I just wanted to use that .gif ..

Nu är vi här, med Caramelldansen!

As if it's age has anything to do with it's validity.

Copernicus' books are over 500 years old. guess that means heliocentric is incorrect.

We share a common ancestor. That is a fact. If you are not willing to accept science, please refrain from using any of it's products! (Computers, technology, medicine)

why are you responding to a comment that's 18 days old?

you should have looked on google, there are many websites with this on them

so your admitting evolution has no evidence.

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.

As if it's age has anything to do with it's validity.

Copernicus' books are over 500 years old. guess that means heliocentric is incorrect.

We share a common ancestor. That is a fact. If you are not willing to accept science, please refrain from using any of it's products! (Computers, technology, medicine)

why are you responding to a comment that's 18 days old?

k, whats are 'common ancestor' then, smart one?

archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecus-ramidus/

This is the generally accepted one.

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.

I think you're just to stupid to understand anything you quoted there

Well you asked for evidence, and you got it. Yet you still deny it, I really don't know why anyone would try.

Hominidae

that's a family of primates. you need to be more specific

I'll be honest, you got me in a bind there. However I doubt that you could name any species on that picture, and I can assure you that no credible source told you that we evolved from monkeys.

you should have looked on google, there are many websites with this on them

so your admitting evolution has no evidence.

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.

As if it's age has anything to do with it's validity.

Copernicus' books are over 500 years old. guess that means heliocentric is incorrect.

We share a common ancestor. That is a fact. If you are not willing to accept science, please refrain from using any of it's products! (Computers, technology, medicine)

why are you responding to a comment that's 18 days old?

hfw