How wrong are they in this page?
creationwiki.org
Creationwiki's Perspective on Human Origins
Charles Walker
Kevin Smith
Anyone?
Nicholas Jones
>God intentionally scattered mankind to retard their technological advancement by confusing their speech
how can you take any of this shit seriously
Elijah Johnson
D I C K S O U T
I
C
K
S
O
U
T
Nathan Barnes
Their words, not mine.
Alexander Gomez
>How wrong are they in this page?
exactly how wrong they are on everything else.
the teal deer is that they claim paleoanthropologists can't find any transitional forms. this is explained by saying that everything is either an ape that paleoanthropologists falsely claim has some human features or a human that they falsely claim has some ape features. of course, this line of argument sort of falls apart when you see something like early Homo erectus, which walked upright and made tools and used fire, but still had the long arms and round abdomen of an ape.
Ryder Allen
Like Turkana Boy or members of Habilis?
Tyler Howard
exactly like Turkana Boy or members of H. habilis
the creationist argument in this case is based entirely on claiming that there's nothing in the fossil record with a mix of human and ape features. and that's proven false by taking a quick look at, well, just about any early human.
(bonus: they say there are really just two genera of hominin, Homo and Australopithecus. they say this because they are ignorant swine.)
Logan Price
Usually they just claim habilis is a "wastebasket taxon" for "large-brained australopithecines" and "small-brained humans."
Funny part is that they can't agree which are which.
Then there was that one time AiG claimed sediba was a human. Kinda makes this comic ironic.
Jacob Gonzalez
youtube.com
It's not just skulls. It's also genetics.