Quote# 75682

[best part is at the end]

Evolutionist... there is something weird about your fossil evidence...?
ardi has two different sized feet... has a pelvic bone broken into 4 pieces, and badly degraded to the point where it does not even look like a pelvic bone. and also, a artical written in the july 2010 issue of national geographic magazine on pages 57-58:

"as the sun was setting, yohannes haileselassie found a hand bone not a stones throw to where they found the teeth the previous year...a search of the area produced a tibia, eventually came the skull and pelvis, both crushed."

stating these bones were found on different DATES and in different LOCATIONS. plus nothing remains in the bone in order to tell if every part came from the same being. also, since the bone was found in the dirt, and were highly subject to contamination, no dating method can accurate date any of these fossils.

zelda, Y! answers 36 Comments [8/29/2010 7:49:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 47

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


Wow...where the hell else do you expect bones to be found, floating on a cloud??

8/29/2010 7:53:56 PM


You find fossils in rock. Heck, fossils are rock. Guess what? We can date rocks!

And these fossils were all found at the same site. So I wouldn't say they were found in different locations. They were found next to each other. What, do you expect all the fossilized bones to inhabit the same physical space?

Also, how does the time difference matter? Do you think a fairy came down and sprinkled the fossil bones of a different animal into the rocks during that time? Fossils don't get up and walk from one place to another.

Given that National Geographic is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I normally wouldn't quote it as a source for scientific information. However, if I did, I think I'd copy keep the same capitalization in the quote I used. I somehow doubt that National Geographic usually fails to capitalize things like the beginnings of sentences and people's names.

8/29/2010 8:04:10 PM


god, you can feel the stupid level increasing as you read on.

8/29/2010 8:15:44 PM

Evilution Teacher

Word of advice - take an ecology class and geology class.

Words of ridicule - Officer, you mean the murder victim's head and torso were found on different DATES and in different LOCATIONS! They were found in the DIRT?! Oh, no there is no way they can be the same individual. There is no way you can deduce important information from them.


8/29/2010 8:36:06 PM

How does I understand basic geology?

8/29/2010 8:46:26 PM


Science fail in MULTIPLE fields. Congrats dumbass!

8/29/2010 8:51:36 PM


A lot of fossils have been destroyed because of age. What's your point?

8/29/2010 9:33:30 PM


Why does Link keep saving this dumb bitch?

8/29/2010 9:35:12 PM


Once again, Yahoo proves the efficiency of their idiot magnet.

8/30/2010 12:05:22 AM


Yes, Zelda, there IS something weird about our fossil evidence. Even though it is quite simple to understand, there are a great number of people like yourself that cant figure it out.

Also, what is the point that the bones were found on different days? How does that invalidate the find? Different locations? After many years, for bones to be scattered about due to various disturbances is what one would expect. But...they were in the same general location, again, as one would expect.

But you do have one good point. The bone was found in the dirt. Well......now that just disproves the entire find. I mean, why would the bones ever be found in dirt as opposed to say, a cloud. Or perhaps just floating in air. Resting on a tree limb, whatever. So, obviously anything found in dirt can never be accurately dated. What an astute geological discovery.

ok....sarcasm switch off.....

8/30/2010 12:13:09 AM


It doesn't matter how much evidence there is they sip still try and make a game out of making up reasons why its not evidence or how its wrong or fake .

8/30/2010 12:26:37 AM

rubber chicken

The bow and stern sections of the Titanic were found on different days and in different places. Clearly they are not parts of the same wreck.

8/30/2010 12:44:59 AM


Rule one in fundie communities:
Don’t believe Satanists…………., I mean scientists no matter what they say. It’s all a lie.

Rule two:
Don’t believe evidence it’s all false no matter what they present.

Rule three:
The bible is always right.

Rule four:
If it looks that the bible maybe wrong on something, Jesus will come down, blow your brains out and cast you into hell right between the teeth of Satan for eternity!!!!!!!
So you better follow rule three at all times, or else

8/30/2010 12:58:39 AM


The quote you made is just to show how difficult and time consuming fossil hunting is.

You don't believe in evolution, so when did you become a fossil expert?

8/30/2010 1:15:57 AM


A protip, zelda; before you start attacking scientists, who have studied geology and archaeology for years and years, learn how to use the English language properly. Being able to form a grammatically correct sentence, with few spelling errors, will make you look a little less foolish.

I call bullshit on that being an accurate citation from the National Geographic. I doubt they use elipses in their texts, just to name one thing.

8/30/2010 1:19:54 AM

"since the bone was found in the dirt, and were highly subject to contamination, no dating method can accurate date any of these fossils".

Because everyone knows we can only accurately date things that are found in hermetically sealed, sterile containers.

Someone's been watching too much CSI.

8/30/2010 1:33:19 AM


Canadia FTW!!

zelda, your choice of username is a disgrace to my favorite video-game series.

8/30/2010 2:00:18 AM


Somehow I'd bet that the artical (sic) in the National geographic was better written and easier to understand than this drivel, but in any case what difference would it make to evolutionary "theory" if the bones came from one body or different bodies?

Or have I misunderstood your mishmash of a post?

8/30/2010 2:37:18 AM


Bones do tend to get spread around and to deteriorate after they've been lying around in the dirt for a million years.

8/30/2010 3:33:28 AM

The Jamo

I stopped reading at "a artical" [sic]. I make no room for willful idiocy.

8/30/2010 3:43:17 AM

Mister Spak

Also there is no evidence the world is round.

8/30/2010 3:59:58 AM

Bones don't stay neatly together unless the body was encased in mud quickly, or unless you bury a body in a box. Otherwise those bones will move over time.

8/30/2010 4:21:39 AM

Hmmm, remains damaged and spread over a small area. Remains found in the ground. Remains discovered over a period of time, likely due to the fact they were not articulated (and in the ground).

What about this is weird?

8/30/2010 6:20:43 AM

Doubting Thomas

I don't think that many fossils have been found floating above the ground. And even then, you'd say that they would be contaminated by the air.

And from the text it sounds like they were found in the same location. "Not a stone's throw" is a phrase that means "not far away," in case you didn't know. With fossils that have been laying there for thousands of years, it's not unusual to find them scattered around, but in the same general area.

8/30/2010 6:28:32 AM


Zelda has posted numerous questions like this on Y!A, and his answers to anything dealing with evolution is usually comedy gold.
This retard is too dense to educate. I simply ridicule him (or her).

8/30/2010 7:42:19 AM

1 2 | top: comments page