Quote
Bex, I note that you again said above, "you weren't there." So do you also believe that forensic detectives should be put out of a job, and that a court case without eyewitnesses should be thrown out? Or does detective work only not count when the detectives are archaeologists?

Correct, we were not there! I think anybody who interprets the evidence to fit in with their theory regardless, missing out important aspects if they don't comply or fit in, twisting or misinforming etc, should be put out of a job, and those behaviours have occured in the past as we have seen without so much as a slap on the wrist! Look what happens to a creationist when they do not comply with evolution. Did you not read the interview with the biologist Linda???? It was on televison by the way. Do I need to repeat that here again to give you an example? Let me know and I will, because I think that deserves repeating. Conspiracy theories? Liars? Who knows.....doesn't look good though. Yet you want us to believe, even with the hoaxes/ misinterpretations of the past, that we should accept what these guys are telling us...why? Well for starters, you're an evolutionist, so that means...it's a fact. Yep, by golly you got me there. I remember a time when they agreed on the embryo animations as being a true depiction also. Until reality proved otherwise. You know, sometimes I hate technology, because of some aspects of it..... but in a way I love it. This is where we have access to true photographs and scans <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

So the complete geologic column is a fact because these guys all agree with eachother around the world on the "evidence" that it exists in just the right order that proves evolution occured (how convenient). Not all scientists believe this Linda, whether it's a fact or not, not all agree. Do you think that all scientists are evolutionists and all creationists are simply religious or not worthy of a hearing? Are you aware there are creation scientists that disagree with the way these "evidences" have been interpreted? Of course you are. But the fact is, who has the loudest voice in the science community? Evolutionists. Scientists are not all evolutionists Linda, but they are the rule of the day. Fit in, or you're ousted or even made fun of. It reminds of me the elite groups in Highschool. Anything to fit with the crowd, but does that mean the crowd is right? That's another story.

Quote
I assure you all I do is look at the facts and follow where they lead. You know I've done that with mercury and alternative medicine. If I have to say that I think the evidence points to many people being wrong, I will, but I don't see it here. I've learned too much about science over the years and I've seen too much of the evidence for myself.

You can assure me all you want, and reassure yourself in the process. I don't believe you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. It's easy to do that with mercury, it doesn't pose a threat to ones belief system about origins, death, afterlife, laws. To say you've learned too much about science over the years and "seen" too much of the evidence for yourself is the same stuff you peddle on here "we have truckloads of evidence". Yet notice evolutionists don't have much to go on, or they'd not be on here debating desperately about it to try and prove that it's a fact. If it was, they'd be no need to debate, by this stage it would be proven beyond any doubt and would have silenced all arguments. Given the vast amounts of time they put on our history and all the myriads of fossils evidences they should have, and pictures to match, why do we come up almost empty handed? It is not enough to give a picture of a fossil and then a chart showing it's evolution. This is nothing more than bias interpretation of the unseen past. The only thing you can see are the fossils, you cannot SEE if they were evolving or not. Nor can you be sure that the ones you fit it in with are earlier transitonal forms or simply other species. Unless you can prove simplicity has become complexity over time, with pictures to match, showing animals becoming more complex and further resembling the ones we see today, in the stages we would need to see as they become further recognisable (e.g. scales becoming feathers), you are in a sense proving nothing. And escaping this by manipulating even your own theory to try and explain why we haven't seen that, is just back-peddling, side-stepping and hoping others will fall for it in the process.

Quote
The information is everywhere to be found. As an example, here <http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html> is what the fossil record shows for the evolution of humans. These species and sub-species were put in these places on the chart because the fossils and the rocks in which they were found have been dated at those ages. The same site <http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/disp.html> explains, for example, that "with more powerful geological dating methods based on fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field or electron spin resonance, the earliest Homo erectus fossils from China have been dated to 1.9 million years ago." If we found an australopithecus fossil unambiguously buried in a recent layer of rock, that would indeed be a find to shake the world. Yet consistently, these fossils are found sorted according to the order in the chart. You could find a similar chart for many different kinds of organisms.

Linda. This does not SHOW anything. It is just another evolution bias interpretation with a charts to match. I want you to back up those charts and claims with real life pictures to show the evolution of mankind, just as told on there. And if you cannot do that, stop peddling the same stuff. You cannot simply tell us it happened without the evidence, or fancy names to describe these supposed less evolved ancestors of ours. That is NOT enough!

Your hands are empty, but your arguments continue. No matter how much you guys argue to the contrary, no amount of charts of longwinded arguments prove anything, unless it's backed up with reality. You dig up an extinct creature and whatever you want it to be, it magically becomes just that. If it's an unknown species....then that too will be interpreted from the evolution perspective and may just become a less evolved ancestor of ours (if they have their way). Yet you do not know if it's any creature in a state of evolution or not, or just another species. How can you POSSIBLY know this??? unless you can prove simplicity has become complexity in the fossil record. That includes man or any other creature. The fossil record shows things were fully formed. There is no sign of them becoming slowly more recognisable to what we see today or being more simple and becoming slowly more complex. If the fossil pictures I provided aren't displaying simplicity becoming complexity, or showing any observable change from then to now, what makes you think it's any different for us? Finding a skeleton that displays different characteristics, does not mean it's an earlier transitional form, it could be another species. linda, do you ever actually consider that? Think about it, how many animals do you find today that have resembling characteristics, yet exist at the sametime? Why should something extinct be manipulated into the supposed "evolution of mankind" because it may not be existing today?

Quote
Scientists the world over compare their findings -- have done for over 200 years -- and they consistently agree to a remarkable extent. A creationist either needs to furnish solid proof that they are all mistaken, or lying. It always seems to boil down to this doesn't it -- the evidence is irrefutable so it must somehow be a tissue of lies, a conspiracy on the grandest scale imaginable. Do you honestly think that is a likely possibility?

This is not an answer. You failed to answer my original question.