Search results

well i must apologize for this post. since i have asked specific questions expecting answers i should expect to respond to specific questions with specific answers as much as possible and not allow myself to get frustrated

i always find it pathetic when people like RD and 7 here attempt to discuss science when they are ignorant of the topic

ahhh, so you just don’t understand evolution. individuals don’t evolve. populations evolve.

what does “branched out” mean? what do you think taxonomy is?

more suggestions that you did not read the article. if you read it you would at least be aware of the term hominin and might have been curious enough to find out what it means do you really think ewoks and the tooth fairy are real?

hominin is a simple taxonomic term. look it up

no, do you not know what the term refers to? google it

so can we tell which layer is the first laid down by the flood? still no answer to the question of which hominins are pre and post flood and no specifics as to why the k-t boundary is a myth

So can we tell where the top of the flood is in the column. How about the bottom? My question about whether or not various hominins were on the ark had nothing to do with ancestry. K-T boundary, I thought that was pretty well agreed to by geologists---the big meteor strike etc causing all that...

But you must have some explanation as to where all those fossil hominins were in relation to the ark and the flood. If they were in existence at the time of the flood, were they separate kinds and should have been all on the ark and then became extinct afterwards? Or are they all genus Homo and...

No answer to my specific question?

how about an answer to the question of what happened to all the 15 or so species and genera discussed in the article? extinct pre or post flood and how can you tell?

“invented”? not really the correct word. but rather than quibble over your word choice—-the Smithsonian article referenced a number of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens—-what is your explanation for those creatures? and, did they become extinct before or after the flood?

no but that’s ok. have a nice life

no and no. your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.

Hannah Arendt was correct. One only needs to listen to DJT to see the truth in her statement. That is his game plan---to do what he wants, what benefits DJT, not you. If you believe otherwise, please reread the Arendt quote.

7, the Gibbons article is 14 years old and perhaps some of those referenced have moved on but a quick google search suggest that C. Owen Lovejoy mentioned in the article is still at Kent State. Give him a call. I'll be he would be delighted to hear from you

oh my, is this a clue that you really did not read the article? Gibbons wrote an article for Smithsonian summarizing the work of the scientists who found the fossils, analyzed them and were authors of papers in scientific journals. so yes, contact one of the authors of the original papers who...

of course not. it seemed to be what 7 took from the article. i suggested he contact the authors to see if his reading was accurate. chances he will do that??