Human appearance on earth.

[Damaged Eagle]

Yet the best archeologists have to offer as a evolutionary predecessor to Homo Sapien is Homo Erectus.

False. You really need to read up. You forgot the australopithecines, ardepithicus, Australopithecus, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, and many others. You are not informed enough to have a discussion on this topic, and you are going to continue to make false claim after false claim that I will be forced to correct, if I lower myself to discussing this topic with you.

Oh my!!! Are all those direct descendants of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien?

Didn't the Australopithecines types come prior to Homo Erectus? I do believe so!

While those last two that you mention have skull caps, with some mandible variations that distinguish them from Homo Erectus only, more in common with Homo Erectus than Homo Sapiens. Are you sure you don't have a couple of cases of Piltdown Man that you're referring to there?

^^^Homo Erectus^^^

^^^heidelbergensis^^^

^^^rhodesiensis^^^

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh my!!! Are all those direct descendants of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien?

We could never say for sure. All might be, or just some. Of course, if you were honestly asking questions, you would have already looked this up for yourself.

but, you aren't. you are a religious nutball whose mind is truncated by stupid dogma. So, here you are, dishonestly asking rhetorical questions, happy as can be to be ignorant and wrong.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Oh my!!! Are all those direct descendants of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien?

We could never say for sure. All might be, or just some. Of course, if you were honestly asking questions, you would have already looked this up for yourself.

I already knew and you're a lying idiot who doesn't know squat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

but, you aren't. you are a religious nutball whose mind is truncated by stupid dogma.

Oh my!!! What dogma is that exactly?

*****CHUCKLE*****

So, here you are, dishonestly asking rhetorical questions, happy as can be to be ignorant and wrong.

Really??? I think I've just shown you more of your archeological evidence than you've shown anyone in this entire thread. Why is that one might ask?

ANSWER TO THAT LAST QUESTION: Because you're the archeological line of Homo Moronus.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh my!!! Are all those direct descendants of Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien?

We could never say for sure. All might be, or just some. Of course, if you were honestly asking questions, you would have already looked this up for yourself.

I already knew and you're a lying idiot who doesn't know squat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

but, you aren't. you are a religious nutball whose mind is truncated by stupid dogma.

Oh my!!! What dogma is that exactly?

*****CHUCKLE*****

So, here you are, dishonestly asking rhetorical questions, happy as can be to be ignorant and wrong.

Really??? I think I just shown you more of your archeological evidence than you've shown anyone in this entire thread. Why is that one might ask?

ANSWER TO THAT LAST QUESTION: Because you're the archeological line of Homo Moronus.

*****ROFLMAO*****

[/QUOTE]
You tell me. Assuming dogma is causing you to be happily stupid and ignorant and deny a strong scientific theory, while knowing less than nothing about it (which is obvious) is a fair assumption.

So, you tell me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Provide me with the same proof that they have for horse evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Provide me with the same proof that they have for horse evolution.

Which is...? Be specific. there is not much point in laying information at your feet, when you cant understand it anyway, now is there?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You tell me. Assuming dogma is causing you to be happily stupid and ignorant and deny a strong scientific theory, while knowing less than nothing about it (which is obvious) is a fair assumption.

So, you tell me.

I don't have to tell you anything.

You're the one attempting to show archeological evidence over the last two million years that shows the evolution of Homo Erectus into Homo Sapiens.

HINT: You're not doing a very convincing job of it.

You're beginning to sound like a Creationist only you're worshiping at the Alter Of Scientific Consensus.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't have to tell you anything.

Nobody said you did, you pathetic little whiner.

You're the one attempting to show archeological evidence over the last two million years that shows the evolution of Homo Erectus into Homo Sapiens.

No I'm not, you must be high. I am not trying to convince irrational, ignorant people that evolutionary theory is fact. read more slowly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Provide me with the same proof that they have for horse evolution.

Which is...? Be specific. there is not much point in laying information at your feet, when you cant understand it anyway, now is there?

Wait? You are arguing a point and don't even know the info? Really? Horse evolution is easy to look up even I did it. They have bones and a continues line from one to the next. The Human claim has NO such trail, we have this MIGHT be, this COULD be, we thing this IS the line.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Provide me with the same proof that they have for horse evolution.

Which is...? Be specific. there is not much point in laying information at your feet, when you cant understand it anyway, now is there?

But then it's obvious that you don't understand it either.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are arguing a point and don't even know the info?

Sure I do. I am asking you which evidence for horse evolution. Which of it compels you. But I see you are going to dodge again.

As predicted. You know, I am about 20 steps ahead of you right now. Ignorant deniers like you are all the same, and a dime a dozen,.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But then it's obvious that you don't understand it either.

Understand.... what, exactly? See, every time you tuck tail and roll into a little ball with this whiny shit, it can be turned right back on you. So, what is it I don't understand?


The follow up to what is sure to be an embarrassingly stupid answer: What, in that magic-addled brain of yours, thinks MY understanding has anything to do with the truth of evolution?

face it, you don't have a leg to stand on. You know less than nothing about any of this, and you waste peoples' time with your dishonest questions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No I'm not, you must be high. I am not trying to convince irrational, ignorant people that evolutionary theory is fact. read more slowly.

So you're not trying to convince yourself that evolutionary theory is fact...

How come that makes sense???

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Already listed it retard. Horse evolution is ACTUALLY documented they can point from one type to the next they have fossils or bones that CLEARLY show the changes. Man has NO SUCH EVIDENCE . what you have is a bunch of skulls and skeletons that do not match up are not even identifiable as related and no actually time line. And NO proof that man evolved from any other creature. Nor that apes came from the same source. Nor pigs nor mice nor what ever else you claim we are the same as.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you're not trying to convince yourself that evolutionary theory is fact.

I don't need to do so. I have already learned that it is a fact. No, your childish behavior doesn't undermine evolutionary theory. I know you think it does, but it does not.

You know, a rational adult with integrity would be embarrassed for having said so many stupid and wrong things. but you religious goobers have to maintain and preen your faith, so now you imagine it is MY fault you are being a moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Horse evolution is ACTUALLY documented they can point from one type to the next they have fossils or bones that CLEARLY show the changes.

The same is true of human evolution. Why do you think it is not? Have you checked? The physiological changes in the fossil record are well documented. Skull shape and size, teeth, changes in the spine and pelvis, changes in the feet and hands, changes in bone density and thickeness, all of it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Horse evolution is ACTUALLY documented they can point from one type to the next they have fossils or bones that CLEARLY show the changes.

The same is true of human evolution. Why do you think it is not? Have you checked? The physiological changes in the fossil record are well documented. Skull shape and size, teeth, changes in the spine and pelvis, changes in the feet and hands, changes in bone density and thickeness, all of it.

No it is not. And what is only goes back a couple hundred thousand years the rest is hypothesis and conjecture.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it is not.

False. You can stomp your feet all day and cry for Baby Jebus, and this will still be false at bedtime.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

But then it's obvious that you don't understand it either.

Understand.... what, exactly? See, every time you tuck tail and roll into a little ball with this whiny shit, it can be turned right back on you. So, what is it I don't understand?

1. Your responses suggest the opposite is the truth in this matter.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The follow up to what is sure to be an embarrassingly stupid answer: What, in that magic-addled brain of yours, thinks MY understanding has anything to do with the truth of evolution?

2. Well that's obvious to the most casual observer that your understanding of the subject matter has next to nothing to do with the truth of evolution.

*****CHUCKLE*****

face it, you don't have a leg to stand on. You know less than nothing about any of this, and you waste peoples' time with your dishonest questions.

3. Go back to answer one.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your responses suggest the opposite is the truth in this matter.

Vapid whining. Nothing but vapid, self-soothing whining. What progress do you imagine you have made, in undermining the most robust scientific theory in history?

None, ya fuckin moron.