Im so glad we both beleive in THOR!

Hey there Jester,This really isnt the thread, and I dont want to piss of the Admins, so we can drop the church-state arguement. Cool?

A troll? Like the mythological bridge guard?

Alasdair, I would have never posted this thread if I didnt question evolution.

Does this work?Determining the date for Skull 1470.In late 1972, an enigmatic fossilized skull was unearthed near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus.Skull 1470 was very modern in its appearance but was found in rock initially dated at 2.9 million years, much too old for a modern skull.Richard E. Leakey, the founder of the skull and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which they rejected because the date obtained was not "right".Finally Leakey used an argument based on the size of pigs teeth found in the strata to get the date for skull 1470 that he thought was correct.All dates were tossed aside in favor of a date of 1.9 million years, a date that fit the human evolution better, based on the certainty of the dates of pig evolution.In the course of time, the pendulum began to gradually swing the other way as various students started to doubt the accuracy of the original reconstruction.So, it’s ok to toss out your own dating methods because they don’t line up with evolution? Leakey and his wife, reconstructed the skull improperly, and changed their data to match the existing evolutionary timeline.Skull KNM-ER 1470Homo rudolfensis - Wikipediahttp://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asphttp://www.northave.org/MGManual/Earlyman/Eman2.htm

"Rampant overstated speculation", much better than "forgery". Perhaps I should go back and edit my OP with that instead. Neandratals are next on my list. Reading.....

Welcome Alasdair, I never said hello.Discarding your own data in favor of "fitting" evolution is dishonest, and fraudulent. The skull was reconstructed improperly (and I speculate) because of the validity of the find. If they could prove a missing link, they would receive notoriety and possibly grant money to further their research.Again, I want to say, I am not against “science”. I have a problem with evolution or Darwinism. Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : No reason given.

I did it GF! Welcome to the fray!

So, in other words, potassium-argon and C-14 dating methods are only accurate and accepted, when the fit the evolutionary mold? WHAT!? Sounds more like when evidence is contrary to Darwinian Evolution, regardless of how accurate it is, it is discarded as not “right”.This is the type of rationalization that makes me question everything about evolution.Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : This is post number 69. How Bill and Ted of me!

That is EXACTLY what this thread is getting at!

Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : No reason given.

Hey there Alasdair and ramoss, thought I would post up the very first thing when you google search "evidence of evolution". Enjoy. Number 1. of course in interesting. :-)Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : I had to add ramoss!

“The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus.” - me (or a bastardization of some website)This would be considered a missing link or “to bridge the gap”.

Oh hey Bluegenes!Im so sorry, I have no photographs, or proof of any banners hanging in the Museum. I only have a memory. So Im sorry, but you can call me a "fraud" or a "rampant overstated speculationist" if you like. I can't prove it, so disregard.PEACE!

It was discovered in 1922, and used at the Scopes trial in 1925. A nice rendering was done of a one million year old entire race of humanoid by Amedee Forestier who was especially interested in prehistoric man and loved to bring him to life, not by fictitious imaginings but by the most careful reconstructions based on scientific research, and who also drew of all things, Piltdown man.The same “authorities” who “debunked” the discovery at one time, (even a short time) endorsed an entire race of humanity out of one pig’s tooth.Surely, there is a lesson here for us concerning the reliability of so-called "expert testimony," which is so often used to manipulate and intimidate the layman. What are you referring to here? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis? And what is this? Is this KNM-ER 1470?You have to be a little more specific, unfortunatly, we have not "evolved" telepathic powers yet.

Your kidding right? So evolution does not need the fossil record to prove anything....OK...