paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[james bond]

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?

Compare him to the Eskimo:

 

[Hollie]

No, those are actual fossils.

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark if you ask me and he is made to look like homo ergaster. Another artist would represent him differently from the fossils and description. It's based on human variability, so we can show today's humans to fit the description and fossils.

I’m not sure what your complaint is.

Would you care to comment on the western societal image of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned, fair haired, very Caucasian looking fellow?

Are you surprised that the western world would create jeebus in their own image?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?

Compare him to the Eskimo:

We do compare them to eskimos, and to all humans. Trust me, actual measurements and comparisons to mountains of data mean more than your gut feelings. I know you religious goobers dont get that.

Not even close... Well, closer than other, more distantly related prinates and animals.

 

[Hollie]

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head?

Compare him to the Eskimo:

You don't understand that geography plays a part in physical traits?

 

[james bond]

I’m not sure what your complaint is.

Please try to keep up. The fossils and description would match different peoples of today. It shows human variability. One didn't evolve from the other. That's just a made up story to fit Darwinism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fossils and description would match different peoples of today.

No, they wouldn't. That is a shameless lie you parroted and that you don't even understand. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not sure what your complaint is.

Please try to keep up. The fossils and description would match different peoples of today. It shows human variability. One didn't evolve from the other. That's just a made up story to fit Darwinism.

Your uninformed opinions are nothing more than what you copy and paste from ID’iot creation ministries.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientific racism (sometimes referred to as race biology),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]

{snip}

The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in The Bell Curve (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the Mankind Quarterly, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your uninformed opinions are nothing more than what you copy and paste from ID’iot creation ministries

Thats exactly right. His current, laughably stupid talking point (that he doesn't even understand) is being regurgitated directly from here:

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

He shamelessly plagiarizes that website. And it's funny watching him try to stand on his own, then say something very stupid, then go google for a talking point from this website.

And it is every single time. Try it out, sometime. I have found his words verbatim there more than once.

 

[james bond]

Trust me, actual measurements and comparisons to mountains of data mean more than your gut feelings.

Not gut feelings, but scientific observations. It doesn't show evolution.

 

[james bond]

Scientific racism (sometimes referred to as race biology),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]

{snip}

The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in The Bell Curve (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the Mankind Quarterly, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.

There's nothing scientific about racism. It's pseudoscientific, but the social Darwinists, eugenics believers, people like Hitler, racists, white supremacists, Planned Parenthood, and more believe it. Why are they all on the liberal side?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Study: Last Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans Lived 800,000 Years Ago | Anthropology, Paleoanthropology | Sci-News.com

Earlier than previously thought...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientific racism (sometimes referred to as race biology),[1][2] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[3][4][5]Historically, scientific racist ideas received credence in the scientific community but are no longer considered scientific.[4][5]

{snip}

The term "scientific racism" is generally used pejoratively as applied to more modern theories, as in The Bell Curve (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence.[10] Publications such as the Mankind Quarterly, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism for publishing articles on fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race subjects.

There's nothing scientific about racism. It's pseudoscientific, but the social Darwinists, eugenics believers, people like Hitler, racists, white supremacists, Planned Parenthood, and more believe it. Why are they all on the liberal side?

On the liberal side, eh?

The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of “natural” inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state intervention or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the “unfit” and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological superiority.

What exactly is a liberal?

The word has—for some people, at least—taken on some negative connotations when used in a political sense in the United States. It is still embraced with pride by others.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Is Planned Parenthood really racist -or- has it just been constantly accused of being racist by racists and other political opponents? National Republican Radio asks and reluctantly answers.. (No and Yes)

 

[progressive hunter]

Is Planned Parenthood really racist -or- has it just been constantly accused of being racist by racists and other political opponents? National Republican Radio asks and reluctantly answers.. (No and Yes)

well the founder was very clear about why she started it,,,


3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...


21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick

 

[Grumblenuts]

Would you like it if people started accusing you of wanting to exterminate all Black people? No? Think you might tell a colleague that you wouldn't like that to happen? Yes? OMG, what disgusting person you are!

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick

Wow, what a shameless political hatchet job. Have you asked the authors why they think Italian women (highly Catholic, you know, from where the Pope resides?) still rely so much upon birth control?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The only contraception method sanctioned by the Catholic Church is natural family planning (NFP) — a method of non-hormonal birth control that involves tracking a woman’s fertility through biological markers like taking her temperature, examining her cervical mucus, or counting the days between her menstrual cycle. NFP has about a 24 percent failure rate and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend it for women who could be placed in medical danger by a pregnancy.

NFP isn’t very popular among the faithful. Only 2 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age actually use this method, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Meanwhile, according to a 2014 poll by Univision, 79 percent of Catholics around the world support the use of other forms of contraception. Previous polling has reported that 82 percent of American Catholics say birth control is “morally acceptable,” and 98 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception at some point while they’ve been sexually active.

Congratulations on getting us so far off the topic with your BS.

 

[progressive hunter]

Would you like it if people started accusing you of wanting to exterminate all Black people? No? Think you might tell a colleague that you wouldn't like that to happen? Yes? OMG, what disgusting person you are!

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick

Wow, what a shameless political hatchet job. Have you asked the authors why they think Italian women (highly Catholic, you know, from where the Pope resides?) still rely so much upon birth control?

your deflection is well noted and rejected as complete bullshit since its obvious you didnt click the link and read the other quotes,,nor did you do any real research on her

 

[progressive hunter]

The only contraception method sanctioned by the Catholic Church is natural family planning (NFP) — a method of non-hormonal birth control that involves tracking a woman’s fertility through biological markers like taking her temperature, examining her cervical mucus, or counting the days between her menstrual cycle. NFP has about a 24 percent failure rate and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend it for women who could be placed in medical danger by a pregnancy.

NFP isn’t very popular among the faithful. Only 2 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age actually use this method, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Meanwhile, according to a 2014 poll by Univision, 79 percent of Catholics around the world support the use of other forms of contraception. Previous polling has reported that 82 percent of American Catholics say birth control is “morally acceptable,” and 98 percent of U.S. Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception at some point while they’ve been sexually active.

Congratulations on getting us so far off the topic with your BS.

youre one to talk,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

your deflection is well noted and rejected as complete bullshit since its obvious you didnt click the link and read the other quotes,,nor did you do any real research on her

That's your deflection and of course I read the fucking quotes, you shameless prick.