Serious Christians only, please explain the diffrence between Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus?

Question

I found out about them from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_africanus
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

But since you say wikipedia is written by atheists to promote thier interests I want the answer from you. Please give a bible quote stating the diffrence

by A. africanus I mean Australopithecus africanus

Answer 1

Okay gimme a sec let me go and read your links....

Quoted from Wikipedia (which I use all the time BTW)
Australopithecus africanus
...when one of his colleagues spotted a few bone fragments and the cranium on the desk of a...

You're kidding me, right? You're going to base this entire guesswork, pie in the sky theory on a FEW BONE FRAGMENTS AND A CRANIUM?? Who's to say this wasn't just some human being born with defects? Or an animal born with defects? I'm going to need a lot more fossil evidence if you want me to believe this theory...

Australopithecus afarensis
The remains known as "Lucy"

Quoted from Wikipedia:
It is difficult to predict the social behaviour of extinct fossil species.

Well, duh, that's the most truthful statement they've printed so far.

Have you ever heard of the word personification? Since you like Wikipedia so much, here is their definition of it:

Personification, or personification anthropomorphism is a figure of speech that gives non-humans and objects human traits and qualities.(EX: the bear was talking to the little girl) These attributes may include sensations, emotions, desires, physical gestures, expressions, and powers of speech, among others. As a figure of speech it has a very long history; its Greek name is prosopopoeia. Examples include: "The pencil flew out of my hand", "The tree jumped into the road in front of my car", and "With an evil scowl, the stormcloud thundered its disapproval". Personification is widely used in poetry and in other art forms.

Personification's treatment of inanimate objects is very similar to the figure of speech called the pathetic fallacy; the key difference is that personification is direct and explicit in the ascription of life and sentience to the thing in question, whereas the pathetic fallacy is much broader and more allusive. Another related rhetorical device is apostrophe; this entails not speaking about, but speaking to, a personified entity or an absent person. All these tropes should be understood as separate from anthropomorphism, which ascribes human attributes to any non-human entities, in particular to animals and other creatures.


As humans we have a tendency to personify human traits on to non-human things. It is a desperate need in us to make the world around us, the universe, animals, etc, more relevant and easier to understand. Hence, we personify human traits onto these things.

Answer 2

You are obviously stupid. Are you honestly saying that because the bible does not state the difference between a Australopithecus afarensis and an Australopithecus africanus it is obviously untrue?

Does the Bible state the difference between a Donkey and a Camel?

And which Hebrew or Greek word do you believe should be translated as Australopithecus by bible translators.

Being not religious can be rational. Being stupidly not religious is stupid.

And are you aware that Catholocism, Judaism, and Islam all have stories about people being turned into monkeys because of their sins. So how do you know these fossils are monkey like men in transition from monkey to man, and not from man to monkey?

Answer 3

Urr. . . which direction are you pointing at?

To proof that evolutionis correct? Well . .. if I were to said i want to believe, but needed proof to see the process, where can i find one?

If evolution is true, than it must be on going. I will not need to buy air ticket to go thailand, for I would either be able to fly, or swim for miles. . . but can anyone do that?

Bible is the message from God to redeem us from our sins. We may find some clue here and there that coincide with the history world, but it was never intend to be written as history books.

There may be some thing mentioned that is scientisfic, but it is never a science book.

So, what u want me to proof?

Can I use Geogaphy book to proof Calculus? Nonsense.

Answer 4

IF you go to africa,.. or to not so wealth country....
You will find some race is not fortunate. not enough food, and skinny and ugly. (sorry)
But here in singapore, i do find some asian elder who is... im sorry... unfortunate to have a really weird skeleton, which is look like a monkey face. BUt HE is ALIVE, and he is Human. Living. ride a train to work.

So by, founding all those fossils... it's still no prove at all for you to be able to call them primate or whatsoever.. they still human.

Answer 5

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

Answer 6

Hello =)

LMAO you silly monkey......good one!!!!!

Namaste,

--Tom

Answer 7

May God strike you and turn you into a monkey.............ZAP !!!..........Hello???......Hell...