“Chris Stringer is a leading evolutionist, expert on supposed human evolution. He’s at the Natural History Museum in London. In a book review in 1003, about a book about human evolution, he said this:
‘The study of human origins seems to be a field in which each discovery raises the debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty. True to the traditions of the field the arguments to swirl around the questions of the correct classification of the fossils and of the presumed relationships between the species of humans and pre-humans.’
So, they are just getting more and more sophisticated in their uncertainty. Well, that was 1993. In 2000 an article appeared in National Geographic. I couldn’t believe it was in the magazine. I’m going to show you the whole article. It was one page. And everything on that page they had a picture of those six bones and a piece of jaw and they said:
‘It’s hard to find someone who can draw a realistic-looking early hominid. That’s why the Geographic’s art department conducted a search for new talent. Four artists were picked to receive casts of two-million-year-old female Homo habilis fossils. From these bits of evidence they were to sketch – in skeletal and flashed-out form – the hominid to whom the bones belonged.’ [Behind the Scenes, National Geographic, March 2000]
So, here’s the assignment. We want you to take a look at those bones and we want you to draw a complete skeleton and then we want you to draw a picture of what that creature looked like when it had muscles, and skin, and hair. They go on:
‘Each artist had two weeks with the bones before they were sent on to the next persons,’ says coordinator Kris Hannah. ‘Research was completely up to the individual. That’s why their work looks so different. There’s no one way to draw her.’
There’s no one way to draw her. Now that’s significant. They conclude:
‘Paleoanthropologists reviewed the results intrigued with all four entries, the art department has invited the artists to paint finished version based on input from the consultants.’
Now, I just have a question. How will that help? Because the paleontologists don’t have any more fossil evidence than the artists. And they’re not as good at art. So how will that help? Would you be interested to see what they drew? Well, even if you’re not I’m going to show you because this is very educational.”
You can watch the lecture here.
Dr. Terry Mortenson on why the theory of evolution is a fraud and a lie (part eleven)
“Chris Stringer is a leading evolutionist, expert on supposed human evolution. He’s at the Natural History Museum in London. In a book review in 1003, about a book about human evolution, he said this:
‘The study of human origins seems to be a field in which each discovery raises the debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty. True to the traditions of the field the arguments to swirl around the questions of the correct classification of the fossils and of the presumed relationships between the species of humans and pre-humans.’
So, they are just getting more and more sophisticated in their uncertainty. Well, that was 1993. In 2000 an article appeared in National Geographic. I couldn’t believe it was in the magazine. I’m going to show you the whole article. It was one page. And everything on that page they had a picture of those six bones and a piece of jaw and they said:
‘It’s hard to find someone who can draw a realistic-looking early hominid. That’s why the Geographic’s art department conducted a search for new talent. Four artists were picked to receive casts of two-million-year-old female Homo habilis fossils. From these bits of evidence they were to sketch – in skeletal and flashed-out form – the hominid to whom the bones belonged.’ [Behind the Scenes, National Geographic, March 2000]
So, here’s the assignment. We want you to take a look at those bones and we want you to draw a complete skeleton and then we want you to draw a picture of what that creature looked like when it had muscles, and skin, and hair. They go on:
‘Each artist had two weeks with the bones before they were sent on to the next persons,’ says coordinator Kris Hannah. ‘Research was completely up to the individual. That’s why their work looks so different. There’s no one way to draw her.’
There’s no one way to draw her. Now that’s significant. They conclude:
‘Paleoanthropologists reviewed the results intrigued with all four entries, the art department has invited the artists to paint finished version based on input from the consultants.’
Now, I just have a question. How will that help? Because the paleontologists don’t have any more fossil evidence than the artists. And they’re not as good at art. So how will that help? Would you be interested to see what they drew? Well, even if you’re not I’m going to show you because this is very educational.”
You can watch the lecture here.