This is not the usual creationist line, but I'll go along with it. It seems that you are claiming that creationism and evolution are empirically equivalent? In other words, any possible state of the fossil record is consistent with creationism, and the theory cannot - even in principle - be falsified by fossil evidence? If so, why are you so concerned about the fossil record at all? Clearly there are many fossils that appear transitional (this is what you've just stated using the Africa-America-Russia example) so your previous claims are false.

no they dont appear transitional they could appear transitional when really theyre just russian skulls or w/e

theres an identifiable range that people have "evolved" to starting from noah

You aren't appreciating the qualifer "appear". There is a difference between the following claims

1) There are no fossils that appear to be transitional
2) There are fossils that appear to be transitional but are not actually transitional
3) There are fossils that appear to be transitional and actually are transitional

You were previously suggesting 1) but now seem to be suggesting 2).

I couldn't ask for a better response.

what does that mean

also you dont even have to use transitional fossils
you can prove it with the amount of normal fossils

Can you walk me through the math on that?

not a math man
im gna post some hoaxes

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


"Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. It led to a scandal when evidence demonstrated it to be a forgery through further scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species. Zhou et al. found that the head and upper body actually belong to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis.[1] A 2002 study found that the tail belongs to a small winged dromaeosaur, Microraptor, named in 2000.[2] The legs and feet belong to an as yet unknown animal.[3][4]


The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ce.sciencenews

lol

man i need to make a whole graph with everything exposed every single fossil

zzzzzz

i needa stop coming here as well waiting 2 hours for anything :l

Do you see the irony in posting alleged hoaxes that were all uncovered by evolutionary scientists themselves?

I think noober is saying that if any priest ever was a liar and other priests exposed his lies, then God does not exist because priests are liars.

Zumby,

You have the same issues with evolutionists trying to categorize fossils.

That point is addressed in the part you quoted, and I addressed it in a subsequent post as well.

*alleged* hoaxes... Are you saying that none of them were hoaxes?

Some were outright hoaxes. Others were the product of over-zealous media (drawing of Nebraska Man, for example) taking liberties not confirmed or endorsed by the scientific community. The point being that each case was corrected by Scientists, using all available data. They weren't arguing against those cases because they went against evolution, but because they were false.

Last IQ test I took was 162. I was an atheist most of my life.


99% is overstatement. 96-98% is more like it.

A chimp and a human can't reproduce.


We can be 90% DNA similar to cats. heck, we are 60% identical with fruit flies.



So, I am ironically dying to know how life started scientifically. I think a good start would be defining a few scientific terms that spell check will surely reject as non words.

Ball is in your court.

PS Sorry if I skipped over any interesting discussion that accidentally occurred in this thread.

This "IQ test" was of the online variety, yes?

Nobody knows how life started. So, let's stop thinking about it, attribute it to a god (what God? I dunno, just make one up) and get back to brainwashing our kids to never think critically either. It's the future.

Maybe nothing "interesting" as far as discussion goes, but you missed something that is relevant to your expectations:

OP came from monkeys, confirmed!

Please provide a link.

You certainly are not referring to this or this because that would make you look quite like having an IQ of less than 162.

He's missing a decimal someplace.

"If loving the Lord is wrong, then I don't wanna be right!"

In b4 2nd ban.

Where can I find one of these?