[fortheDeclaration]

Here we go with the playing of terms. I am not attempting to play with terms. I am pointing out an apparent contradiction in your statement. We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind. Humans are animals. There is no transition from one to the other.

No they aren't.

That is where the 'new' terms come in.

A man is not an animal.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it? Yes, but there would be no point at which the species is not "animal". Humans are classified as part of the kingdom Animalia. So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human. This is not accurate. The specimen would in fact be completely animal.

No, the thing would be neither be animal nor human.

It would be a transition from the one to the other.

Once, again playing games with terms.

But leaving aside the word games, it would be a transition from an ape to a man, an intermediate creature which does not exist, nor ever existed.

These are the transition creatures that the fossil record was suppose to show but never did, so now you are looking at skulls.

[Dimensio]

A man is not an animal.

I am afraid that you are mistaken. Biological taxonomy classifies homo sapiens as members of kingdom Animalia. If you have evidence that this classification is incorrect, I will hear it out, but I do not believe that there exists compelling evidence to suggest that humans are actually members of a different biological kingdom.

But leaving aside the word games, it would be a transition from an ape to a man, an intermediate creature which does not exist, nor ever existed.

If this is true, how do you explain various specimens that are classified as intermediate forms between ancestral apes and contemporary humans?

[jennyp]

A man is not an animal.

So... that leaves vegetable or mineral. Which is it? :-)

Seriously, I want you to take the survey in post 50. Since there are no transitionals between ape and human, it should be easy.

[b_sharp]

" No, the thing would be neither be animal nor human.

"It would be a transition from the one to the other.

And the difference between humans and animals is...?

Surely you have a method for differentiating between the two. Care to share it?

I'm sure that the method would enable us to tell which of post 50's skulls are human and which are animal.

[shuckmaster]

You're the one playing games with terms. Humans are apes and aren't likely to magically turn into anything else anytime soon no matter how creative you get with your terms.