, "Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away."
Regarding the finder of Lucy we read, "...he regards the evolution of man from apes as self-evident, but who also regards the evidence as poppycock."
Rarely do they even know if the bone set is from the same individual.
The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.
Regarding the reconstructive drawings always made of these finds we note, "Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to `...put not your faith in reconstructions.'"
In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever.
This skull actually has a crest on the top (as ape skulls only) but it was declared as a human ancestor.
The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after.
Paleontologists have called simple rocks as hominid tools.
2006-10-18 05:30:38 · answer #3 · answered by TCFKAYM 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lets assume Evolution is false. In that case, Australopithecus would be God's early tries at humans. They were imperfect so they went extinct and God made better models: us (i.e. perfection).
2006-10-18 05:27:20 · answer #4 · answered by bcabe111 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Biological diversity, the fossil record of entire species showing evolutionary development, physiological similarities between geographically seperated species (e.g. Orangutan and homosapiens). True there isn't proof in the sense of absolute certainty-that isn't what scientific proof entails- but you'd have to be nuts to dismiss the amount of evidence that exists.
2006-10-18 05:24:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, there's proof for both christianity and evolution and other scientific process.A big part of the problem is most or majority of people refuse to believe they both can be correct.
I for one believe it is possible to merge spirituality and science.
eagleswing.org
2006-10-18 05:22:07 · answer #6 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw one last night on Star Trek TNG. That's what they called Riker after he "de-evolved". LOL
2006-10-18 06:17:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is proof of micro evolution.
But this does not prove that the other four types are true, they are still theories.
2006-10-18 05:20:33 · answer #8 · answered by tim 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're claiming to be new here but you are level 5 and I have to put up with you every day. Weird!
2006-10-18 05:19:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
sory I have no idea I can not say it so have no idea how it is spelt
2006-10-18 05:21:38 · answer #10 · answered by Sam's 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋