Summations Only

Actually there are a bunch of faked images of giant human bones on the internet. If Big_Al35 wants an answer about some specific images, he's going to have to give us a pointer.

I disagree. If Big Al wants to argue that non-fossil evidence contradicts and is superior to the fossil evidence, that would seem to be a viable approach -- at least hypothetically. Al is considerably short on the execution, but at least what he is doing is better than making up stories about mind controlling illuminati are hiding the evidence.Let's let him lose the argument on his own terms.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously,This thing with giants seems to be your hobby. This stuff has been exposed as fraudulent a long time ago. If you think there is some evidence that it is not, then you are going to have to present it. Yet another excuse for not handling your part of the conversation. There is no evidence. There is just BS on a web page.

Already addressed by JonFEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Chimps can walk on two legs, and frequently resort to that when they want to carry something. It is not a circus trick. So do Bonobos. What's your point here? We know that different species are not identical.

1) Chimps routinely do it when they need to do so. So do Bonobos. Those are among the existing animals that are genetically closest to humans.
2) You actually said that those other animals do not walk on hind legs.Surely you realize that your admission just puts further holes in what was already a poor argument.

That may be the case. The number of people for whom this information is relevant is surely quite small, and it is probably also the case that the practical applications for which the difference between not evolving for microbes and evolving from microbes matters for mammals, actually makes a difference may well be zero.However, what does that matter? Isn't it the common ancestry of mankind with even the closest available living ape really the idea that you have a hard time with? And there is no question that such information is useful. For that matter the fact of our common ancestry with pigs and mice is significant. And any one of those is a more significant refutation of special creation that is common descent with microbes.You are basically picking a fight of little consequence. You are welcome to whatever solace that small victory gives you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If my signature file was not already full...

As a matter of fact, you deny such a thing often. Your claims that the perceived order is an "illusion" are denials and none of your attempts to say otherwise will fool anyone. Sigh. The current discussion is perfectly well on target. The order is an important part of the evidence. Quite naturally you would want to dodge that reality.

That is a complete misrepresentation of things you have said about the fossil record. Here is one of those things. It is quite easy to find more of the same and I'd be happy to do so if necesssary.

Your comments also apply to the evidence as found. For example, you said that said that the radiometric isotopes (not their interpretation, but there actual presence and measurements) were illusions. You said that knowing that you are unable to refute radiometric dating.You forget that you made all of those claims following your acknowledgment that the actual facts could not be explained by creation science. What you said was that those facts should be considered illusion pending some ability by creation scientists to explain them.If this thread ever reopens, expect me to cite those exact posts of yours.

My take is slightly different.What Faith is implying is that the actual order is exactly what the flood predicts and that anything that appears to be evidence to the contrary is fake news. A true defense of a positive statement of her own position would require a couple of things.1. Knowing what the actual order is
2. Having an explanation that fits the known order.Faith can contribute zero to either of those requirements. So she does not attempt a true defense. Instead, she just denies the evidence that shows that the order is not consistent with the flood is real, by declaring that order to be an illusion.The best way to debate is to examine the positions of creationists who actually are willing to put their position in writing and who take an actual stance on the evidence, and to examine whether their arguments carry weight. Folks who just flat out deny but who put no 'skin in the game' should be ignored beyond the point of exposing them for what they are. The latter list of 'folks' would include Faith.

Yes, and why is Faith, the only person in the world who can provide evidence of what happened in the past? Why is such a thing possible for Faith and impossible for science despite the fact that we are talking about the scientific definition of evidence?Well, we know why Faith has indeed posted silly conclusive statements that she bases on some simplistic look at some facts, and of course, her conclusions have not gone without challenge. Faith claims victory despite having proven nothing, and then later claims to have posted evidence in the past. Rinse, lather, repeat; as often as needed on any topic.

Nuff said.

You are getting your due recognition for your arguments.