[fortheDeclaration]

And the skull is assumed to be a hominid, something that cannot even be proven to have existed. What great science. Hominids cannot be proven to have existed??? That's an intriguing statement. Care to try your hand at deciding which of the fossils in post 50 belong in the ape-kind vs. the human-kind? Could it be possible that any of those are actually transitionals related to both kinds?

Oh, come on now!

There is not one so-called 'transitional' skull that can be proved to be a transitional skull.

It is either a human skull or an animal one.

And that is why the scientists always use words like 'assume' and 'possible' when discussing them.

[bobdsmith]

prove they are either ape or human

[Stultis]

Oh, come on now!

There is not one so-called 'transitional' skull that can be proved to be a transitional skull.

It is either a human skull or an animal one.

Good! Then you should have no problem with Jenny's test.

Btw, how (in light of your declaration that it MUST be one or the other) would you interpret it -- if it just happened to be the case -- that creationist "experts" could not themselves agree whether a particular skull (or each of a number of fossil skulls) was a "human [one]" or an "animal one"?

[jennyp]

Oh, come on now!

There is not one so-called 'transitional' skull that can be proved to be a transitional skull.

It is either a human skull or an animal one.

Good, you should have no problem answering post 50. (Substitute "just an animal" for "just an ape".)

[b_sharp]

"There is not one so-called 'transitional' skull that can be proved to be a transitional skull."

Care to describe what a transitional between an animal and a human might look like? If it existed of course.