So True

Sadly Seano, this is one of those issues that folk will either say "yes, that's true", to - as I do by the way- or just dismiss as nonsense. On its own I doubt it'll convince anyone.

Because of course only nine fossils have been found. No, and most weren't hoaxes or mistakes. Silliness.

Popped as a searing indictment on the sorry state of scientific literacy in the US. See what we have to put up with here?!!

Yes, there have been more than nine found but why can't we name some that prove evolution? Because there aren't any.

"Nearly all experts agree that Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee."

Heh.

sean077, this chart is a complete fabrication. It has no relationship to any chart of human evolution I have ever seen. It is not an honest nor a good faith presentation of evolutionary understanding.

For your second point, what is something that you would accept as proof that evolution exists?

Yes it is humerous, but in a truthful way. These "men" were once thought to be thorough proof of evolution, yet disproved after testing.

For your second question, maybe a half human, half monkey. Or lets see, a duck crossed with alligator? This probably wouldn't even convince me that the theory of evolution is true. Sure, some animals are born differently, and probably get better at survival over time in that lifetime. Yet this doesn't mean that there children will have these traits, and then amazing morph into another species?
Like if I get faster and faster from running away from my brother, that doesn't mean that my son will be a faster runner then later down in generations a leopard is born.
Thats fabrication if you ask me.

Yes it is humerous, but in a truthful way.

No, the artist intended it as a lie, to deceive the gullible.

For your second question, maybe a half human, half monkey.

So can I take this to mean that you would accept something that had both ape-like and human-like traits as "proof" of evolution?\ (FYI monkeys are a different thing from humans altogether).

Nah i still wouldn't accept it, I was joking about the half monkey thing by the way. Yes..they are a different animal. Thats why evolution is so far fetched in claiming we evolved from them.

Evolution doesn't claim that humans are descended from monkeys at all. That's just made up.

Now, you criticize the fossil record for not containing proof of evolution. So what is the thing (the "proof") that would need to be in the fossil record for you to accept evolution as a viable theory? Why is a fossil with both ape and human traits not good evidence?

Its made up? Ok. Proof for a viable theory? An in-between fossil- I mean a real one. Not a computer generated one from a tooth. An actual fossil or bones of a animal in the morphing stage to another species. Please..you would be the first person to find one though I must warn you and the fame would be overwhelming. "Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?"

"An actual fossil or bones of a animal in the morphing stage to another species."
So, yes, an example would be a fossil of a hominid that had both ape-like and human-like traits. You agree with this? And if not, why not?

Nope, not just 'traits'. Every creature will have the some common traits because we have a common creator. I mean a real fossil of a in-between species. Or even a living one? If evolution was and still is happening why aren't there any animals on the earth which are in-between morphing? I know the answer- because evolution is a false theory. Also, thats probably why its still known as a theory.

"Morphing" is a CGI special effect. It has nothing to do with evolution. A species does not "morph" into another species, it "evolves" into another species. I am bit of a stickler for good english over slang. The "evolution is just a theory" argument is also a case of using "theory" in a slangy rather than a precise sense.

Now, you want fossil evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, right?
BUT it seems you reject that transitional fossils are evidence, right?
SO, what is the fossil evidence you think should be there?