Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Yes, there is a certain element of imagination involved in the portrayal of hominids. However, the core facts of the image are well supported by physical anthropology. That small amount of imagination, such as the colour of the hair and the behaviour shown, do not invalidate the entire image.
From this article, there seems to be a very high level of imagination. Even so much so to commit fraud! The greatest minds on the earth are driven to commit petty crimes of fraud to validate their belief.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Creationists would have you believe that any disagreement between scientists or any change in an accepted model is indicative of a fatal flaw in science. In this matter, as in so many others, creationists are wrong. In science, there are many areas of interest for which the evidence is too fragmentary to clearly support one hypothesis or model over others. It should be no surprise then that any new evidence will have a large impact on the field and the proposed models..
And evolutionists will have us to believe in many things they have little to no evidence on based on what they believe, and try to make it stand as factual.

This article alone has depicted 4 supposed ape man that prominent scientists and scientific magazines promoted as our ancestors on mostly very little evidence and huge imaginations. When the evidence added up, they retracted. Again I will say this, no scientists on earth would disagree that the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing. That means it must be a fact. So while it remains that some scientists agree with evolution, it is a fact that a lot disagree. And the evidence of such ape man ancestors has been mostly imagination instead of factual.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
The "Theory of human evolution" is not based on wishful thinking. It is based off of the study of over one and a half centuries of observations and evidence gathered by anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists, as demonstrated adequately through this site and others. The only way creationists can dismiss such mountainous proofs as being mere "wishful thinking" is, ironically, with wishful thinking..

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Historically, scientists who believed in creationism came to accept that the evidence did not match it despite their wishful thinking. That's how evolutionary theory was founded, because it matched the evidence better.
And I am sure there are many scientists who now after not finding the missing link, and these mountainous regions of evidence, have gone the other way.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Around the world, this pattern continues. People from around the globe exposed to the evidence conclude either their religion was right all along (wishful thinking) or that the evidence supports evolution. It's notable that no Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. scientists can see any evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago, which creationists claim is obvious. Just where is the wishful thinking here?

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Thus, it is only natural that scientists who are investigating such areas might disagree with one another on what the fragments of evidence indicate. At the same time, there are many other fields in which the evidence does clearly support one theory over any other, and it is, again, only natural that scientists do not disagree with each other on those theories that are well-supported by the evidence.
Wait, I thought we had mountains of evidence? Now we have fragments? And the fragments they do find are either human, or ape. No inbetween. No missing link. Just some bones, and imagination.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
If scientists' disagreements about specific details of the human family tree are a reason to reject evolution, Creationists' disagreements about such things as the age of the Earth (YECs say millennia, OECs say billions of years), whether or not Noah's Flood happened, etc, are, equally, a reason to reject Creationism.
The belief of the flood stems from further proofs of the bible and faith based on other evidence of truths in the bible. Unlike science, the bible has made no misteps to those truly trying to understand it. You can rant and rave all you wish about what you percieve to be untruths about the bible, but as long as you do that, you will never be able to grasp the truth. You don't look at the bible in the proper viewpoint, how can you expect to understand it? It's like being in a class with a substitute. You have taken the day off.

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and modern apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct..
I know you believe I am a moron, but I can read. The article I posted tells exactly what scientists believe. They spend all their lives looking for the missing link. Those with hope in it, like you will say they are extinct, and we cannot find them. But the article reasons really well on that when it says..
Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced "links" between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
And before you go off into a tangent about my qualifications to answer these questions. Understand this I served in the military for 4 years. I've been to war. And trust me when I say there is no way a GOD could support the horrors of any war...religious, or ideal. You ain't never been on a battlefield.

Second, when I got my honorable discharge and silver star...I went to college. I graduated with a minor in Physics, and a B.S. in Psychology. Now within that...for 3 years I had to study genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, evolutionary anthropology as well. Virgina Tech class 06.

I am someone very qualified to speak on these issues, I earned that right.
I never challenged your credentials. I am the moron here, remember? I would never dare to pretend I am on your immense level of intellect and technique. You have clearly shown you have the superior mind here.

That said, I find things like this quite telling.

38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."53


39 For example, the radiocarbon "clock." This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.54

The Last Two Million Years states:
"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC." It also says: "Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."56 The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

41 In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: "The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately."57
I never knew this. Mankind can only accurately be traced about 5 thousand years back???? I always wondered how they can decide how many millions of years old something is, but now that it is told it is faulty, how can one put total faith in it? EVER?

I know how.. BLIND FAITH.