I am not an ape just because your silly researchers have classed humans as such.
But you have agreed that Turkana boy is both human and ape, so it follows that you're an ape, surely? And, as you're alive, then there are clearly still "human apes" alive today, making nonsense of this topic's title.
There was a whole reply to Nuggin explaining that I no longer agree with many creationists that suggest Turkana Boy is human. I see Turkana apes no, that I have seen a side view and read more about the pelvis, arms, nose.
If changing ones mind in the face of finding more information kills one's theory.....
Changing your mind in the face of finding new information is a very good thing to do, and I think you should make a habit of it. But an interesting point is this. You are dividing apes into one group and humans into another. If they are two such distinct groups, then it's surprising to find that you had so much trouble with Turkana boy. And it is also surprising that creationists are divided on the point. If there are two clearly distinct groups then, by definition, it should be easy to distinguish.
I find it so hard to draw a line that I call them all apes.
.... then TOE died long ago and carries on in a zombie state...with life lines like convergent evolution, homoplasy, accelerated evolution, punctuated evolution, Lamarkian style epigentic inheritance, junk DNA no longer junk at all etc etc etc
Why on earth are those things "lifelines"?
Are you unable to further refute the main points of my arguments?
What are the main points? If your central argument is that we are not related to the other apes, your difficulty in deciding which side of the supposed divide Turkana boy is on effectively has refuted it. We'll call him a "creationist transitional" until the creationists have a united view on the subject.
The overall conclusion for me is that nothing I have asserted or supported by way of research proves that macroevolution from bacteria to human did not occur.
I agree entirely, and it's good to find common ground.
However what I see is that the door is open for many other hypothesis of the data found.
Do you mean that there are many different ways in which the Creation could have happened? You sound rather more open-minded than some of your fellow creationists.
You have explanations based on theories and interpretation of research findings, as to why no tribe remains that appears ape like in appearance.
"Appears ape like" is very vague. I once knew a guy who looked remarkably like some of the reconstructions of Turkana boy. And we're only a mutation or two away from being very very hairy.
We can put up theoretic evidence against theoretical evidence endlessly and it will be no more than facing off one theory or interpretation against another.
I think it's more a case of you putting up theoretical evidence against biologists looking at real evidence.
So your choosing to harp and strain points with no substance is truly a waste of time....
The true sign of transition is when things are difficult to classify. There's certainly substance in that point. When we find ourselves looking at fossils and saying "is this more of a fish than it is an amphibian", or "is this more of a mammal than it is a reptile", then the honest and astute readers of evidence amongst us realise that we're looking at macro-evolution. Big time.
I certainly agree with you on mind changing, and if you keep examining Turkana boy every so often, you might easily find your views in a constant state of flux.
There are no human apes today because ToE is bogus. The glitch of Darwinian evolution, or what became ToE is thus:
Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution.
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Joseph, and welcome back. Is this a view of the universe with all of time being created at the creation point that you're describing?
And if the maths destroys evolution, could you show us the workings in detail? You could wait until last Friday to show us if you want to.