Replies

And what you posted was an APE SKULL

The only reason you call it a missing link is the THEORY of EVOLUTION, not any facts, not any evidence, but a BELIEF IN A FALSE SCIENCE

See? It is easy to refute evolution, all you have to do is look and think, all an evo has to do is put on blinders and copy phrases and then, place some obscure fossil into the family tree because they have initials after their name.

Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

This is so fun watching you guys try hard and then implode when common sense is applied to your posting...

Funny! All but one of the creationists sampled here say that one (WT 15000) isn't "An ape! Just an ape!" Most of them say "Man! Just a man!" on that one.

Why is it so hard for creationists to agree on what is an ape, just an ape, and what is a man, just a man, if these are separate "created kinds" and nobody would ever mistake one for the other?

And what you posted was an APE SKULL The only reason you call it a missing link is the THEORY of EVOLUTION, not any facts, not any evidence, but a BELIEF IN A FALSE SCIENCE

See? It is easy to refute evolution, all you have to do is look and think, all an evo has to do is put on blinders and copy phrases and then, place some obscure fossil into the family tree because they have initials after their name.

So the fossil I posted is an ape. OK, here are some additional specimens. Please tell me which of the specimens in this photograph are apes.

Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

I think you mean "in line to be a human." However, it actually is pretty far from resembling any modern ape skull. Not a chimp. Not a gorilla. Not an orangutan. Again, in that collection of Young Earth bin-game lawyers, only Cuozzo came down on your "Ape! Just an ape!" position. The rest were yelling "Man! Just a man!"

That's the effect an in-between thing produces when shown to obersvers who on doctrinaire grounds will not acknowledge the plain existence of an in-between thing.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

I think you mean "descendants." (If your ancestors died off without issue, there is no you.) It doesn't matter whether the individual fossilized had any kids that lived or not, or even if he lived within 1000 miles of the population that gave rise to humans. He's a real clue to what that population would have looked like in his time.

This is so fun watching you guys try hard and then implode when common sense is applied to your posting...

If you're having fun, why are you dissolving in shrill, screaming incoherence?

"Any child that has seen a human skull and an ape skull will know it is an APE skull you posted here, not something that was in line to be an ape

I see you have rigged it so there are only two groups - human and not human. No bias there against the possibility of intermediates between the two, is there? Nice set up.

"BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS ANIMALS ANCESTORS DIED OFF OR NOT BEFORE THEY EVER BECAME MAN, DO YOU?!?!

Since in your mind there are no transitional fossils, just them or us, what does it matter?

Funny thing about hominid fossils, they show a gradual increase in brain size, face flattening, upright stance, and leg length. Do you draw your dividing line between the fossils that walk upright (very much unlike other apes) but have small brain size and are quite short and those that don't quite walk upright but have small brain size and are quite short? Or at some other equally arbitrary point?

Tell us, what are the criteria used to differentiate between human and ape fossils?