I wonder if they'll be lobbying to put that sticker on the textbooks anytime soon?
I don't think that anyone actually swallows the theory of evolution."harmful if swallowed" Quite funny really, but can anyone spot the wishful thinking?
Why would that be a problem? Apes do not use fire, Apes do not cook their food. Apes do not make clothing for themselves. Humans are the only ones that do that.Once they come up with an objective creationist criterion to judge which of those are apes and which of those are humans, and how come they all look so dratted transitional.
shernren is on the right track.can anyone spot the wishful thinking?
What I find really interesting is the difference between what AiG think the fossil record should look like and the way it actually is. Their clever little cartoon actually shows how YEC doesn't fit the evidence.
It's the old YEC argument that there are no 'missing links' by defining hominids as either fully human or 'just another ape'. The problem using hominid skulls to illustrate their poison signs is that the series would look just too, well, transitional. So they have a 'just another ape' series of small skulls, with a big jump to the 'really quite human' series of much larger skulls.That just flew right over my head. I know exposition always kills a joke, but it would probably help me with this one.
It's the old YEC argument that there are no 'missing links' by defining hominids as either fully human or 'just another ape'. The problem using hominid skulls to illustrate their poison signs is that the series would look just too, well, transitional. So they have a 'just another ape' series of small skulls, with a big jump to the 'really quite human' series of much larger skulls.
Yeah, but don't forget that humans with nutritional deficiencies will have ape-like skeletons (classic AiG teaching).
Which I'll believe, by the way, when AiG produces a skeleton of a nutritionally deprived human which looks exactly like a neanderthal or homo erectus.
I like the way you presented your argument in a logical manner with evidence surporting the salient points.smidlee said:The whole idea you can slap a butch of skulls together to fit someone bias view is nothing but wishful thinking ; creation or evolution. In reality the evidence doesn't slack no where as neatly as the evolution-thumbers wish list. Thus called "bones of contention".