What proof would you need?

Tiberius · Nov 28, 2011

lol.

It is possible to assume the existence of a non-existent thing for the purposes of a hypothetical discussion.

For example, I can assume the existence of Klingons for the purposes of a discussion about Worf's discommendation. Doesn't mean I actually think for a moment that Klingons are real.

Astridhere · Nov 29, 2011

Loudmouth said:
These are just details. The evolutionist position has never changed as to humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. It is as stable as creationism ever was in this regard. Whether or not our common ancestor was bipedal or not does not change the evidence that there was a common ancestor. It also does not change the transitional nature of the fossils. Scientists made a very human mistake in thinking that human bipedality was somehow special to us. They were wrong. When the evidence in the fossil record started coming out their mistakes were shown. As it turns out, our common ancestor was more bipedal than we first expected. You somehow cite this as a mark against science, in that it is capable of changing its mind in the face of new evidence. I guess you expect everyone to be as dogmatic as you. That is not the case. No I expect your finds to confirm existing common thinking which they never do. Rather they change it. Instability is the name of your game.

"They were wrong" is your best statement. So what's to say anything you uphold today is not 'wrong' tomorrow. You can't. That is why I say you have no science behind any of your evolutionary claims. What you have is flavour of the month.
So what features must a fossil have in order for you to accept it as transitional? Or do you reject every fossil a priori without ever looking at it?

What features must a fossil have to exclude it from the human line? This is your evolutionary tale.

Any theory is only as good as the assumption it is based on. Wrong assumptions will produce changing and conflicting data. That is exactly what we find in evolutionary sciences necessitating more and more evo terms to address the anomolies.

You have no clue as to what is transitional to what, as you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like. Indeed Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla and not in the human line at all as do most researchers now. OOps..All the headlines...wrong again.

The only fraud is your presentation of it. You try to claim that entire species are built from a single bone. This is untrue. You then turn around and construct an entire species from footprints.

Kamoyapithecus, that used to be proconsul till 1980, are teeth and jaws.

Actually a human metatarsel was also found and attibuted to afarensis.
Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis

This further supports my assertion that mankind co existed with their supposed ancestors. Futher to that all you can offer on the subject is debate.

However, It is now believed Afarensis did not have a human foot..Go figure. You do not have evidence for anything. What you have is a mess to offer as evidence

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion
New evidence: Lucy was a knuckle-walker

and

In contrast, the A. afarensis bone resembled that of the flat-footed apes, making it improbable that its foot had an arch like our own. As such, the researchers report, A. afarensis almost certainly did not walk like us or, by extension, like the hominids at Laetoli.
Footprints to Fill: Scientific American

I used the the term fraud to indicate intentional misrepresentation. That is exactly what I meant.

All bluster and no substance, as usual. Do you even realize what a substantive argument is?
Actually yet again you have demonstrated there is no answer as to why the same fossil evidence can demonstrate ancestry to something like a chimp as well as nothing like a chimp. You fail. The fossil evidence could be used to show ancestry to whatever you lot dream up as the new flavour of the month.

My argument is sound. There are no fossils that demonstrate intermediacy, not even Turkana Boy who is an ape. This supports the creationists from my camps prediction that if creation is true there will be no intermediates. Chimps share characheristics today with mankind. To skirt around your homoplasy, convergent evolution and parallel evolution then cherry pick a few similarities is nothing more than desperation.

You bluster again and hide behind ridicule as a refute.

So basically you have not refuted the stupidy of fossils that once were used to demonstrate transition from chimp like to mankind also being used to demonstrate transition from a question mark to mankind.

Evolutionary science is the only science where its supporters actually claim continual stuff ups and flavour of the month are a good and normal part of their so called evolutionary science. Each stuff up having been used by some evo to refute creationism and support evolution. What a joke!

Before you guys reconsider your view you actually need to learn what science is supposed to look like......confirmation of theories, not theories in evolution themselves.

Loudmouth · Nov 29, 2011

Astridhere said:
No I expect your finds to confirm existing common thinking which they never do. Rather they change it.

What if common thinking is wrong? Are you saying that you do not accept evolution because it throws out wrong ideas and accepts correct ideas based on new evidence?

"They were wrong" is your best statement. So what's to say anything you uphold today is not 'wrong' tomorrow. You can't. That is why I say you have no science behind any of your evolutionary claims. What you have is flavour of the month.

This is even funnier. You reject science because it is tentative? Really? Science, by definition, is tentative. It never claims absolute knowledge. Also, you are nitpicking the fine details while ignoring the differences in creationism. All of the evidence still points to humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. The only question is when bipedalism evolved.

What features must a fossil have to exclude it from the human line? This is your evolutionary tale.

You are the one claiming that no transitional fossils exist. I am asking you for the criteria that you used to determine this. Why can't you answer this question? The purpose of this entire thread is for you to lay out the evidence you would need in order to accept evolution. You have stated that if evolution were true that we should see transitional fossils. I am asking you what features a fossil would need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional.

Or is this a case where no evidence will ever convince you?

Any theory is only as good as the assumption it is based on. Wrong assumptions will produce changing and conflicting data. That is exactly what we find in evolutionary sciences necessitating more and more evo terms to address the anomolies.

Then I only need to cite the differences between the YEC and OEC conclusions. Those are major anomolies. So why do you accept creationism with all of these changing and conflicting data sets?

You have no clue as to what is transitional to what, as you have no idea what the common ancestor looked like.

Then tell me what a real transitional should look like. I am patiently waiting.

Actually a human metatarsel was also found and attibuted to afarensis.

Evidence please.

However, It is now believed Afarensis did not have a human foot..Go figure.

Why does this disqualify australopithecines as transitionals?

Actually yet again you have demonstrated there is no answer as to why the same fossil evidence can demonstrate ancestry to something like a chimp as well as nothing like a chimp.

Where did you show that australopithecines were nothing like a chimp? Last I checked, even humans share quite a few features with chimps. Why does the common ancestor need to be more chimp-like? Why can't the common ancestor be bipedal? Can you show me anything in the theory of evolution that states that the common ancestor of humans and chimps can not be bipedal?

There are no fossils that demonstrate intermediacy,

Before you make such a claim you need to define what an intermediate fossil should looke like. Until you do this claim is nothing but bluster.

This supports the creationists from my camps prediction that if creation is true there will be no intermediates.

What features must a fossil have to falsify this prediction?

Chimps share characheristics today with mankind. To skirt around your homoplasy, convergent evolution and parallel evolution then cherry pick a few similarities is nothing more than desperation.

I guess you forgot about the 98% DNA similarity?

[quoteYou bluster again and hide behind ridicule as a refute.[/quote]

Point to the ridicule, I dare you.

So basically you have not refuted the stupidy of fossils . . .

And there is the ridicule from you.

Evolutionary science is the only science where its supporters actually claim continual stuff ups and flavour of the month are a good and normal part of their so called evolutionary science. Each stuff up having been used by some evo to refute creationism and support evolution. What a joke!

What exactly is being made up?

Before you guys reconsider your view you actually need to learn what science is supposed to look like......confirmation of theories, not theories in evolution themselves.

So what fossil would confirm the theory that chimps and humans share a bipedal common ancestor?

Loudmouth · Nov 29, 2011

Doveaman said:
What is truth?

A claim that is true.

No kidding.

If we have imperfect knowledge then how can you claim anything to be TRUTH?

That's unfortunate. No wonder you guys can hardly claim anything to be true.

That's what happens when you take an honest and rational approach to reality. We don't write things down and then pronounce them to be absolute truth. We actually realize that we have imperfect knowledge and that our claims should always be tentative and supported by evidence.

You don't expect us to replace truth with a mere theory, do you?

Theory is better than any truth claimed by creationists.

Creationism is based on these truths:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth...at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. (Gen 1:1, 2:7, Acts 17:26, Mark 10:6).
The Bible does not contain the age of the earth. It contain truths (facts) from which we form theories about the age of the earth. The theories may differ, but the truths remains the same, no matter what.

And this is where you make my point for me. You can not tell the difference between fact and assertion. When you can tell the difference between the two come back and we will talk.

selfinflikted · Nov 29, 2011

AV1611VET said:
That's not my style, my friend -- I pray your meeting will be more of a 'welcome home,' than a 'wrong address.'

I appreciate the sentiment. However, I can't count the number of times I've heard that exact phrase directed towards me as a threat.

selfinflikted · Nov 29, 2011

As an aside, I wonder something. Why, when discussion evolution vs creationism, do people always talk about fossils, transitionals, etc and never genetics? Not that I'm particularly qualified to discuss genetics in-depth, but even I can see after examining the arguments that the most compelling evidence for evolution is not found in the fossil record, but rather, with genetics.

Tiberius · Nov 29, 2011

SkyWriting said:
Then I propose that dark matter and energy is the effect of multiverses that lie just outside of our reality. Though the number may be infinite, the number of versions that are close to our reality is limited for some reason, so the effect on our reality is somewhat constant. Therefore the effects are predictable even though the source of the effect is outside of our perception.

lol, and yet Star Trek fans discussing Klingons are still full aware that Klingons don't really exist, and do not claim that Klingons are doing things in reality. They discuss Klingons in terms of the clearly fictional world in which they are found.

sandwiches · Nov 29, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Too cute.

Too true.

I've yet to met a theist who operates in his everyday life through the same kind of faith that they claim they have in their deity and not through facts, reason, and experience.

Loudmouth · Nov 29, 2011

selfinflikted said:
As an aside, I wonder something. Why, when discussion evolution vs creationism, do people always talk about fossils, transitionals, etc and never genetics?

It is easier to understand for most people, at least that is my experience. The best thing to do is make them define what a transitional is, and what features a transitional should have. I have always found that creationists run away from this like the plague. They are quick to claim that there are no transitionals, but are never able to tell us what a transitional should look like.

Not that I'm particularly qualified to discuss genetics in-depth, but even I can see after examining the arguments that the most compelling evidence for evolution is not found in the fossil record, but rather, with genetics.

Agreed. However, it may be more productive to show the evidence that creationists are asking for, or at least show that no evidence will ever convince them.

selfinflikted · Nov 29, 2011

Loudmouth said:
Agreed. However, it may be more productive to show the evidence that creationists are asking for, or at least show that no evidence will ever convince them.

Yea, I suppose that's true. But when we ask for evidence from their side of the fence, we are never supplied any. Well, perhaps anecdotal nonsense.. but no real evidence. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Phred · Nov 29, 2011

Jazer said:
Then the theory of evolution is a lie. There is no biodiversity if there was no Garden of Eden. For example Goats and Sheep were found in the Garden of Eden. Just that little speck of information gives you ALL you need to back up your claim. But you can NOT back up your claim because you are full of hot air. Yet I give you tons and tons and tons of evidence to back up what I say and you give me nothing to back up what you say. When you put the evidence on the scale the scales tips in my direction because you have no evidence on your side of the scale. I have all of science to back up what I am saying and show that it is true. 3500 years and Moses is still undefeated. One person with God is a majority.

Let's start with the basics. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Life evolves. That's the fact. HOW life evolves, the mechanisms that life utilizes to do this, that's the theory.

Stephen J. Gould said:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" said:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

Get it? No garden of eden... no magical multiple gardens of eden. 3 BILLION years of life on this planet... trumps your magic 3500 by quite a bit. I'm sorry, but what we see, what we know can't have happened in 3500 years.

R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31 said:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

And lastly

H. J. Muller said:
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

There is no evidence, not a single solitary independent bit of proof that the Garden of Eden or any other thing that you propose existed. The evidence does not mandate it. Your simple nonsense about goats and sheep doesn't warrant a claim such as you've made. Simply put, it's been over 150 years now of trying to disprove this idea. To hide it, to legislate against it... every dirty trick and lie you can think of has been tried to force this idea back into the shadows. But like you are very fond of saying... the truth will win out.

And so far it has.

Tiberius · Nov 29, 2011

Phred said:
HOW life evolves, the mechanisms that life utilizes to do this, that's the theory.

And let's not forget that in this context "Theory" doesn't mean just a guess. it means an explanation which is supported by the evidence.

Loudmouth · Nov 29, 2011

selfinflikted said:
Yea, I suppose that's true. But when we ask for evidence from their side of the fence, we are never supplied any. Well, perhaps anecdotal nonsense.. but no real evidence. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

I know, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. We show all of this evidence that supports evolution, and they have nothing to show in return save for an unwillingness to consider any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs.

Just look at how they balk at the question of what a transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps should look like. They know that any reasonable description will describe the fossils we already have. To put it quite bluntly, you can not change someone's mind with evidence if they arrived at their current position in the absence of evidence. They really don't want to "believe in" evolution, so they don't. Evidence has nothing to do with it, and it never did. It is like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa Claus doesn't exist. No rational discussion of evidence or reality will budge them because their belief in Santa Claus was never based on evidence to begin with. It is based on wanting something to be true no matter how irrational it is.

Jazer · Nov 29, 2011

sandwiches said:
Too true.

I've yet to met a theist who operates in his everyday life through the same kind of faith that they claim they have in their deity and not through facts, reason, and experience.

What choice do we have? It is not as if science has any real solutions.
For real answers and for real solutions you have to turn to God.

Jazer · Nov 29, 2011

Loudmouth said:
We show all of this evidence that supports evolution

What difference does that make? Lots of theists believe in evolution. It is not as if one has anything to do with the other. Non theists do not hold any sort of an exclusive.

Jazer · Nov 29, 2011

Phred said:
Get it? No garden of eden...

Your the one that does not seem to "get it" because it would appear that you do not understand biodiversity and you do not understand the theory of evolution. But at this point it may not make all that much difference because there are a lot of more important things that you need to grasp on trying to understand their meaning. You got to get through grade school before you can try and take on the High School material. It will not do you any good to skip over things because then you will not have a proper foundation.

rikerjoe · Nov 29, 2011

Jazer said:
What choice do we have? It is not as if science has any real solutions.
For real answers and for real solutions you have to turn to God.

lolwut???

Name one "real solution" that god has given you....

rikerjoe · Nov 29, 2011

Jazer said:
Your the one that does not seem to "get it" because it would appear that you do not understand biodiversity and you do not understand the theory of evolution. But at this point it may not make all that much difference because there are a lot of more important things that you need to grasp on trying to understand their meaning. You got to get through grade school before you can try and take on the High School material. It will not do you any good to skip over things because then you will not have a proper foundation.

Oh the irony....

sandwiches · Nov 30, 2011

Jazer said:
What choice do we have? It is not as if science has any real solutions.
For real answers and for real solutions you have to turn to God.

Really? God gave you the computer you're using? God paid for it? God creates the electricity you're using? God created the plastics, medicine, air conditioning, cars, etc you use every day? Oh no... wait... that's man's reason, logic, and knowledge.

Astridhere · Nov 30, 2011

Loudmouth said:
[/color]

What if common thinking is wrong? Are you saying that you do not accept evolution because it throws out wrong ideas and accepts correct ideas based on new evidence?

I will repeat for the squillionth time...theories are meant to be validated as opposed to theories evolving themselves. The various creationist camps stick to their ideas and truths and validate them rather than knee jerk up another theory to explain the data like you guys eg Junk DNA.

This is even funnier. You reject science because it is tentative? Really? Science, by definition, is tentative. It never claims absolute knowledge. Also, you are nitpicking the fine details while ignoring the differences in creationism. All of the evidence still points to humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor. The only question is when bipedalism evolved.

I am nitpicking one area, mankind at the moment. I have nitpicked many areas on CF and you guys have not done any better than you are doing here..which is dreadfully. The rest of your taxons are the same eg birds...nonsense based on misrepresentation

You are the one claiming that no transitional fossils exist. I am asking you for the criteria that you used to determine this. Why can't you answer this question? The purpose of this entire thread is for you to lay out the evidence you would need in order to accept evolution. You have stated that if evolution were true that we should see transitional fossils. I am asking you what features a fossil would need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional.
I cannot answer the question any better than you can re what God looks like. How accurately do you think you can describe what you believe to be a myth? It is a trap anyway that evos try to suck creationists into.

Or is this a case where no evidence will ever convince you?

If you actually had evidence that was not fictional, contradictory and misrepresentative perhaps I would! There are theistic evos. I am not one of them.

Then I only need to cite the differences between the YEC and OEC conclusions. Those are major anomolies. So why do you accept creationism with all of these changing and conflicting data sets?

I keep telling you the various camps still to their guns and do not knee jerk cange their ideas on a continual basis. Obviously you have forgotten what stability looks like.

Then tell me what a real transitional should look like. I am patiently waiting.

I will not describe a myth and you aint going to suck me into it. You describe God so I can have shot at you first.

Evidence please.

I have given you stacks

Why does this disqualify australopithecines as transitionals?

Because Australopthicus is not transitional. It is an ape.

Where did you show that australopithecines were nothing like a chimp? Last I checked, even humans share quite a few features with chimps. Why does the common ancestor need to be more chimp-like? Why can't the common ancestor be bipedal? Can you show me anything in the theory of evolution that states that the common ancestor of humans and chimps can not be bipedal?
Look below and learn. Indeed the way you lot are going you are going to eventually demonstrate as flavour of the month that apes evolved from bipedal humans. If you do, remember you first heard it here on CF from a creationist.

Before you make such a claim you need to define what an intermediate fossil should looke like. Until you do this claim is nothing but bluster.

No I do not have to at all.

What features must a fossil have to falsify this prediction?

Something without an ape head would be a good start.

I guess you forgot about the 98% DNA similarity?

What 98% similarity. Oh you mean the only part of the cherry pick that is not really 98% but 95% different counting indels etc. Chimps are 30% different my friend. The human male Y chromosome is totally unlike a male chimps. That does not include the 10% difference in size, nor the difference in surface composition. Do I need to cite the info again.

[quoteYou bluster again and hide behind ridicule as a refute.

Point to the ridicule, I dare you.

And there is the ridicule from you.

What exactly is being made up?

Yesterdays flavour of the month

So what fossil would confirm the theory that chimps and humans share a bipedal common ancestor?
The same sort of theory you evos always use that amount to flavour of the month and will mean nothing, just like all your misrepresented and unobserved supports.
[/quote]

Look at this

The Evolution of Early Man

So you have a human femur that could not belong to Habilis. You have a metatarsel that could not belong to Lucy. You have the Laetoli footprints that could not belong to Lucy. Therefore rather than the mess of contradictions, falsifications and no idea really that evolutionists have as an explanation for these human fossils. What you have is proof definitive that mankind was around all that time according to your dating methods.

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net

Mankind co existed amongst the apes, as the evidence plainly demonstrates, and you lot are so desperately trying to turn these apes into human ancestors.

Turkana Boy as I said, is an ape.

Remember that another famous skull was found in this Lake Turkana region. That's right KNM-ER 1470 was found in this same region. Notice the striking similarities when the reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 is put side-to-side with the Turkana Boy skull (see below). Now isn't that just most interesting? - or is it just me?

These two are no less than variations of the same species. There is no evolution just 2 apes.

What did the Leakey's have to say about it all from the same article....

For example, in 1990, Richard Leakey himself said that, "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." 10 Mary Leakey also said pretty much the same thing just before her death at the age of 83. Although Leakey was convinced that man had evolved from ape-like ancestors, she was equally convinced that scientists will never be able to prove a particular scenario of human evolution. Three months before her death, she said in an interview, "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."

The creationists prediction that there are no intermediates as demonstrated by mankinds sudden appearance in the fossil record and coexistence with a variety of apes, is substanatiated.

What is observed is evidence of mankind co existing amongst apes, my dear. There is fossil evidence to support this. All you have to offer is debate, inconsistency, instability and a theory in evolution with no predictive power whatsoever.

You also have no explantation as to why your fossil evidence supported ancestry to a creature that was chimp like and with the wave of a hand now supports ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp at all!

I feel I have the stronger stance and have no need to reconsider my view. It is evolutionists that should reconsider their view.

What proof would you need?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Under Deck

Under Deck

Well-Known Member

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Contributor

Under Deck

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

rikerjoe

Guest

rikerjoe

Guest

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency