| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#771
-
iowndemostest ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-] 
Dude... W are not direct descendants to chimps, get yo facts straight, we had a common ancestor a little ways back. This is fairly common knowledge.
#785 to #783
-
zlamous (02/05/2013) [-] lets see, their evidence is that
"Hominid-like canines are present"
"Upper and lower incisors are larger than those of the Australopithecines, but are smaller than those of chimpanzees."
"Pieces of the cranial bones that have been recovered, including parts of the temporal and the occipital, strongly indicate an anterior positioned foramen magnum."
Do you think this is conclusive evidence? I believe this animal was designed similarly to other hominids by a common designer. none of it's features can prove that its a common ancestor. that's just a faulty interpretation of the evidence.
they also have no way of knowing that it lived before or after the Australopithecines. their only evidence of this is its teeth size. they're using the evidence to fit their pre-determined conclusion instead of following the evidence to it's objective conclusion.
"Hominid-like canines are present"
"Upper and lower incisors are larger than those of the Australopithecines, but are smaller than those of chimpanzees."
"Pieces of the cranial bones that have been recovered, including parts of the temporal and the occipital, strongly indicate an anterior positioned foramen magnum."
Do you think this is conclusive evidence? I believe this animal was designed similarly to other hominids by a common designer. none of it's features can prove that its a common ancestor. that's just a faulty interpretation of the evidence.
they also have no way of knowing that it lived before or after the Australopithecines. their only evidence of this is its teeth size. they're using the evidence to fit their pre-determined conclusion instead of following the evidence to it's objective conclusion.
#776 to #774
-
iowndemostest ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-] No I am admitting that there is no credible source that states we descended directly from monkeys. But go do some research instead of defending your precious 2000 year old book and maybe you'll actually learn something. Be my guest.
