If you recall the previous posts on this forum on various threads and were honest about it, you'd remember how much has been presented from our side that you have obviously overlooked and disregarded. Therefore, I've concluded that it won't matter how much more is given or what is presented or repeated, we should expect the same thing - denials and time wasting and deliberate misrepresentation of the opposition.

Blocking your eyes and ears and screaming "it happened anyway", irrespective of what's been presented or finding excuses to explain why reality itself is failing to show what we'd expect had evolution been a fact is typical.

Their way of proving evolution is to claim people have not been able to falsify it. And this is their claim to science? That is shameful. But not surprising considering the lack of data/substance they have to present. I'll pretend that aliens made this planet Linda, can you falsify that? Seriously, I challenge you to falsify it!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mike.png" alt="" /> <-- guys like him. If you can't perhaps that'll give rights to teach it in a science classroom.

Evolution is completely falsified by the total lack (non existence) of transitional forms. You can make anything you want a transitional form if you want it to be I guess. Imagine it is. If it's similar enough, you can pretend it's an earlier transitional form, on it's way into evolving into what we see today. Forgetting that the so-called transitional forms have been dated around the sametime as their later counterparts. Yet you've tried to explain this as being "ok" too. You ignored my geologic column statements on here too that totally contradict this as well. Possibly because you're not sure yet how to get yourself out of that one.

I referred to a famous letter on this forum in another thread. It was from Colin Patterson, evolutionist director of the British Museum which contains one of the world's largest fossil collections (7 million plus). He admitted they did not have ONE such water tight case for any transitional forms. For this indiscreet admission, he was severely reprimanded by his evolutionist peers for letting the cat out of the bag. You must have ignored this also. This also lends even further credence to an interview that I also presented on here (that had been televised) with an evolutionary biologist making some very embarrassing and highly concerning admissions about the way they MUST present evolution to the public, regardless of what they find in order to keep their position (and of course financial support). The fact you could no longer claim "quote mining", due to the fact it was an interview and televised may have been why you failed to comment.



Normally I would not like to use such accusations, but since you feel free to accuse creationists of "dodge" tactics, I gave you a taste of it. Unpleasant isnt it Linda? I too have sickness, I too need to take breaks from this forum, but because of your "dodge" accusations, I felt obliged to get on here and try to tackle it, even though I am unwell, am in the process of doing a caregiving course and now have a head cold. Must I reveal my private details on here to give an excuse as to why I'm not answering everything OR answering within a specific time period? I don't think I or anybody should have to do that. I've said this before too but you guys continue to press us, yet feel free to have needed breaks yourself. It's absolutely hypocritical and tiring.



We do not see any such theory in action today, let alone should assume it occured in the past. They test everything from what they already believe happened. It's just a belief Linda, something you want to believe in order to tell yourself that it all came from time and chance.

Devout Christian eh? Is this an attempt to side-track me Linda? And you talk about distraction? Let me explain something to you. A christian is someone that not only accepts the bible being the infallible word of God, but has accepted Christ as being their own personal Lord and Savior by admitting they are a sinner and are in need of the saving blood of Christ. A Christian does not turn around and make out the bible is full of story tales or say "why should Christ be God, why cannot God be someone else". Or constantly look for ways of disproving it happened or hopes it will be disproven in favour of their evolution theory. Not only does a non Christian or Agnostic doubt, they also create and spread doubt and dissent in others and will be held accountable for their personal contribution towards this. A true Christian has accepted God at His word. Even Jesus has referred back to the old testament as being true. A true Christian does not go against the word of God, water it down, or twist it or scandalise others. Either they accept it and Christ as their Lord and savior, or they do not. Christ said "either you are for Me or you are against Me". The bible totally contradicts evolution, and I have been THROUGH this before on here of why they are polar opposites. It's been repeated and now it's happening again as though it was never discussed. What am I to do Linda? Go back through each and every thread and try and find it all again? God made man in His own image. The image of man was not an animal, not an ape like creature, but God Himself. God is not an animal, nor the image of one. God made every other animal (including the apes and monkeys, Giraffs, etc as well as the first human beings, co-existing). God made all things complete and instructed them to be fruitful and multiply (just as they were). Complete and perfect, not the degraded and sicker versions of today. The bible does not preach simple becoming complex, it preaches the opposite. Things wear down, age and die and have done since the original fall/sin. All things in the beginning were made perfect. God did not create death and suffering in the beginning, death and suffering were the result of sin, original sin and came after. Jesus' death is to do with original sin, all sin. The sins of our first parents. This is COMPLETELY opposite to evolution. I cannot believe I even have to repeat some of this here. This is why a person can get completely worn down by you guys. I am certain that this is the aim here. Wear people down, pretend previous discussions never took place, bring old matters back up, make false accusations etc etc. I will tell you again Linda, someone that compromises their faith to fit in with evolution is fooling themselves and insulting the creator. I have listed somewhere to show the total contradictions and how both cannot be taken onboard at once if you are to be true to yourself and your belief (should it be evolution or creation). I guess this too has drifted into oblivion on here and let's pretend it never took place. You just enjoy wasting my time and bringing the matter up again. I really hope I do not have to go through this again.



A good or even honest scientist would never have presented hoaxes to the public in the first place, nor would they have been fooled by them if they had really were searching for truth or allowed them to go on for any length of time. A good scientist would not allow any such hoaxes/misrepresentations to continue in any textbooks. And when you say "scientist" looks like i have to repeat my statements to you, not all scientists are evolutionists. Do you have some kind of mental block or something with this? Or do you just have a condescending attitude to any scientist that has a creation viewpoint? including the rest of us?

When you find a skeleton/skull, there is no way of knowing exactly what it looked like when it was clothed in muscle and skin, how it lived, or whether it was covered in hair or what kind of hair if you do not have anything more to go by. We can take some guesses based on the frame, but you'll find differing representations of the same skeleton (amongst evolutionists presentations). One will aperise it, the other will humanise it and you cannot always tell exactly which it belongs to. There are no doubt many extinct animals and humans out there and many misinterpretations and bias in studying and presenting these findings to the public. If you are working from a set belief, this will profoundly affect your observations, studies and presentation.

I can look at monkeys and apes today and tell you now that out of the animal kingdom, they would have to be the closest in similarity to a human being, but the differences are also marked and obvious to anybody observing them, but the evolutionist plays them down deliberately. Either exaggerating similarities and ignoring or playing down the differences. Finding a skeleton/skull and finding human-like characteristics or ape-like characteristics will very much depend on those studying it. Take a look at the contradictory pictures here Linda and it should give you an example of how difficult it is to know exactly what they looked like or how they lived. But it's constructed for us by the bias evolutionist who paints a picture of the unseen past, based on what they want to believe and want us to accept also.

Taken from: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php. I encourage people to read this link and keep reading the information that follows. I have presented some of it here with pictures, but it goes into it all much more if you wish to find out more.

DECEPTIVE FOSSIL INTERPRETATIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS

Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: "At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data".61 Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.[/b]

IMAGINARY AND DECEPTIVE DRAWINGS:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/fzmqclnoua.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/cnuzjlkydw.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/sejvlmwuyt.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lhdcaufrhm.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/bgzetazmjq.jpg">
In pictures and reconstructions, evolutionists deliberately give shape to features that do not actually leave any fossil traces, such as the structure of the nose and lips, the shape of the hair, the form of the eyebrows, and other bodily hair so as to support evolution. They also prepare detailed pictures depicting these imaginary creatures walking with their families, hunting, or in other instances of their daily lives. However, these drawings are all figments of the imagination and have no counterpart in the fossil record.

At this point, we have to highlight one particular point: Reconstructions based on bone remains can only reveal the most general characteristics of the creature, since the really distinctive morphological features of any animal are soft tissues which quickly vanish after death. Therefore, due to the speculative nature of the interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawings or models become totally dependent on the imagination of the person producing them. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:

To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions.62

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wneotamkzh.jpg">
As a matter of fact, evolutionists invent such "preposterous stories" that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull. For example, the three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus (Zinjanthropus), are a famous example of such forgery.

Evolutionists can misinterpret or come up with completely different ideas and pictures. You accuse creationists of doing becoming confused with skull tops, or fragmented skulls, or uncertain of which is which based on little overall completeness, but evolutionists are the ones who misinterpret and misrepresent findings based upon their theory and bias. Dishonest practices. Some human beings have a pronounced jaw more than others too, does not make them closer to any ape-like ancestor! Nor does it make them less advanced in evolution. Or do you think it might Linda? Any skull similar to either can be confusing when you do not see the actual features more clearly (more as they would be in life). They are often fragmented or incomplete as well, which does not help.

What I got from the pictures RAZD sent on the thread was certain skulls are completely missing the bone to the bridge of the nose. They do not have one. Take a look at the monkeys and apes and you'll find the same! Surprise surprise. Though, if you look around, there are some people who also can have a much flatter bridge than others, but all human beings have a bridge, however small or prominant it maybe. The monkeys are completely lacking one. The area above the mouth, especially in monkeys/apes slopes outwards also on the side view of those skulls, which you might have missed on the front view. You need a proper and complete view of the skull and skeleton and that is very hard when you still do not have a clear indication of how it looked when it was fully formed/covered. I took a look at the link you provided and I find that the skulls are not all completely formed and the full skeletons appear to be missing. It is much easier to judge a fully formed skeleton without parts missing, that bits of this and that or skulls that have bits missing to make any kind of judgement call in this area. We also cannot get much indication of their external features/appearance as it would have been more in life either. It is difficult to judge exactly which is which when you don't have the full picture.

Either way, you cannot simply fit it into an evolution scenario simply because you desire it. We cannot know that one became the other Linda. We can only dig up the present and then assume the unseen unobserved past.

Linda, pretend you've not seen an elephant before and you find an elephants skull, do you think you'd know it had a trunk? Or would you assume the nose it had and present it as a fact? Because that's exactly what your superiors do and have done.

Here's more of the same: (comes from same site as above).

PILTDOWN MAN: AN ORANG-UTAN JAW AND A HUMAN SKULL!

The story of a hoax : This forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid.

The fossils are unearthed by Charles Dawson and given to Sir Arthur Smith Woodward
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/sisyottojm.jpg">

Pieces are reconstructed to form the famous skull.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/biqzdajkcv.jpg">

Based on the reconstructed skull, various drawings and skulptures are made, numerous articles and commentaries are written. The original skull is demonstrated in the British Museum.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/shiqjorghq.jpg">

After 40 years of its discovery, the Piltdown fossil is shown to be a hoax by a group of researchers
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/mpxqpokaox.jpg">

NEBRASKA MAN: A SINGLE PIG TOOTH

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/iopwzrqzyk.jpg">
The picture was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species.

A SINGLE JAWBONE AS A SPARK OF INSPIRATION

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/uhjvaqwbli.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/mjpbhvokem.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/lkdewdokbw.jpg">
The first Ramapithecus fossil found: a missing jaw composed of two parts. (on the right). The evolutionists daringly pictured Ramapithecus, his family and the environment they lived in, by relying only on these jawbones.

By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens", the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very recent times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia", it was reported in the journal Science that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"

HOMO HABILIS: THE APE THAT WAS PRESENTED AS HUMAN

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ygwavqmull.jpg">
The first fossil found in Ethiopia, Hadar, which is to be supposed to belong to Australopithecus aferensis species: AL 288-1 or "Lucy". For a long time, evolutionists struggled to prove that Lucy could walk upright; but the latest research has definitely established that this animal was an ordinary ape with a bent stride.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/fipmbhqgce.jpg">
Above is seen the skull of Australopithecus aferensis AL 444-2 fossil, and below is the skull of a contemporary ape. The obvious similarity verifies that A. aferensis is an ordinary ape species without any "human-like" features.

HOMO HABILIS: ANOTHER EXTINCT APE

For a long time, evolutionists argued that the creatures they called Homo habilis could walk upright. They thought that they had found a link stretching from ape to man. Yet, the new Homo habilis fossils Tim White unearthed in 1986 and named as OH 62 disproved this assertion. These fossil fragments showed that Homo habilis had long arms and short legs just like contemporary apes. This fossil put an end to the assertion proposing that Homo habilis was a bipedal being able to walk upright. In truth, Homo habilis was nothing but another ape species.

"OH 7 Homo habilis" seen on the down left has been the fossil which best defined the mandibular features of the Homo habilis species. This mandible fossil has big incisory teeth. Its molar teeth are small. The shape of the mandible is square. All these qualities make this mandible look very similar to that of today's apes. In other words, Homo habilis' mandible once more confirms that this being is actually an ape.

HOMO ERECTUS AND THEREAFTER: REAL HUMAN BEINGS

Homo erectus: An Ancient Human Race
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/hffsnpxrmu.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/rsknxdiylw.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/rdkaogxkhr.jpg">
Homo erectus means "upright man". All the fossils included in this species belong to particular human races. Since most of the Homo erectus fossils do not have a common characteristic, it is quite hard to define these men according to their skulls. This is the reason why different evolutionist researchers have made various classifications and designations. Top picture is seen a skull which was found in Koobi Fora, Africa in 1975 which may generally define Homo erectus. Second is a skull, Homo ergaster KNM-ER 3733, which has the obscurities in question.

The cranial capacities of all these diverse Homo erectus fossils surge between 900-1100 cc. These figures are within the limits of the contemporary human cranial capacity.

KNM-WT 15000 or Turkana Child skeleton on the right, is probably the oldest and the most complete human fossil ever found. Research made on this fossil which is said to be 1.6 million year old shows that this belongs to a 12 year old child who would become around 1.80 m. tall if he reached adolescence. This fossil which very much resembled to the Neanderthal race, is one of the most remarkable evidence invalidating the story of human's evolution.

The evolutionist Donald Johnson describes this fossil as follows: "He was tall and skinny. His body shape and the proportion of his limbs were the same as the current Equator Africans. The sizes of his limbs totally matched with that of the current white North American adults."

700 THOUSAND YEAR OLD MARINERS

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ssclxazlww.jpg">
"Early humans were much smarter than we suspected..."

News published in New Scientist on March 14th 1998 tells us that the humans called Homo Erectus by evolutionists were practicing seamanship 700 thousand years ago. These humans, who had enough knowledge and technology to build a vessel and possess a culture that made use of sea transport, can hardly be called "primitive".

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance: One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans.

NEANDERTHALS

False Masks
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/klfyzjxibo.jpg">

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.86

Many contemporary researchers define Neanderthal man as a sub-species of modern man and call him "Homo sapiens neandertalensis". The findings testify that Neanderthals buried their dead, fashioned musical instruments, and had cultural affinities with the Homo sapiens sapiens living during the same period. To put it precisely, Neanderthals are a "robust" human race that simply disappeared in time

Neanderthals: A Robust People
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/qfazcnotfb.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/bolfphzcvn.jpg">

Above is seen Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis, Amud 1 skull found in Israel. Neanderthal man is generally known to be robust yet short. However it is estimated that the owner of this fossil had been 1.80 m. high. His cranial capacity is the largest ever seen: 1740cc. Because of all these, this fossil is among the important pieces of evidence definitely destroying the claims that Neanderthals were a primitive species.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vqugiblxlq.jpg">
26,000 YEAR OLD NEEDLE: An interesting fossil showing that the Neanderthals had knowledge of clothing: A needle 26,000 years old. (D. Johanson, B. Edgar From Lucy to Language, p. 99)

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/debahcuraj.jpg">
One of the most popular periodicals of the evolutionist literature, Discover, put the 800 thousand-year-old human face on its cover with the evolutionists' question "Is this the face of our past

This fossil even shook the convictions of Juan Luis Arsuaga Ferreras, who lead the Gran Dolina excavation. Ferreras said:

Our expectation of an 800,000-year-old boy was something like Turkana Boy. And what we found was a totally modern face.... To me this is most spectacular-these are the kinds of things that shake you. Finding something totally unexpected like that. Not finding fossils; finding fossils is unexpected too, and it's okay. But the most spectacular thing is finding something you thought belonged to the present, in the past. It's like finding something like-like a tape recorder in Gran Dolina. That would be very surprising. We don't expect cassettes and tape recorders in the Lower Pleistocene. Finding a modern face 800,000 years ago-it's the same thing. We were very surprised when we saw it.92

After recovering from the initial shock, the evolutionists who discovered the fossil decided that it belonged to a different species, because according to the evolutionary family tree, Homo sapiens did not live 800,000 years ago. Therefore, they made up an imaginary species called "Homo antecessor" and included the Atapuerca skull under this classification.

A HUT 1.7 MILLION YEARS OLD

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xjvvfquqeh.jpg">
Findings of a 1.7 million-year-old hut shocked the scientific community. It looked like the huts used by some Africans today.

The remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.93

This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/secfpbublv.jpg">
Another example showing the invalidity of the imaginary family tree devised by evolutionists: a human (Homo sapiens) mandible aged 2.3 million years. This mandible coded A.L. 666-1 was unearthed in Hadar, Ethiopia.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/szzjsahsmt.jpg">
Recent researches reveal that it is impossible for the bent ape skeleton fit for quadripedal stride to evolve into upright human skeleton fit for bipedal stride.

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution can not be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree in that is put forward.

OTA BENGA: The African Native Put Into a Cage

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ihhlntkfth.jpg">
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man".Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide


The "honesty,integrity and reliability" of evolution scientists....hmmmmm.

NOTE: I am a young earth creationist and do not fall in with the old age beliefs. These dates are according to long earth dating and are accepted by the evolutionary science community. Yet, evenso, time evidentally is not helping them much either.