 | "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel... By which also ye are saved... unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) |
 | |
Evolution: 1470 Man
1470 Man (homo habilis) is claimed to have existed between 1.5 and 2.4 million years old and was only 4 feet tall.The word "Homo" means man, and "habilis" means handy, hence we have the term "handy man" which he was named due to the tools found in the vicinity of the fossils. Again much creative input from the artists are brought together to create an image that fits the current mind set. It should be noted that fossils tell nothing of ear and nose size, lip type, and whether it was hairy like an ape or without hair like a human.
Homo habilis had a major problem though. It was dated in the millions of years old but anthropoligists such as Richard Leakey stated that it belonged to man's genus because its skull was man-like. Leakey went as far as to say "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man."
The skull looked like man, but because of the old date applied to the fossil, they were confused. Perhaps their dating methods need to be reexamined. When fossils are found in rock layers that are determined by man to be a certain age, of course problems will arise. The way the experts date the rocks is by the fossils found in them, and the way they date the fossils is by the rocks that they are found in. This of course is circular reasoning which really gives you no date at all. When fossils from two different "era's" are found in the same rock layers, they are usually kept out of the textbooks such as Malachite Man , found in the Cretaceous layer.
Conclusion: The old saying goes like this, "If it looks like a duck, it is a duck." If this skull looks like a man, it must be a man.
i like dis way of providing da information coz its ''useful''
i think this is the best way of providing information so if i got chance to work with you then i will
be a man
Science journalist Richard Milton, who not a Christian, sums up the evidence for ape-to-human evolution from the fossil record: "The position today is that all fossil remains which were previously assigned some intermediate status between apes and humans have later been definitely reassigned into the categories of either extinct ape or human, and this reassignment has been accepted by all but the most fanatical devotees of this or that fossil...the missing link is still missing." (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Rochester, Virginia: Park Street Press, 1997, 207).
And what would you define a 'missing link' to be Mr. Noel? I'm curious. Every fossil found is a missing link. To say that two holes replace the one hole when a new fossil is found is absurd, and I hope you at least know that much. Comparing this to a puzzle, one could say that each new fossil is a piece of the puzzle. Sometimes you find pieces that look like they fit somewhere, but realize it doesn't quite fit, but you stuff it in anyways (or at least that is what I did as a child lol) until you find the proper piece or a better suited home. Every piece is a missing piece found that helps to complete the picture of a puzzle. You don't look at a puzzle and say 'the puzzle is less complete because instead of one hole the new piece made a new hole.'
Everything that has ever once lived in the past and fossilized is a missing link. It's just not THE missing link that Creationists are looking for. But in the end, THE missing link doesn't matter. You can still see what the picture of your puzzle ultimately looks like if you're missing a piece or five.
The problem with your puzzle is that each piece is from a different puzzle and none of them fit together. Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
Ever since Darwin the fossil record has been an embarrassment to evolutionists. The predictions concerning what evolutionists expected to find in the fossil record have failed miserably. Not only have they failed to find the many tens of thousands of undoubted transitional forms that are demanded by evolutionary theory, but the number of arguable, let alone demonstrable, transitional forms that have been suggested are few indeed. This has placed evolutionists in a most difficult situation, made even more embarrassing by the fact that the fossil record is remarkably in accord with predictions based on special creation.
