The Fake Ape Men - Michael J Penfold

[HeroesDoctorWhoGirl]

if darwin's theory was true, there wouldn't be any monkeys today. cause the surviaval of the fittist.

Evoulution is an idea created by wicked men and the devil. I don't blame Darwin that he had lost faith in God and made up another explaniation of life. it's just he should of kept his mouth shut.

[YARTES2K8]

Excellent!!! Thanks for sharing this video!

[thesamsons1]

There is a lot of evidence against Evolution, we have to start posting more videos!

[CautiousSaint]

Wow, look "Nebraska Man" who must have lived "millions of years ago" has camels standing behind him--camels that didn't evolve over those same millions of years. Besides the missing link that evolutions will never find, they cannot explain why there are still monkeys today if man evolved from them. What caused only SOME monkeys to evolve into men? They have no answer. In the meantime, the Bible clearly explains the creation of the world and all life. Thanks for posting this excellent video!

[Andrewkinghorn15]

Good video!!! It's really good. Autro was a knucklewalker. Don't let the evolutionists confuse you with their work games.

God bless

[assaultspearhead]

Awesome video. Evolution must be questioned more.

[sosmither]

Great Video!

Awesome, Five Stars!

Evolution is a fake.

Well the evolution that is being taught!

Five Stars!

[sweatytoothmadman]

Difficult but not impossible and no one has ever claimed to have DNA millions of years old, but there is DNA from a bacteria extracted from ice cores that is 800,000 years old.

[griffgriff78]

Need more info. Who, when, where?

[sweatytoothmadman]

National Geographic did an article title "Oldest Known DNA Found" the DNA is from pine trees, butterflies and other organisms.

[sweatytoothmadman]

I gave you an answer and not you won't approve it?

[alienspy07]

Actually, the DNA sample was:

A)Not millions of years old

B)Tests were performed on it in two different laboratories at the same time, and the EXACT SAME results were achieved at both labs. So it, in fact, WAS repeated.

[griffgriff78]

Supposing I believe you...

A) Where do you get your information.

B) There are still assumptions you are making.

[alienspy07]

A)Neanderthals aren't even millions of years old. They were NEVER believed to be millions of years old. Not even homo erectus or homo habilis are millions of years old.

B)Without substance this point is useless.

[griffgriff78]

Yes Neanderthals are not millions of years old. I should not have even suggested that. The assumptions that you are making about the results is there is total objectivity in both cases. Also please supply info.

[busymartian]

Lucy was only one of several of the same species. Lucy was the most complete skeleton. Nabraska man was proven to be a mistake by scientists.

[alienspy07]

Its true that Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity than homo sapiens, but obviously, since we are still alive and they aren't, there was something about them that made them less adapted than us. I have heard it been said that they are less social than we are. i.e., they don't work well together in a group.

The first link next:

[griffgriff78]

They were homo sapiens. They are only superficailly different to modern humans are are likley to have just suffered from rickets and syphilis.

[alienspy07]

I still can't hear anything, but from the article on Lucy that you link to it seems like they:

a)think that Lucy is the only A. aferensis sample we have. It isn't. There are over 150.

b)think that by listing off ape features of the fossil they disprove it as a transition. That isn't how it works. If Lucy did not have ape features then it wouldn't be considered a transition.

Neanderthals next:

[griffgriff78]

The video makes the same remark about there being more specimens. And the page you refer to is a chronolgy of events. And point to Johnason changing his position on Lucy being homo.

[alienspy07]

"And point to Johnason changing his position on Lucy being homo"

This is a very good argument in favor of my position. Lucy was originally thought by Johnson to be a hominid fossil, but it was determined that it was too ape-like to be hominid. Creationists continue to insist it is just a chimp, even though it was originally thought to be a hominid.

And once again, I can't hear the video. My sound card is broken.

[griffgriff78]

Wishful thinking drives the search for missing links my friend.

This is NOT a good arguement for your position unless you like palentologists to retract their statements about their most prestigous specimens. Also C. Oxnard discounts the australopithecene evidence for human evolution.

[alienspy07]

"Also C. Oxnard discounts the australopithecene evidence for human evolution."

Uh... okay? Who cares. One dude who I've never even heard of against the vast majority of the scientific community. Big whoop.

"This is NOT a good arguement for your position unless you like palentologists to retract their statements about their most prestigous specimens"

Elucidate, please.

[griffgriff78]

Pa haaa. So now you have to have heard of somebody and all scientists have to believe it already for it to be valid.

You like to set the rules up so you always win!