Replies

There are plenty of fossils interpreted towards evolution that are frankly either ape skulls or human skulls with deformations/variations. I can think of a man right now that goes to my church who I imagine if you saw his skull it would look significantly different than mine. He has a very large browbone and other distinctive features. He is not deformed. He just looks very different. Cro-magnon forward are probably just human beings. Backwards are apes.

Incidentally, your elitism is showing. I am not an "uneducated grown up child" and calling the folks at AIG and ICR "charlatans" who are telling lies has neither been shown to be true nor is it true. If anything is a lie it is the oft repeated inferrence that Darwinian evolution is incontrovertably proven fact.

As for my hopeful monster, I'm not "spinning away" from anything. This thread is not a thesis paper and the posts should not be required to exhibit a fully detailed explanation every time. Did I simplify Darwinian belief as I see it? Yes. In all these posts though, I have not been shown where what I believe in my head regarding Darwin is some sort of a distortion. As a matter of fact, when the theory was explained to me by your side, I wasn't surprised by a thing. Darwinists believe that over millions of years of time, gradual evolution occurred to where primordial soup eventually through random chance mutations became complex humanity. To me, this kind of thinking truly is a fairy tale. I go out in nature and I just look at all that God has done and I am amazed. To look at the complexity of everything around, or even the complexity in a tiny little baby and say "chance" is stunningly audacious.

Science views certain assumptions of theirs as "infallible". The view their dating schemes as infallible (for without them the theory is destroyed) and assume uniformity of conditions. They view the possibility of the kind of changes that they expect to see as infallible, even though they have NEVER seen what they are claiming to see (your skull pictures do not count and are frankly pretty misleading.) They show similar looking bones that are placed next to one another but they don't prove that they are of the same ancestry - hence, they are disputed. I could take my vertebrae and several totally unrelated species vertebrae and line them up together, and view similarities. It does not mean that we came from the same ancestor. That is one hypothesis, sure, but it could just mean that God designed many of his creatures with similar features. You see, evolutionists assume that their interpretation of what they see is the correct one. Because the metaphysical may be involved, they refuse to consider a creationist's point of view. Instead, they exalt science as the one with all the answers and non-evolutionists as charlatans.

For the record, I have two masters degrees, and a bachelors. Two of those degrees I received from large secular universities. While in those universities I was taught Darwinian evolution. I remain as unconvinced today as I did then. To call creationists just uneducated and highly susceptible children is the epitomy of ignorance as far as I'm concerned, but it glaringly illustrates the utter arrogance with which some evolutionists (I did not say all as some even on this thread have been respectful and have not assumed I'm an idiot because I disagree with them) have towards ANYONE who does not share their point of view.

There are plenty of fossils interpreted towards evolution that are frankly either ape skulls or human skulls with deformations/variations.

Forgive the canned answer, but I deal with this sort of thing a lot. The creationist bin game, subheading: Hominid Fossils.

As for the rest of your post: perform better and you won't have to keep explaining that you actually know better. Please try to learn something from non-cult sources about evolution.

In all these posts though, I have not been shown where what I believe in my head regarding Darwin is some sort of a distortion.

Not quite. You still seem to believe there is something in evolution that claims there is a sharp demarkation wherein one individual of one species is born as another species. We've tried to disabuse you of this notion and show you that it is populations that change into new species, but I don't think we've managed to succeed, at least from the evidence of your posts.