I also put up pictures myself, did you miss them? Including that of Lucy, which is only 40% complete.

Most are fragmented and incomplete, but notice they barely ever present a complete skeleton to back up claims? And when they do, the skeletons seem to be recognisable for what they are. Whereas skulls or partial skulls are understandably more difficult. Unfortunately, when a skeleton is more complete and obviously human or ape, it then comes down to evolutionary commentary to claim them as transitional forms, just in case we were convinced by sight. Yet they, like us, do not know any more about them, nor how they were as they must have looked in completion (covered).

An extinct species does not equal a transitional form/missing link, whether of the monkey family or mankind. That is very much speculation based on bias assumptions of the past and automatic belief that evolution has taken place. Which shows one who has this belief, does not seem able to think outside of it or consider otherwise. We cannot possibly know that what we dig up and find is a missing link/transitional form, simply because their race may not exist today.

See even here with Turkana Boy (or Nariokotome Boy), you'll notice that the evolutionary scientists show surprise at the similarities to modern day humans, (which is no surprise to the creationist) considering it's been dated 1.5 million years old, they probably didn't expect this. They compare him to certain races existing today. Unfortunately, due to some differences, he is then considered to be a missing link, without knowing anymore about him. Again speculation based on assumptions of the past.

See here they say this:


Then they go onto say:


But then they go onto add this to make sure they keep us believing it's a transitional form:


This is clear evidence, that anything they dig up from the past MUST be a transitional form, even if it has significant similarities to modern day races because they already believe it. Rather than admitting that perhaps the similarities being significant, might actually indicate it is fully human...

Then they say this:


And this is their one big (hopeful) push that this will convince the unsuspecting that this skeleton is a transitonal form. By describing its smaller cranial capacity and its thicker eyebrow projections. Yet, if you check out many people living today, they too have the same cranial capacity (e.g. pygmies, Native Australians etc). Like Homo sapiens (archaic), native Australians also have thick protruding eyebrows, an inward-inclined mandibular structure, and a slightly smaller cranial capacity. And if cranial capacity had anything to do with being less evolved, this also contradicts the fact that Neanderthal has a larger brain capacity - (quote from Linda's own link) Their cranial capacity </wiki/Cranial_capacity> was larger than modern humans, indicating that their brains may have been larger. The brain size is related to a mutation </wiki/Mutation> in the microcephalin </wiki/Microcephalin> gene, which is also seen in the Homo sapiens genetic pool. So they can hardly claim one thing, if it's being contradicted by something by the other.
.
Also, differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organisation of the brain, rather than on its volume. So there goes that theory. But I can see why they were hopeful. This can also be said for neanderthal too. Distinct features that may differ from existing races that we can observe, do not make it a missing link/transitional form. That, once again, is simply evolutionary assumptions.

But back to Turkana. Then they go onto say more (admissions):


And in case we were inclined to believe he may have been capable of speech, indicating how human he probably was, they say this:


Yet it seems they still can't get past the fact it still points to the same functioning we have:


There are a mixture of admissions and speculations here, but no evidence that this is an earlier transitional form from ape to man, unless one is willing and ready to believe the evolutionary assumptions of our past. I would definitely ask people to check out the pictures of this skeleton. There are enough differences in races existing today, that if one modern day race with distinguishable traits that make them stand amongst the rest, had died out earlier, they too would have been labelled a missing link, rather than an extinct human species. Very sad. All are only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African or a pygmy and a European.

It is not easy to always distinguish an ape skull or a human skull, unless you are seeing it from all angles and in completion. Consider they are the most similar animal in appearance to us, if you compare them to the rest of the animals kingdom, but the differences are also marked if you see them in completion. Differences could be confused when looking at a line up of skulls, considering there are races today which have flatter noses and stronger jaws than some of us. But as I mentioned, the human skulls have the bridge of the nose intact. Monkeys do not. That too can be hard to see in detail in some of those pictures. Would really prefer to see complete skeletons before making any kind of speculations on ape to man evolution or so-called "transitonal forms".



This doesn't require one to take anything out of context. He goes from stating that ape-man evolution occured, to then admitting there is a lack of evidence for those transitions but how hopeful he is that they will somehow, sometime turn up. And also admits the dangers of coming to conclusions about those they're not sure about (incomplete etc)....did you somehow miss all that Linda?

Thanks for posting this in full, it's much clearer, but more embarrassing for your side <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. And just fits in with the contradictory statements by evolutionists that were posted on here awhile back that I also have on video. Big claims for myriads of transitional forms, but when cornered to provide them, then came the myriad of excuses <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> In other words, they didn't have any they could really present as a water-tight case (just as the owner of that Museum had admitted in a private letter).



Did the point somehow escape you Linda? Should be clear enough for anybody. Re-read my post again and look at the pictures again and see if you get it. It does not matter how old or how new those drawings were and are, they are to show us the bias that is involved with presenting evolution to the public based on depictions, rather than reality. Or "incomplete" reality. They cannot even agree on the apppearance of the same skull, which you can see by the different drawings. Why should he or we give credit to people who have employed such practises now or in the past? Simply because we now have advanced technology? Advanced technology, simply equals advanced and more realistic looking fantasy when it comes to evolutionary depictions. I don't consider it an honest practice to paint pictures of animals just as they look today matching the prints they found, yet in human prints, they painted a baboon/human looking creature instead, and you cannot even "see" the bias in this or the deliberate twist to their imagination. You can continue to make excuses for them if you wish. I doubt those made increasingly aware of such practises will be quite so fooled in future.



Wrong. It is very relevant and you don't get off that easy. Here is the source - Earnest A. Hooton, Up From The Ape, New York: McMillan, 1931, p. 332. You were given the link to gain further detail/information and failed to bother checking. As for excusing Hooton? Having no knowledge of modern facial reconstruction techniques is even less of an excuse to put them forth as a realistic depiction. Thereby fooling the public who also had no further knowledge to prove otherwise. Keep making excuses to the contrary though, they are of course on your side.



You spelled Piltdown wrong, check below. Feeling silly now? Pointing out a petty typing error won't help your case either.



Spare me the excuses <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/talktothehand.gif" alt="" />. For more than 40 years, there were many scientific articles written on piltdown man and many depictions (interpretations and drawings). It was presented as proof for human evolution and no fewer than 500 doctoral thesis were written on it . Source - Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 5 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed Piltdown "a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man. Source - Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, February 5, 1979, p. 44.



Who needs to create a strawman when a tooth of a pig makes a monkey out of an evolutionist? Even reading your link didn't help their case much Linda. I guess you think it does. It still shows that they are desperately searching for anything to prove ape-man scenarios and even a tooth to them is up for consideration. Making the case sound better and nicer, doesn't take away what happened, nor the embarrassment. What next we wonder?



You haven't elaborated on this at all....so I cannot really comment further either and won't waste more of my time doing so. .

By the way, I looked up the meaning of hominid and this is what I get from two differing websites:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid
A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae </wiki/Hominidae> (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans </wiki/Human>, chimpanzees </wiki/Chimpanzee>, gorillas </wiki/Gorilla>, and orangutans </wiki/Orangutan>. This classification has been revised </wiki/Ape> several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid": the original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina </wiki/Hominina>, i.e. only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon </wiki/Taxon> changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid," which includes all great apes </wiki/Great_ape>.

And here from Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.

And this is why people can become confused by the words evolutionists use, considering they can change their meaning somewhat and cause further confusion in the process. I always wonder where would they be if they were forced to stick to common and more simplistic terms? Try and imagine how they'd work the theory then.....what refuge would they have? Complexity and confusion is a big part of the game. And here below is another example of findings ways to escape why they still cannot come up with any water-tight arguments to prove evolution:



Yet... if the evolutionist worked from honesty and science the first time around, he/she would not need to constantly alter previous claims. If they are in any confusion or doubt, it should not be presented as a fact to the public. You constantly claim on here to have evidence for evolution. However, when pressed or things are brought to light, you'll go onto admit that no such claims for 100% certainty should be made. Therefore, if one does not have 100% certainty, then you and your superiors have no right to make claims ahead of time and confusing the public in the process and evolution has done so. Anything beneath 100% is not truckloads of evidence Linda, and in light of that, one should cease making such bold and unsubtantiated claims, unless their motivation is to convince people of something they themselves cannot be 100% certain of either.

Evolution has to continually be changed/modified, because there is no truth to it. It cannot afford to standstill, as I said in a previous post, but must keep moving should it be caught out in the same discrepancies that it's been caught out on in the past. They evolve better methods and definitions in an attempt to avoid being caught out. That is the reason why they have to keep changing the theory. New evidence keeps contradicting evolution, which is why they have to keep changing/modifying their theory. And as for artistic depiction of our past? It is a dishonest practice when it is done to paint our past in accordance with evolution beliefs. Creating a picture in the minds of human beings that ignorantly depicts how we once lived, how we once looked, etc when they have no such knowledge to present it as so. It is deceptive and deliberate and is always done according to the evolution belief. They either humanise or aperise something, depending on what is necessary to indoctrinate the viewer t their beliefs. When it comes to science, this should not be okayed and then waved away as though "oh well, it doesn't really matter". It would only matter to you Linda if the situation were in reverse. And no, I have not seen the Victorian engravings of dinosaurs, but would be interested to view them, considering much more ancient cultures had depicted dinosaurs, long before we had even unearthed them and seemed fully aware of them back then too. Please feel free to post them for curiosity sake. I'd enjoy that.



Did you actually look at the link I presented? I mentioned that it contained much more information and detail and sources. Here is the source if this helps. Perhaps you'll get lucky and find some way of attempting to rubbish it.
A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol 3,



Ahhh phooey, I have already mentioned this earlier Linda, so I do not want to repeat it here.



He hasn't strayed at all. It's just yours and their interpretation that differs. If scientists do not take any notice of seafairing skills, evidence of clothing, needles, and evidences of those things, alongside the fossil evidence, then we must ask why? Shouldn't they be taking all things into account when studying and then potraying these findings to the public? It seems to me they are very quick to portray them in magazines and drawings and Museums anyway they wish in the most brutish manner possible, without evidence to back it up. Yet when given evidence of such creative skills and handywork to the contrary, they ignore it. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.




Ridiculous attempt? Wow, you don't consider that a disgusting example of where evolution and the scientists against one human being? History speaks for itself. Yes, it is true that atrocities have been committed by both sides, but the evolutionary belief itself is a great motivation and gives many more reasons for one to back up such actions. And this is why this story was brought to light. If one believes they are nothing more than a product of chance with more relations to the monkeys in the cages, then to a creator being, one can also decide who is more or lesser evolved (and important) than the other and employ whatever actions they feel are appropriate. Even creating their own laws and methods to use, because to them, they have no ultimate being to answer to for such atrocities. Hitler also employed such methods and managed to convince others that these people were inferior and further down the evolutionary scale by referring to them as "vermin". Very similar to Pwcca's comparison to an unborn child having less importance than a hampster on the abortion thread. But I won't go into that any further here. However, if you can't see the where such a belief leads, then you're blind or deliberately so.

The same with Starlin and Lenin. When one has such a belief in their origins, their ideas about themselves and one-another can be profoundly affected. For them, they are their own gods, their own rulers and there is no ultimate being to answer to for their actions. They can, in a sense, do what they want, so long as they are in a position of power to do so.



Your idea of truth may not include the rest of the public. You simply present anything YOU believe as being THE truth and everything else is otherwise. There are both sides to this, which is what this forum is created for. Don't expect to have the traffic one way Linda.

PS, complaining about links to websites (or information/pictures painstakingly pasted) that you whine about refuting, makes little sense when you yourself continue to do the same. I included my own words, you included yours. I gave a link, but made it easier by putting up the information and pictures on the same post. Displaying them for anybody to see. You instead simply gave links to many other evolutionary websites....which doesn't seem to me to be any easier or better than the method I chose. So quit complaining.

CTD is fully aware you do this as well. You complain about anything done on here no matter what it is or how it's done. You've done the same to Russ, to me, to everybody on the opposition side, simply because anything we do and present is not palatable to you.