[FourtySeven]

Hmmm.......now I wonder how the creationists are going to label this skull:

1. Simply an ape that has never been discovered before or...

2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

Yes, we're all familiar with that now tired shell game.

"There are NO transitional fossils in the record! NEVER have been", typical Creationist says.

"Ok, what about this skull 'X'?", typical response by an Evolutionist.

"Oh CLEARLY that's just another kind of ape, or the damage is too severe to say it's NOT a simple human skull, or..."...basically ANY response to deny that the ORIGINAL question was answered, at least to any OBJECTIVE eye.

[Physicist]

Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

The heavy brow was caused by excessive furrowing while pondering the second significant digit of pi. ;^)

[far sider]

This guy is supposed to convinced me I evolved from apes?

Oh yeah. I'm convinced. Sign me up!

< /sarcasm off> Actually, he looks like a guy I work with.

[far sider]

Hmmm.......now I wonder how the creationists are going to label this skull:

1. Simply an ape that has never been discovered before or...

2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

As a creationist I pick No. 2, except what "deformities and damage" make this guy "appear not human"? He looks quite human to me. That seems to be the point of the article.

[AndrewC]

2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.

Wrong. It is a human skull according to the scientists who found it. It is not intermediate to anything.

The bones "have all the features of modern humans - there's nothing lacking", says Lieberman. For example, the adult cranium has a large, globular braincase and a flat face.

It is said to also have "primitive" features.

[plusone]

Okay, I'll take on the debate. I'm no creo. But I find huge faults with evo'n logic. Apparently, the same evo'n that can create modern humans from more primitive ancestors in 100,000 years, can't manage to change a mosquito over 100 million years. There are fossilized (in amber) mosquitos that science claims to be that old. And they look indentical to modern day m/s. If the forces of evo'n can't alter a bug, how did it transform humans in such a comparatively short period of time?

[plusone]

Okay, I'll take on the debate. I'm no creo. But I find huge faults with evo'n logic. Apparently, the same evo'n that can create modern humans from more primitive ancestors in 100,000 years, can't manage to change a mosquito over 100 million years. There are fossilized (in amber) mosquitos that science claims to be that old. And they look indentical to modern day m/s. If the forces of evo'n can't alter a bug, how did it transform humans in such a comparatively short period of time?

[drjoe]

""There are NO transitional fossils in the record! NEVER have been", typical Creationist says.


Sounds like Baghdad Creationist to me.