If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?

If you want to talk humans, is Homo Erectus a different "kind" from us ?
Is Homo Habilis ? Are Homo Habilis and Erectus the same "kind" or not ?
Are any of the Australopithecines the same "kind" as any of the above ?How do you tell ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-02-2004]

You are missing my point. We can't tell because there is no way to tell. The creationist "kind" has no place in biology. If a creationist is ultimately willing to accept an example of evolution then as soon as the evidnece becomes to great to deny"kind". If they are not then it may be between what THEY call "kinds" but they won't accept it either.So all the argument boils down to is the fact that creationists a) like to move the goalposts and b) have closed minds. That is not evidence against evolution - it IS evidence agaisnt creationism.

My point is that "kinds" *as the term is used by creationists* have no existence.The word translated as "kinds" in the Bible may well simply mean that the offspring resemble their parents. But that in no way contradicts evolution. But that isn't what creationists mean. Evolutionary theory says that a dog won't give birth to a cat so that isn't what creationists mean either.Creationists claim that there are basic discontinuities between different life forms such that they cannot be related. Thus if a creationist says that cats and dogs are different "kinds" he means that they do NOT share a common ancestor. Unfortunately for creationists the evidence is that they do. And typically a creationist will either suddenly decide that cats and dogs are the same kind after all or refuse to accept the relationship.

I see that you aren't answering the questions I raised.But the bones can tell us a lot more - for instance all these fossils show traits intermediate between what we would call apes and modern humans.And no, Neandertals are not the same as modern humans, there differences are not the result of age or arthritis.
Creationist Arguments: NeandertalsHovind is something of a joke. The last thing I saw about him was his spat with Answers in Genesis. And all AiG did was to suggest that creationists should stop using a few bad arguments. Hovind didn't like that at all.