[VadeRetro]

How can one tell if the bones are of a mammal or not?

Do you have any memory of this thread? You were there, and post 49 is addressed to you.

Creationists have two great bludgeons with which they hammer evolutionists. One is the creationists's own amnesia. The other is their inability to imagine or even comprehend.

[longshadow]

Do you have any memory of this thread? You were there, and post 49 is addressed to you. [you, to G3K]

I submit this as further evidence in support of my longstanding hypothesis that "G3K" is more than one person posting under the same screen name.

[gore3000]

Yes Vade, I remember that thread quite well. I remember my telling you that those drawings were altered by the author to "show the point" he was trying to make. The man did not use the bones because of course they would not have given the proof he was seeking.

This is one thing about evolutionists, they are very wary of showing the bones on which their statements are based because any normal human being will see that the whole "proof" is not based on anything but the author's imagination. For example, the face of the famous "Lucy" which the evos call our ancestor, is more plaster than bone. It was made in the image the finders wanted, and whether it is anything like what the individual really looked like is indeed very doubtful. In the bones shown in post 87 from the link provided as "proof" by lexcorp you will note that most of the bones are not in any way connected and easily could have been assembled in more than one way, therefore whether they are what the animal looked like, whether they are a composite of different animals, or whether they are the wishful thinking of the paleontologist, no one can say.