[JohnnyM]

This is from Ichy's post:

"Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species."

An example is then given with fossil hominid skulls (and I'm assuming nothing else) where creationist scientists are fuzzy on what skull belongs to which kind/species (ape or man), thereby making their previous claim of easy validation wrong.

But this is an invalid test, since the creationists did not claim to be able to classify species simply by a single fossil (in this case a skull), and I'm sure they would agree that they could not. Classification is based on more than just a single fossil or a skull.

JM

[Antonello]

But this is an invalid test, since the creationists did not claim to be able to classify species simply by a single fossil (in this case a skull), and I'm sure they would agree that they could not. Classification is based on more than just a single fossil or a skull.

Are you saying that, given nothing more than a skull to work with, a forensic anthropologist would not be able to distinguish between a modern chimp skull and a modern human one?

[Junior]

...since the creationists did not claim to be able to classify species simply by a single fossil ...<> But they most certainly did. That matrix was culled from their own assertions that each fossil was either a man or an ape.