Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So, how do Young Earth Creationists explain this evidence ?"
--I was hoping I wouldn't get myself in too many more topics. But what I've found is that all the transitionals that scientists would be to propose by common descent of humans is they are either apes, unusual apes, or their human. Which one doesn't fit into one of these catagories?

---

​

Here's my absolute all-time favorite quiz, TC. Why don't you tell US which one's ape, near-ape, human, near-human? Good luck.

​

---

Check out this site. This will help you understand some of the misconceptions and lies evolutionist use to push the fossil record. http://www.jackcuozzo.comOh, and please don't even start with the horse evolution. That was proven wrong 40 years ago.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.htmlThe absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages... has been a persistent and nagging,, problem for evolution.Dr. Stephen J. Gould Evolution Now p140. Professor at Harvard University in Boston.In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found — yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.Raup, David M. Evolution and the fossil record. Science vol 213 (july 17, 1981) p 289.This one below was written in a response to someone asking Paterson why he didn't include transitional fossils in the fossil record. As I understand it Paterson has the largest fossil collection in the world.I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossilDr. Colin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma p89

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think we're all still wondering why you persist in providing out-of-context quotes of evolutionists expressing beliefs they clearly do not hold. If they really believed what your quotes make them appear to be saying then Creationism must have replaced evolution long ago. But they don't and it hasn't.

---

I'm not sure how any of those quotes can be explained in any other context other than their obvious meanings. Oh, and the reasons why creationism hasn't replaced evolutionISM could fill a book. I'm certain the largest reason is because many people don't want there to be a God. Evolution provides them with an alternative. As for christians who believe in evolution? Those are just people who have been indoctrinated into believe evolution is fact, or people who believe God *has* to perform his work in a way that we can understand(evolution.) Neither of which is true. [b] [QUOTE]You also have to answer a larger question. If evolutionists are really perpetuating the theory through a 150 year old conspiracy of lies and distortions, how do they agree on which made-up "story" is the one they'll all support? [/b][/QUOTE]They don't agree. Because of the lack of transitional fossils, some evolutionist believe in immediate evolution, ie "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg." While others believe in slow progressive evolution while maintaining the belief that transitional fossils will be found. The quotes I have given cite examples of evolutionists actually looking at the big picture. [b] [QUOTE]One of the most important requirements in solving a mystery is establishing a motive, and so far you don't have one. No evolutionist thinks that accepting evolution will bring spiritual rewards in the afterlife, so that's not it.[/b][/QUOTE]Well if evolution is true it helps people think the bible is wrong, right? So that would mean liberation from biblical rules. [b] [QUOTE]The reason there's such unanimity about evolution is because it has a factual foundation. Simply mining Creationist websites for quotes isn't going to change that.[/b][/QUOTE]It's ok to have a theory based on observed science. It's not ok to force it upon everyone when it's unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Why not talk about that nice picture of transitionals before claiming they don't exist?

---

Even if the fossils are not in question, the interpretation still remains.There is a variety of skulls in human population today and we're all human.I can line up all the pens on my desk in order from smallest to biggest, but that doesn't prove they evolved from an eraser.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Please refrain from characterizing your co-debaters responses as lies. Pointing out the problems in their arguments should be sufficient.

---

Exactly! I think this is the exact reason why there is a lack of creationist on this board. It becomes an enormous waste of time when everything you say is "a lie."

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
They did however evolve from a feather quil....

​

Which is geneticaly speaking bird...

​

Are you saying that geneticaly speaking pens are birds?

---

I don't know, I think I'll need a government grant to finish my research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Your pens are not living creatures Red....i always find this "cars dont evolve" argument to be such a blatant sign of its proponents ignorance. LIFE is the basic requirement for ANYTHING to evolve

---

It doesn't take long to get evolutionist down to resorting to the good old ignorance arguement does it?

[b] [QUOTE]Why not try to explain the vestigial toes in ALL modern horse embryos, & occasionally, modern horses?[/b][/QUOTE]This website can answer your question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4117.aspAlso here's some more information on horse "evolution."
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118."There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that YECs are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

---

My My...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I think that Evolutionist's are the LAST people on earth in a position to accuse ANYONE of lying...

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Thats because you make it so damn easy for us to point out the ignorance in your statements. Name me ONE evolutionist that ever advanced the hypothesis that UNLIVING material can EVOLVE.

---

I guess you missed the point of my analogy.