Replies

You sure like to get your arguments from talkorigins.org

They get theirs from the real scientific literature and, unlike creationist sources, they cite it accurately.

There is a wide variation in the skulls of homo sapiens, and this includes cranial capacity and bone structure. This is not surprising since there are wide variations among different people across the globe. Many of those skull show could very easily be human.

But you just said a post or two ago it was a bunch of ape skulls.

To try and claim that they are transitionals is quite amusing.

Then why are you dodging? Where are the apes and where are the humans. Why don't creationist authorities agree with each other? Why does the fossil record show creatures with the mix of features shown becoming less and less like a chimpanzee (our nearest relative and the skull at the upper left) and more and more like a modern human (the skull at the bottom right?)

Darwin's theory predicted that such a progression of beings must once have lived. Creationism just scoffed. They turned up. How did that happen?

Same thing happened with the land-animal and amphibious ancestors of whales. Evolution said they must have existed. Creationism scoffed. They turned up.

The same thing happened with the ancestors of birds. Creationism scoffed. They turned up.

How does that keep happening? How is it all amusing? Is it because nobody can make you see? Is militant ignorance science?

"Where are the apes and where are the humans. Why don't creationist authorities agree with each other?"

The evolutionist can't make up their minds any better than the creationist can on this one. Creationist agree that they are not links from lower life forms to humans. Evolutionist find part of a deteriorated skull and build a whole new species as a link to man instead of exploring the obvious. All of the skulls shown are either human or some ape like species totally unrelated to man. This is what I mean when I say that evolutionist like to force the data fit their theory.

"Same thing happened with the land-animal and amphibious ancestors of whales. Evolution said they must have existed. Creationism scoffed. They turned up."

There is no evidence of intermediates anywhere else in the animal kingdom either. Many evolutionist will lament this fact. Unusual fossils do turn up from time to time, but they are obviously fully functional animals and not in a state of evolution. They are simply either extinct or undiscovered species.

Also, you still haven't addressed the abiogenesis problem, which was disproved long ago. After all abiogenesis is the first step in you theory of evolution. Good luck!