How do you know God isn't dead?

[The Grand Nudger]

What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.

Depends on how far back you'd feel comfortable granting the distinction of "human", wouldn't it?

I am just not getting how you go from that observable fact to the claim, “therefore all life on Earth came from one common ancestor.”

Easy, that's not how anyone arrives at said conclusion, next?

I read a paper a few years ago where the genetic match for an organ transplant was actually between an Irish man and an Aboriginal man. So here you have two people groups that have been separated by supposedly 40,000 years and they are still so genetically similar that they are organ transplant matches? There are some siblings that are not similar enough to do organ transplants. It just doesn’t seem to add up.

We're some of the most genetically homogenous creatures on the planet. All of us are more genetically similar to each other than two distinct populations of chimps living in africa. What, exactly, doesn't add up in this equation to you?

It always seems to come back to the fossils. :-P So would you concede that if the fossil “record” is not truly a record of death and burial over long periods of time then the whole Evolutionary paradigm dies?

You mean, say, we lived in an alternate reality? All bets would be off in Waldorkia, yes.

his just seems like storytelling to me, I totally agree that you can get different beak sizes and shapes, but I do not see how that gives you anything other than a Finch with a different beak. Bulldogs and Great Danes are still both dogs you know.

You also, "have a different beak". Further along this little train ide of change human beings and gorillas are both "still apes".

I think Evolutionists overplay their hand a bit with all of these supposed primate linkages (they are often merely artistic interpretations of how the animal ought to have looked based on merely a handful of bones).

yes, artistic interpretations - and mountains of data on mammalian anatomy, and wear patterns, and placement in the site, and biology. -Merely- that.

Well physically that may be true, but why would Aboriginals continue to progress mentally if they are still using Stone Age tools and essentially still possess a Stone Age understanding of their Environment? Mentally they should be a snap shot no?

Why wouldn't they? Anatomical modernity was achieved long before they took their little walkabout, to the tune of roughly 140,00 years, and behavioral modernity was achieved a similarly vast (albeit smaller) number of years before.

This just seems all too convenient though,

More or less convenient then "goddidit - poof"?

whenever we try to find observable data to support the theory Evolutionists just say, “Well there doesn’t have to be any change.”

actually, whenever we go around looking for data to support the theory - it has a nasty habit of turning up. That's why we call it a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis - or just some shit a random apologist said on a website one day.

Or “it takes too long for the changes to occur so that we never actually observe it happening.”

Except that we do observe -it- happening.

When they are really pushed they may offer a few examples of simple adaptations that also support the Creation model like a few changes in skin color or beak sizes. It’s just very underwhelming for a theory that’s so violently championed and defended by its supporters. That doesn’t bother you guys or give you doubts at all?

There is no creation model, what kind of bullshit is this?