Posted on 12/07/2009 2:23:10 AM PST by Natural Law
Museums and textbooks often use artistic renderings to estimate what a fossilized animal or plant may have looked like when it was alive. These images by “paleoartists” put flesh and faces on skeletal structures, and they can influence public perception of early human history more than the actual science—particularly in regards to human evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
That was "allegorical". rim-shot! Thank you, Thank, you. I'll be here all week. Be sure and tip your waiters........
depicted mankind as having emerged, Darwinian style, from a hairy, ape-like ancestor.
It's reasonable to say that we, as a species, had more hair than we do now (some of us retain much of that hair too).....more reasonable to say that Australopithecus did. Hair has function.
Deak’s images accompany the Wired article, showing semi-human faces that have distinctly human eyes.
Oh no!!!! Human ancestors has...OYG.....human eyes!!! Stop the presses!!!
Deak thoroughly studied the skeletal features of the creatures he was rendering, and his reconstructions of Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis appear to match known fossil skull proportions for those extinct varieties of man.
BUT BUT BUT....THERE SHOULD BE NO EXTINCT VARIETIES OF MAN!!!! We were created "as is"...right? BTMS is slipping.
But the soft parts are interpretive, since these were not preserved in fossilized form.
Yes, BTMS....muscle does not preserve well. So, the depictions should have? Fatter cheecks? Cleft chin?
The clear message is conveyed, without a spoken word, that humans evolved from dark-skinned, hairy, wide-nosed creatures with sloped foreheads and jutting jowls.
OK....just remember, YOU said it, not me.
But the skin color, size of the nose and lips, and amount of hair are not supported by science, only assumed by evolution.
Evolution does not assume any such thing. It's reational to assume skin color, and based on measurements of the skull, it's rational to assume facial features.
....but think BTMS would be up in arms no matter what it looked like.
OYG!!! The images are soooo lifelike!!! ...because they really paid for 2-D Fred Freakin' Flintstone. Get a grip, BTMS.
In other words, if Deak had depicted these creatures with light skin, normal lips, human beard growth patterns, and Roman noses or Oriental eyes, they would have been just as valid, scientifically. But that wouldn’t fit with the evolutionary story.
...and why would they have lighter skin?? Do you have a problem with being the ancestors of "darker-skinned" humans?
Define "normal lips"....do People with big lips have "abnormal lips" or do you not want to be associated with those that have big lips? They weren't "Romans"...are you afraid to be associated with big-nosed people?...or Orientals...so early Man all had slant-eyes?
By these scientists’ own admission, they were just extinct varieties of man, which is exactly the interpretation that follows from the biblical creation model.3
There you go again, BTMS.....did I miss the part of Genesis that talks about "extinct varieties of Man"? The part where God made Man...but screwed up and then made Man again...but screwed up again and then made Man again and FINALLY got it right with Romanesque, small-nosed, slant-eyed, whitey?
while the evidence for the unique creation of man is in the rocks and in the world for all to see.
No, it's not, BTMS.
So, this is “defending religious freedom”??
BTW, notice the image at the top of the article? Is that a modern human skeleton? Here I thought he was talking about ancient skeletons.
6 year olds love “cutesy little names” to call people... But in your case it would be insulting 6 year olds.
How about... BTMSGIWET!
I don't think so, I was kind of wondering about that myself, but I think it is supposed to go with every citation of BTMS* and ICR. Descended from monkey see - descended from monkey do.
I’m sorry you feel so insulted.
I think BTMS and GGG have the Madonna Complex (not that one, the one with her hair having black roots). Not to belabor the point but isn't is a little oxymoronic (or simply moronic) for BTMS to be irritated at an early hominid ancestor being depicted as black if he wasn't accepting the ancestry and denying his roots were black?
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9hp52/whats_the_best_scam_youve_ever_pulled/c0ctjz8
Already been tried, xcamel. But it does go to show how desperate your fellow evo-trolls are to take me down. Thankfully, not everyone is as easily (or should I say voluntarily?) hoodwinked as you are. Or perhaps maybe you are behind this whole effort? I wouldn’t put it past you, given your inverted moral code.
Show me the bunny!
The IP pointed straight back to you... why don’t you just admit it. They say confession is good for the soul...
Then you must have been looking in the mirror. I know it’s tough with all those snakes, and centipedes, and rotting teeth to look at.
You ever consider a career in comedy?
Read his books (if you can find one).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.