Replies

"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!

The evolutionist can't make up their minds any better than the creationist can on this one.

Evolutionists expected to find specimens that are hard to lump into arbitrary bins. They knew to expect that even before they turned up. That there are disputes over classification is a consequence of life evolving from one form to another. This is not proof you are right. This is proof you are wrong.

Creationist agree that they are not links from lower life forms to humans.

But they don't agree on what's an ape and what's a human. That's funny, since the whole idea is supposed to be that an ape is an ape and a human is a human and never the twain have met.

Duane Gish can't even decide if a specific bone shape is apelike (as he calls it in Java Man) or human (as he calls it in Lake Turkana boy.)

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.

This makes no sense in light of what I have told you already. We find what evolution predicts. Thus, evolution is looking good. Separate creation is looking bad.

There is no evidence of intermediates anywhere else in the animal kingdom either.

I have linked many examples. What's wrong with them? We predicted them. They were found. That's pretty good.

Also, you still haven't addressed the abiogenesis problem, which was disproved long ago.

I can't tell which ignorant creationist misstatement you refer to here. Let's just say all of those were proved wrong long ago.

There is no evidence of intermediates anywhere else in the animal kingdom either.

Didn't you click the links that Vade offered as evidence FOR intermediates? Christ, he linked to 9 or 10.

Many evolutionist will lament this fact.

Sez you.

Unusual fossils do turn up from time to time, but they are obviously fully functional animals and not in a state of evolution.

Unngh. "...not in a state of evolution"...unngh.

They are simply either extinct or undiscovered species

Zooks! Are YOU a paleontologist?

Here's an example of the problem you are dodging. I mentioned this earlier, but didn't want to go look for it.

The transition from fish to elephant in small steps with known fossils.

Against that, you just keep saying "There aren't any," and "No bones you can find mean anything."

And here's where I bop you on the head for claiming falsely that something scientists expect to find in the fossil record is in fact missing when two things are true:

Science thinks we have about the fossil record we should expect, given how evolution works and how geology works.
Nothing will ever be a transitional form for you, no matter what science acutally does find. You are categorically dismissing all fossil evidence.

It is a dishonest game to pretend that you would accept fossil evidence were it not missing if you would not do so and are already rejecting what you claim is missing.

Unusual fossils do turn up from time to time, but they are obviously fully functional animals and not in a state of evolution.

Populations evolve by staying fit, not by going unfit. You don't have a clue what the theory of evolution says.

Think about that. You don't have even the most elementary understanding of what you are claiming is wrong. How do you know it's wrong if you don't know what it is?