[Creationist]

Assumption is not evidence. Dead bones are not evidence they prove nothing except that something lived and died.

Over paid by my tax dollar Professors and field jocks prove nothing except that they can find dead bones and make assumptions. Geologist can interpret the land with presupposition and come up with a old planet.

Yet when those who believe in Jesus, and are experts in these very same fields give a interpretation of the visible evidence that compliments the Bible, evolutionist can barf out the degradation and vial comments because of their disbelief in God and the Bible as 100% true.

[Coyoteman]

Here are some more bones. Want more?

---

Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[Dimensio]

Dead bones are not evidence they prove nothing except that something lived and died.

Have you actually studied the explanations behind the conclusions of common descent? If so, why do you believe them to be false?

Yet when those who believe in Jesus, and are experts in these very same fields give a interpretation of the visible evidence that compliments the Bible, evolutionist can barf out the degradation and vial comments because of their disbelief in God and the Bible as 100% true.

What interpretation of the visible evidence compliments the Bible? I am familiar with claims that you have made on this subject, but they were not convincing. You may assert that the lack of acceptance of your claims is a belief that the Bible is not "100% true", but that is not the case. In fact, your explanations were founded upon factual errors and incorrect analogies.