Why are there no human apes alive today?

No, what she's saying is that certainty = correct.She believes 100% that she's right, therefore she is right.
You acknowledge that there are scientists who disagree with you, therefore you are wrong.I tried to point out the flaws in this argument by explaining that if I was certain of something that was untrue (like the claim that she had one arm instead of two), it would not make it true.That got me banned for 2 days.Watch your step. Don't try and correct her on this error.

Questioning evidence is light years ahead of unquestionable religious dogma. That chimps, humans, and neanderthals share a common ancestor is not in question. The evidence is quite clear on that, and all scientists agree that they do share a common ancestor.So since all scientists agree that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, you accept that as well, don't you? Can you please explain how a real world fossil is a myth? Can you explain how the sequenced chimp and human genomes are myths? Until you define what features a human-ape intermediate should have we can't even discuss the topic. We can't determine that there are no transiitonals until you tell us the criteria for determining what is and is not a transitional.So what features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it transitional between modern humans and non-human apes?

In fact, scientists have very good ideas of what the flesh looks like, as the entire field of forensic anthropology can attest.Take a look at this article about one facial facial reconstruction case. Starting with the badly damaged skull seen here: the team of artist and anthropologist was able to reconstruct this likeness, seen with a photo of the individual who was identifed by means of the sculpture (glasses found at the crime scene: If forensic anthropologists can create such a finely detailed reproduction of something so specific as one individual's face, that tends to support the idea that they can create pretty accurate likenesses of the forms of our pre-human ancestors.Edited by ZenMonkey, : Deleted an extraneous unnecessary redundancy.

---

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

Mazzy seems to have the idea (not surprisingly as there are many poeple who do) that if scientists can't agree on some theory, that means it is a wrong idea or faulty, and they are lying or not telling the whole truth. Otherwise they would all agree with each other. Either she didn't read what I explained to her, or she can't seem to rap her head around the idea that science is not 100% certain but that doesn't mean we throw it all away.I could be wrong but I'm pretty confident that that is her major beef. And thus, because certainty is given by the bible and/or religion, she navigates toward that?Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : edited after re-reading nuggin's post.

I think a bigger problem is that Science is self-correcting.A good example is the issue of what science says the split dates were between two given species. Of course, those dates have varied over time as we learn more and more. As new discoveries are made our understanding increases and so things such as dates get adjusted.I reality, that is why Science will almost always be more accurate than any religious based system.

---

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

Like I alluded to, Mazzy doesn't recognize the self-correcting nature of science. I have run into this and i am sure we all have run into the idea that because we can find scientists who disagree with other scientists it means that the science being debated is faulty or unclear, and therefor why believe anything they say. To take your example: Why believe that there ever was a split or that it happened the way many anthropologists think if they can't even agree on the time period or new evidence points to a different date than what was shown before?This becomes especially troubling to non-scientists when they see the confidence that a scientist will "profess" for his find, not recognizing that scientists will defend their hypothesis (even intransigently at times) but the vast majority will still leave room for doubt and new information that might falsify their ideas. In other words, the 'messiness' of science turns people off when they are looking for certainty.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

No what Mazzy is saying is that if scientists cannot agree on the evidence they all have the opportunity to consider, then it is all as clear as mud.What my statement alludes to is that if researchers cannot agree on what the evidence says out of 2 or more competing ideas effectively what you have is no evidence at all.You coorectly identified that the only thing all evolutionists agree on is "it all evolved". The how, when, where and why is still up for grabs.The bible for your information demonstrates, and by your own historical science that God or nature invented sonar in the bat before mankind even knew what it was.I say let's call evolution Professor Lucknchance instead and give him a Nobel prize because all on his own he designed sonar before mankind even thought of it. Pretty clever..Hey?Controversy and opposing opinions from evos does not demonstrate that both must be wrong. However it opens the door to neither being correct. So making fun of me has not bolstered any evo stance but rather demonstrates a narrow minded view.Likewise evos suggest that because creationists cannot answer every question they are wrong. In all fairness, that appears to be hypocritical.In the days where knucklewalking ancestry for humans was the current thinking anyone that did not accept the evidence produced showing how a chimp like creature 'evolved' into an upright human would have been classed as a moron and no doubt similarly made fun of.The truth of the matter now, is that the morons, be they evos or creationists, were right as mankind did not evolve from knuckle walkers. Indeed they were not morons at all. The very morons that were ripping apart the science of the day have won the day.Likewise, for you lot it does not matter that a scientist does not accept the dino to bird theory, so long as their opposing theory is also based on evolution. If a creationist also denies the dino to bird thing while offering a creationist theory to resolve it, they are presumed a moron. Can none of you see the hypocricy?

Nonsense. Typical creation "science" nonsensical reasoning.When scientists disagree among themselves whether the human/chimp split was 5 million years ago vs. 7 million years ago that does not mean such a split never happened, which is what your creationist argument suggests.From these disagreements come more and more accurate theories, as scientists support their positions with evidence.These theories, being more accurate, leave less and less wiggle room and smaller gaps for creationists to exploit.Oh, are you ever going to answer my question about your qualifications? I've asked this about four times now.

Ever take an evolution course? Ever study human or mammalian osteology? Ever handle any significant number of casts of the various fossil specimens? If not, what is the source of your vast knowledge?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Oh for goodness sake..what a line..."the self correcting nature of science". It reminds me of someone that argued 'evolution reinvents itself".The self correcting nature of science demonstrates that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution and has little if any predictive power.Rather TOE macroevolves to fit the information gleaned from biased and increasingly complex and convoluted models that are based on the assumption of ancestry.I am telling you that any model built on a foundation of straw will topple with the slightest breeze...and it does. The funny thing is the rubble left behind will still be considered evidence for evolution.It is about interpretation. I have already said creationists do not deny what has been observed. They deny it will lead to macroevolution which is assumed, not factual.Neither creation nor evolution is refuteable and hence they are faiths...like it or not.Another fact is that there are no hairy apey human looking guys around. That is a fact. Do evos even know the difference between facts and theory anymore?The FACT that there are no hairy apey humans around today supports the creationist view that there never were any. The FACTS need to be explained by evolutionists with convoluted theories as to why they ALL died out and they still cannot agree on this.Basically I see the facts well support a creationist stance, or alternatively, an evolutionary puzzle. I'll take the well supported stance as being the more robust as opposed to a theoretical unresolved puzzle.See I am actually more scientific that many of you that have nothing more than debated theories to bolster your stance.Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

That is a standard creation "science" argument, but it makes one large assumption (and you know how creationists just hate assumptions!).That creationist argument assumes that all interpretations are equal, and that each follows equally well from the data.Unfortunately for creationists that is not the case. Their interpretations must ignore, misrepresent, or deny much of the data. Your own posts are evidence of that.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Again I'll repeat that controversy over dates does not mean there could not have been a human chimp split. What the changing dates does mean is that your researchers have no idea what they are talking about and are just playing expensive games with computers and algorithms. Either may be right or neither may be right. Creationists can do the same, and have.What makes you think that of the opposing views one of them has to be right? No sorry...what you are seeing is agreement it all evolved and nothing more to support the claim.10 years ago out went our knucklewalking ancestry, Ardi was our ancestor now he isn't etc etc. For heavens sake do you lot not shudder at the thought of basing any argument on evidence that could be discredited tomorrow.Any new fossil that supposedly sheds new light on evolution, eg Ardi, will change the dates. This is because fossil classification and assumptions are just one of the assumptive insertion values used in models to get dates.TOE IS ALL BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS... and interpretations of what you often misrepresentatively call evidence.The FACTS more often support creation. Your theories are all that support evolution...and we know you have plenty of them.

Are you ever going to answer my question about your qualifications?As it is, we have only your posts to judge you on and you are not doing well. As in this post to which I am replying, you have no evidence--just empty rhetoric.Why should we pay any attention to any of it?What are your qualifications?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, you're actually saying something quite different, that differences in some areas invalidate the consensus and agreement that exists in other areas.As has been explained many times, our uncertainty concerning the specific pathways of human evolution has no impact on the certainty that we do share a common ancestor with chimps, indeed, with all life. Our confidence in evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life does not derive or depend upon our ability to tease out specific evolutionary pathways of the human line. The evidence for evolution extends across all of life, both extant and extinct, either fossilized or the morphology and genetics of existing life. If you can spell out these disagreements then we can discuss them, but these non-specific accusations you keep making are too vague to respond to. They're just your unsupported assertions.--Percy

We are familiar with creationist dogma. Perhaps instead of merely reciting it, you could come up with some sort of an argument in favor of it.This is, after all, a forum for reasoned debate. If you merely wish to shout incoherent nonsense at people, a street corner is the usual venue. Smelling of vomit and waving an empty liquor bottle is acceptable but optional.

I have put up links to creationist dating and other evidence. Creationists have their own dating methods and classification system in baramins. I have posted the links previously and should not have to educate you in the basics of a stance you make fun of without any knowledge base. We may not have the plethora of theories you lot have, but who cares as yours are only theories that change like the wind anyway.Most creationists undertand what TOE asserts and the basis for it and are able to refute it out of knowledge rather than ignorance. However many evos quack, rant and rave yet have no idea what creationists look to and still think that creationists believe dogs give birth to cats. That may be funny yet evo ignorance simply isn't.We do not need a convoluted theory like TOE. It is you lot that need to explain how life evolved from bacteria.The constant war cry that there is no science behind creationism is simply flat out ignorant.You may refute the creationist evidence as creationists refute TOE, but to say they have nothing more than the bible is ignorance at its most extreme.