"Bible Science" is the one that totally gets me. It's offered at the first University I attended. All they did was reading different versions of Christian Bibles. A degree in Theology followed. That's it. They call themselves scientists after the 3 years of taking that course.
You were not asked to classify the fossils as either Ape or Human.
This was the question asked after the image:
"A" is a chimp and "L" is a modern human. The rest are laid out in chronological order. This sure looks like macroevolution to me. If you disagree, please tell us what features these fossils are missing that you would need to see in order to accept it as evidence for macroevolution.
Please comment on this. After all, this forum is there for dialogue.
To a creationist, I can understand that sentiment. It allows you to wiggle around sewing confusion depending on circumstance.
Yip. That's what all creationists do. In my field they tend to wiggle around terms such as "Uniformatism", "The Geologic Column", etc. Creationists tend to tell untruths about those terms all the time.