Creationism vs. Evolution

[PlatoNot]

The same way he reacted to Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo erectus, H. habilis, H. ergaster, and on and on. He will pretend that they don't exist.

Oh, we don't pretend they don't exist we just have enough sense not to buy what evolutonists try to peddle about them being human ancestors.

Instead he will pretend that an artificially developed fruit that is no longer able to propagate without human aid has been designed by his little god to perfectly fit his hand. He will pretend that a "crocoduck" is actually a sane expectation.

And you will keep trying to define expectations to fit what you discover. Nice circular reasoning.

[RickSp]

Ardi is not a transitional fossil. It is another misrepresented missing link. As was Lucy and was all the other variant chimpanzees or apes evolutionists try to pawn off as being missing links.


Your post reveals you do care. I feel there is little profit in arguing with idiots also. I define idiots as those who would postulate man evolved from apes.

You make my point. You respond with silly denials instead of argument. "Man evolved from apes"? Why even bother with that tired nonsense?

[Cruella]

We'll have a bit less denigration of the posters - on all sides - please, Jack has already made the point that it is unnecessary.

[do not respond]

[GeminiBrian]

Because it (time) is an oft used haven when evolutionists are backed into a corner. They always resort to time to cover their behinds.

Compared to the eternity that awaits us, as you postulate, the millions of years claimed by evolutionists is small change surely?

According to your beliefs, God decided to pack all of earthly life into some 6000 years, and then figured we'd have to spend time without end (literally) either paying for our mistakes in hell or partying in heaven: and all on the basis of our pathetically short lifespans.

It all seems a tad disproportionate to me, so let's have a little more give and take... what's a few million years in the overall scheme of things?

People are prone to be more forthcoming when agravated. Its then you get real answers to real questions instead of obfuscation heaped on obfuscation.

In that case, I must remember to aggravate you a bit more, Plato...

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Ardi is not a transitional fossil.

Wow. What a compelling argument! I suppose the equivalent response would be: Yes it is.

In keeping with the playground level of discussion....I'm next on the slide!!

[Cruella]

That's ENOUGH. Debate the topic, or don't debate, please. There will be no more baiting of individual posters on this thread.

You are all capable of debating in an intelligent fashion, please try to respond to the content of the posts.

[do not respond]

[PlatoNot]

Compared to the eternity that awaits us, as you postulate, the millions of years claimed by evolutionists is small change surely?

According to your beliefs, God decided to pack all of earthly life into some 6000 years, and then figured we'd have to spend time without end (literally) either paying for our mistakes in hell or partying in heaven: and all on the basis of our pathetically short lifespans.

As you frequently do, you have misrepresented my beliefs. I have never ascribed to a 6000 year universe.

It all seems a tad disproportionate to me, so let's have a little more give and take... what's a few million years in the overall scheme of things?

Eternity compared to any number of years is disproportionate.

In that case, I must remember to aggravate you a bit more, Plato...

[/QUOTE]

You're too sweet for that. It is your wit that disarms me.

[PlatoNot]

Wow. What a compelling argument! I suppose the equivalent response would be: Yes it is.

In keeping with the playground level of discussion....I'm next on the slide!!

Ardi is not a transitional fossil. Ardi is an assembly of skeletal remains. I thought you knew the difference.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

Ardi is not a transitional fossil. Ardi is an assembly of skeletal remains. I thought you knew the difference.

Yes it is.

[RickSp]

Ardi is not a transitional fossil. Ardi is an assembly of skeletal remains. I thought you knew the difference.

LOL. Ardi is a quite complete skeleton by the standards of palentology. It is also a transitional fossil, as the phrase is commonly used. Your fondness for word games is duly noted.

[GeminiBrian]

[=PlatoNot;656812]As you frequently do, you have misrepresented my beliefs. I have never ascribed to a 6000 year universe.

They used to be my beliefs to, Plate, my parents saw to that.

Eternity compared to any number of years is disproportionate.

Good answer - I'll have to give you that!

You're too sweet for that. It is your wit that disarms me.

Grrr! --- I'm a really horrid person --- just ask around behind the scenes at Volconvo...


ps. shame we'll never be on the same side, Plate...

[PlatoNot]

LOL. Ardi is a quite complete skeleton by the standards of palentology. It is also a transitional fossil, as the phrase is commonly used. Your fondness for word games is duly noted.

Ardi is not a transitional fossil in any usage. Ardi is the real deal, bones.

Your fondness for fact bending is noted.