Why are there no human apes alive today?

I thought that according to you there were no other species in the genus Homo.If you don't want to accept a taxonomic system, perhaps you shouldn't use the terminology.

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

More misrepresentation from you as well as utter nonsense.Please present the science you claim to be talking about.Please present the evidence that "God went into one of these *** dimensions theorised, created each kind in a giant petrie dish and used dark matter as a transportation slide to fly them back to earth."Please present the evidence that dark matter can be used as a transporter.And only Creationists claim that life "poofed into existence.Finally, how life originated is irrelevant to the fact of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll leave that for creationist scientists. We have already established neither side needs the answer to everything to have validity, apparently...eg TOE.IDers have Baramins.You can learn what Sarfarti says for $10.Here is a link to just some creationist papers, books etc.Here is more references to creationist models below. We likewise still have questions, but to say creationists have no models or research base is ignorant.http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0369221622n8q00/?p=b...You lot keep harping on this 'no creationist model' line.The sad fact for you is that we do not need one that looks as convoluted as yours.Your science is in a mess and you have faith regardless. It is ignorance and bigotry alone than expects more from an opposing view than evolutionists themsleves can provide. Maybe, likely and possibly will never be science, no matter how much of it you put forward.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

Your statement is a ***. Evos also believe life came into existence all by itself and cannot replicate same in a controlled laboratory environment, let alone expecting life would arise on it's own by luck.After your researchers can 'poof' a living cell into existence from non life I may need to show how God created. I do not need to prove any fanciful claim any more than you do...and still believe!Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

I'm sorry but once again your posts are just trying to palm the pea, misrepresent what I have said and as usual, con the audience.I have not asked you to explain how God "Poofed" stuff into existence, I asked you what your wittle god used to direct the evolution of life, was it wittle tweezers and screwdrivers?Nor do Evolutionists think life came into existence through "luck".

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So many logic errors in so few sentences.First, mankind was not "created".Second, mankind does not have the "ability to perceive an after life". There's no evidence of an after life, there's no way to measure an after life. It's nice to believe in one, but believing doesn't make it real.Third, you don't know what chimps can or can not do, nor do you know what other organisms can or can't do.Can you PROVE to me that an oak try can not "offer glory to God"? Nope. You think they can't. You say we are better than they are because you think they can't, but you can't define "offer glory to God" any better than any other fairy tale criteria.

Wrong again. Homo Erectus, and in fact Homo Habilis before him, had fire.Seriously, you have to TRY to get this much stuff wrong this consistently. No, we have not devolved. Neanderthals were an offshoot which was re-absorbed. All out of Africa populations have roughly 8% neanderthal DNA.As for who was smarter, it depends on what you are using as a measurement. Neanderthals certainly lived a lot longer than we have.All the rest of what you wrote is your typical lunacy.

Yes. And here's what's interesting.If we do a tree based on bone morphology it looks exactly like a tree based on DNA which looks exactly like a tree based on ERVs which looks exactly like a chronology tree.In other words, approaching the question of taxonomy from COMPLETELY different angles and you get the EXACT SAME results.Meanwhile, draw us a timeline of Creationism based on Jewish mythology and a timeline of Creationism based on New Guinea tribal religions. How much do you think they have in common?

How does "created kinds" explain DNA?Humans and chimps share a lot of the same DNA. Why?
Thylocines and Tazmanian Devils share more DNA than Thylocines and wolves or Tazmanian Devils and Badgers. Why?If humans and chimps have DNA in common because they are similiar is shape and form, then why don't thylocines and wolves share DNA? Why don't Devils and badgers?Do you have a rational answer for this?

Wow, and I thought you were a worthless bitch BEFORE you wrote this.If you "don't have the time to waste educating us" you are free to go back to serving french fries or whatever you do for a living.You've consistently demonstrated than in EVERY SUBJECT on which you posted, you've been the least educated person. Need we remind you that YOU live in Australia and know less about Australian history than the rest of us?I'm done with you. You are just too fucking retarded to even understand the basic science needed to carry on a conversation much less a debate.

So apparently you read neither the posts you're replying to nor the items you're citing.Here's the entirety of the abstract of the paper you refer to:

quote:

---

Young-earth creationism has undergone a shift in emphasis toward building of historical models that incorporate Biblical and scientific evidence and the acceptance of scientific conclusions that were formerly rejected. The RATE Group admitted that massive amounts of radioactive decay occurred during earth history but proposed a period of accelerated decay during Noah’s Flood to fit the resulting history into a young-earth timeframe. Finding a mechanism for the acceleration and dealing with the excessive heat and radiation it would generate posed major problems for the project. Catastrophic plate tectonics was proposed to explain continental movements in a short timeframe and serve as a trigger for Noah’s Flood, but other creationists rejected the idea citing hopeless chronological problems. Creationists have also sought to explain the order of the fossil record and the Ice Age in a young-earth timeframe. An examination of these efforts demonstrates the anti-scientific nature of using the Bible as a non-negotiable framework for earth history.

---

To me that sounds like the authors are saying quite clearly that creationists have produced nothing substantial or even coherent in their efforts to imitate real science.

---

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Then please tell us what a transitional between humans and non-humans should look like according to these creationist models. If you fail to do so, then I can only assume that the model does not exist.

Fortunately, apart from the comedy value, we are in no need of lecturing by someone who thinks that Homo erectus is "a variety of gorilla". You'll do what now? Don't you ever tell the truth? As this is true, I have no idea what you seek to gain by quoting it. You inadvertently told the truth when you said that it was irrefutable. I believe you meant to pretend that it was unfalsifiable, which would be a lie.

I'll remind you AGAIN of florensiensis and Neanderthal debates deary.......Creationists arguments are likewise based on facts, and are much more parsinomous that your convoluted theories and excuses for what you find that should not be there.Error. Universidad de Navarrahttp://culturesocietypraxis.org/...p/article/viewFile/131/99So here are just 2 examples of a bunch of evolutionary researchers all having access to the same research and information, all well credentialed, and they can NOT agree on what they see, either in relation to the fossils themselves or the genomic data. It is all so irrefuteably as clear as mud.What is wishful thinking is calling any of it 'evidence'!!!! Likely, maybe & possibly calls for faith.So I'll sum up the evolutionists argument "We have no clue, but still that proves ...it all evolved."Suck this up......"Creationism, like naturalism, can be scientific, in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered scientific in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other."Is creationism scientific? | GotQuestions.orgTOE is zombie science, there never were any mid ape-human species, and that is why there are no hairy apey people here today.

So here you are as bold as brass with big words.The skull pictured is an darn ape. Homo erectus are mostly apes. You lot have heaped a bunch of totally different looking specimens into a bunch. It is rubbish. You can call it what you want, it is not human, nor on its' way to being human and neither are any homo erectus, or Ardi or Lucy. They are apes.I was not the dope that contested partial fossils and sinlge bones as being offered up for evidence of these species. You were.Your stupid totally unrelated retaliation does not hide ignorance.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.