Quote:

But uhm so you dare to call aborinals not human?



No, I just dare say that they're proof that supposedly pre-human characteristics can be found in modern humans that are just as human as us.

The one thing scientists seem to forget in deciding which characteristics are pre-human, and which aren't, is genetic potential.

Quote:

You've also simply ripped it out of context. I've said that because of the older human or at least humanoid fossils I doubted that Adam and Eve where the first humans.



But its really hard to tell from fossils now isn't it. Because according to my aforementioned fossil, humans were around at least 3.6 million years ago. Except, those aren't human foot prints when they don't fit the theory, so we'll just label them whatever fits the theory. Had they been found in rock that we thought was much younger, they wouldn't have hesitated to call them human footprints. How can you ever NOT find proof of evolution, when even disproof is proof? Actually, I'm pretty sure that the dating method is the only incompetent variable in that equation, but dating methods are not to be questioned....because we know the starting ratios even though we weren't there millions of years ago.

Since we're forgetting the error tolerance, humans could even have existed 50+ million years sooner than we can begin to know from fossils alone (let's remember that 'extinct' creatures can escape fossilization for about 100 million years and probably longer). Of course, that line of thinking doesn't fit into evolution, so its not 'scientific'. Its unscientific to think outside the box nowadays.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/05/06 03:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."