Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
This is the most stunning admission for the lack of evidence for human evolution that I’ve ever read. The author presents his own alternative, the aquatic ape theory, which he admits cannot be demonstrated by fossil evidence.
It seems really desperate that he would even present an alternative to the mainstream view, while admitting that it cannot be supported by the evidence, just to maintain his belief in human evolution.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Humble Disciple, Jul 1, 2021.
-
-
RighteousnessTemperance& Well-Known Member
Intriguing. The Aquatic Ape Conjecture does seem to take it even further than Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium.
-
I have been a firm believer than man did not evolve from fish, lizards or apes. Different species each time. And IMO that includes "Lucy" and their off spring.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Sorry to hear of your family's demise. I'll have you in my prayers that you only get 20 to life....:Whistling -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The two main reasons why I don't believe in evolution, other than the lack of evidence, are that the Bible says we were created from the dust of the ground, not from an ape-like ancestor, and because there's no way to draw the line of when humans became fully evolved, morally conscious, and spiritual beings.
This doesn't mean, however, that I believe earth is less than 10,000 years old, which isn't taught anywhere in the Bible. Christian geologists discovered the earth's antiquity before Darwin was even born. -
Marooncat79 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Fossils are a testimony to death and destruction NOT the origin of life
there should be tens of thousands of transitional life forms
after 160 yrs, we cannot find 1