Proving Evolution with the Skull Game

In another post, we saw how Darwinists assume evolution to prove evolution, and people are unskilled at spotting the fallacies. Here, we shall see that evolutionists play a skull game by demonstrating human evolution by assuming it in the first place. Then, they commence to spinning on their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings® to give persuasive answers. Darwin's disciples learned some of his obfuscation tricks from the Beaded Buddha himself.

Materialists tell convincing evolution stories that are illogical and unscientific.
Generated at Image Chef
People think that scientists are interested in facts, but a study of the antics of evolutionists can disabuse them of that notion. If you find the hands of the Darwin Ranch in town on payday, you can find them at the saloon. Don't play cards with them. They don't want to play the hand they're dealt (that is scientific facts), deal from the bottom of the deck (redating fossils, redefining other bits of scientific evidence that don't suit their fancy), use non-evolution to preach evolution, and other shenanigans. Too bad for all of us that they can't be more circumspect instead of digging in their heels deeper so they can "scientifically" deny the Creator who gave them life.

Someone can look at a display of skulls and see right away that some are human, some are ape. There are also variations in each — which is something that creationists expect. The evolutionist will give a convincing story worthy of Rudyard Kipling, bur are actually based on assumptions based on assumptions and whatever else can be taken from the Ring. Step back, get a view from the hill (the bigger perspective), utilize some healthy skepticism, and think. This helps in many circumstances. Also, take a look at some creationary material, such as presented just below.
Today’s feedback is from David B. who wrote in to us about transitional forms and human evolution.

    I am now writing to find out more information regarding the creationist view regarding the alleged transitional forms of "early humans".

    I was so confident in defending the notion that, “there are no transitional forms, the fossils should be clearly be seen as either human or ape”.

    I also went on to describe the dog skull analogy. IE many different variations of dog skulls, but they're still the same species.

  . . .

    I am somewhat disturbed by this fossil:

    [link to the Hobbit fossil deleted, as per site rules]

    While it appears to be human in form, I couldn't help noticing the skull features.

    They do give a strong impression of being somewhere in between Ape and Human.

    While I am still confident in the YEC perspective (especially when it comes to the debate of genetics / chemical evolution), I do not know what to make of this / ended up making a complete fool of myself during our debate.

    Does anyone have any expertise on this matter, with which they can clarify further?

Joel Tay and Dr Robert Carter, CMI-US, respond:
To read the response, click on "Do these skulls prove common ancestry between apes and humans?"