They are not modern humans, and any transitional fossils will necessarily be primates since both apes and humans are primates. It is very frustrating to hear creationists time and again claim that there are no transitional fossils, but then when presented with fossils they are suddenly incapable of even defining what a transitional fossil is. What they seem to be saying is that they will refuse to accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like. Am I wrong?
Also, these fossils are not just a few bone fragments. The skulls in that photo are nearly complete. We also have nearly complete skeletons for some specimens, such as Turkana Boy:
Obviously, fossilization is rare, and finding those rare fossils takes some luck.
Fossilization is not a rare occurrence. There are millions of fossils (which lends itself to rapid burial, as in a global flood). But, the relative rarity of so-called transitional fossils does not seem to match what would be expected if there has been millions of years of transition.
It is also frustrating to hear some of the arguments made by evolutionists regarding transitional fossils, at least for me, because they are assuming that one creature is turning into another (it is kind of funny, no insult intended, but I'm always reminded of some werewolf movie or something like that where the special effects show the guy turning from man to werewolf; and what is amusing to me, is that brilliant scientific minds would rather believe that kind of fantasy than believe in supernatural influence).
As for Turkana Boy: evolutionists seem to be proud of this apparent (missing) link as well, however, as I was saying previously, there are a lot of variations between humans and "
[t]here is an enormous degree of cranial variation in modern humans, and this variation can develop quite rapidly" and "
In the creation model, Turkana Boy is a fully human descendant of Adam and Eve whose distinct skeletal features lie within normal human variation." For evolutionary-thinking individuals, he is seen as a
link between our past to modern-day; for creation-minded individuals (specifically YECs), this is nothing more than a human. Again, as I always say, it is from our worldview that we get our interpretations of the same, exact evidence.
Loudmouth, thanks for the civility for these past posts, it's refreshing, but I'm going to excuse myself now. I'm tired and have more important matters to give my time and energy to, so I'll be taking my leave of this forum. I've decided that I will not allow this forum to consume my time or energy any further as it has been. I'm relatively new here, and got sucked into the rhetoric and circuitous exchanges of people who may or may not be knowledgeable of the facts but who are nevertheless passionate about what they believe and as such have spoken quite harshly at times; and have at times myself spoken in discourteous tones. Needless to say, it is a never-ending exercise that is quite draining and apparently futile; for every argument there is a counter-argument, and another, and another. There never seems to be any agreement or conclusions drawn.
I do however have one simple observation from my experience here: That some people believe one thing based on rocks basically, others believe another thing based on what God says. For those who say we came from rocks, I'll leave this verse: Jeremiah 2:27a "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth". For those who believe God created us as it is written in Genesis 1-2, continue to trust God to work these things out, in the fullness of time; and never lose sight of Jesus Christ who has redeemed us: Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."
Jfrsmth, signing off.
