 |
|
Vesayen
|
|
From the people who brought you the christian science fair and quote:
Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks. |
(LOL GREAT JOB PATRICIA YOU WATCHED A ROCK REMAIN A ROCK) comes.....
Those whacky evolutionists!
Giggle at their antics!
Laugh as they try to use "reason" and "fact" to explore the universe!
Bust a side laughing as they burn in hell for all eternity!
http://objective.jesussave.us/wackyevolutionists.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Why do you think it is a hoax?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
I DO think this site is real by the way, have you read all of it? WAY to much stuff in it to be a fake........
quote:
From what I can piece together from the incoherent Evolutionist literature, the Aquatic Ape story goes like this: Billions of years ago a bunch of monkeys lived under the sea. Then one day, one of them gave birth to a human baby. Soon after, all the sea-monkeys began giving birth to human babies. Eventually, there were only humans living under the sea. Then the sea-humans decided to live on the land, so they did just that. Many years latter, one of these now land-living sea-humans gave birth to a baby who was named Charles Darwin. And they lived happily ever after. |
ANYWAY How stupid can they be? Yes, people claim there were monkeys, let alone veribrates billions of years ago...... er no lol-no one does.
Also the "aquatic ape" theory isnt about giving birth under the ocean, its explains some wierd human characteristics, like hairlessness(genenrally) and boyant female breasts. The theory dosent claim apes lived in the seas, it was that early humans often ended up in lakes to escape land based predators....
I dont think its correct, but it isnt out of the realm of possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
How in the world is AAT "scientifically plausible"? |
Did you bother to read up on the real theory, or are you just relying on this comical page?
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/T...t/aat_jhr1.html
It's plausible because the theory simply states that, for a period of time, the ancestors of modern humans spent most of their time in shallow water (note: not under it) as protection from land-based predators, and this explains some characteristics of human physiology.
As I said, it is considered fringe, but it is by no means completely implausible. It does lack, however, supporting evidence. Until someone finds fossil evidence for it, it is not much more than fancy. Also, many of the characteristics its supporters maintain are only explicable by AAT (and more accurately it should be "Amphibious," not "Aquatic") have been shown to be explicable by other means of natural selection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Yeah, just did.
quote:
It's plausible because the theory simply states that, for a period of time, the ancestors of modern humans spent most of their time in shallow water (note: not under it) as protection from land-based predators, and this explains some characteristics of human physiology.
As I said, it is considered fringe, but it is by no means completely implausible. It does lack, however, supporting evidence. Until someone finds fossil evidence for it, it is not much more than fancy. Also, many of the characteristics its supporters maintain are only explicable by AAT (and more accurately it should be "Amphibious," not "Aquatic") have been shown to be explicable by other means of natural selection. |
if it has no fossil evidence, then who cares?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
So, this fringe theory, as Boris pointed out himself, has no fossil evidence whatsoever to back it up, and yet it is called "scientifically plausible"? |
You've yet to show how it's implausible. I give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're more and more sounding like the typical Creationist who will jump to any attack and strawman if he thinks it can help
Acknowledging a theory as being "plausible" doesn't mean it is by any means correct, or that I think it is so. Frankly, I think AAT is without merit, but there's nothing in the theory that is outrageously implausible.
The plausibility of a theory doesn't depend a bit on supporting evidence, simply on whether or not it appears to follow logical mechanisms and could achieve the apparent results. That speaks nothing as to its veracity, which is what evidence is used for, simply that, scientifically speaking, it's possible.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2003 03:14
Attachment: 
|
