How do you know God isn't dead?

[pocaracas]

Then what is it? God sprinkling dino bones just to mess with us?

No a record of catastrophic burial and death over a very short period of geologic time.

And how did you measure such short periods of time?

And yet, they are not wolves.

They can still breed with wolves though, they are all still canines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog... interesting... didn't know about that, thanks!

They are mere hundreds of years away from each other... far little time to produce a different species.

You’re not a believer in punctuated equilibrium? :-P

I guess it can happen, although I'd expect that the most common mechanism is phyletic gradualism.

But the bones uncovered are different from present-day apes and humans... that means that the apes at that time were different.

Yes I agree, apes and humans have changed over the years, but I do not believe that demonstrates they are relatives.

Not relatives, huh?
Abundant gene conversion between arms of palindromes in human and ape Y chromosomes
Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA

sciences sucks....

A snapshot of some features.... a different path on other features.

Ok, but what drove them to continue developing mentally? If they still live in the Stone Age shouldn’t they have Stone Age minds? I think this is strong evidence that supports the Creation model that holds that Humans have always possessed such mental cognitive abilities.

Define "stone-age minds".
Homo sapiens developed in the stone age, so called paleolithic.... well before the supposed split... you've acknowledged this... I don't see your problem with those developing minds... :-s

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that both evolution and creationism are two competing models... not really for the same event, but they have some overlaps.

Ok, Darwinism vs. Creationism

If the evolutionary model is correct, what can we expect to find?
- If there was some way of finding out how animals looked like in the past and dating them, we'd expect that, some time ago, there were animals that resemble present day animals, but are somewhat cruder versions of them.... we'd expect that, these version would get cruder and cruder as time goes back.... we'd expect to find some animals that failed to continue their lineage and became extinct.

Again though, this is assuming that the fossil “record” is a record of death and burial over long periods of time, creationists do not accept this assumption.

Well, if you find a fossil in the middle of rock that is dated as several hundreds of millions of years old and no mammals in such rock.... but you then find mammals at a few tens of millions of year old rock... and humans and apes on rock that is only a few millions of years old.

Now you proceed to tell that the dating methods are all faulty... go on.

- If the creation model is correct, we'd expect to find only the already existing animals... always the same... and, beyond some point, nothing.

Not quite, creationists believe in speciation through natural selection, in fact they require it. What you’d expect to see is natural selection producing a wide variety of species but never actually generating any new genetic information, but rather merely narrowing down the genetic information that was created in the original parent kinds of animals. I think that’s what we actually observe today.

I see....
It is a nice idea, but does not match with the geologic dating of fossils, nor the dna evidence.

Oh, and, of course, all this applies to plants as well!

Did you know that there are numerous plants found today that can be found in very early parts of the fossil “record”? Not only this, but the plants found there are identical to the ones we find today.

No shit?!
Did you know that some 200 million years ago, crocodiles were pretty much the same as they are today?!
They evolved all they had to. Millions of years of attempts at coming up with something new yielded nothing that much better.

Wait, are you suggesting fossils of plants are accurately dated?

There's a whole science field called paleontology... thousands of people dedicate them selves to it. Which of the two models support their findings?

Scientific facts are not established by majority opinion within the scientific community.

Indeed they are not... by repeatedly refuting findings with more research.
Don't you think paleontology is a legitimate science?

PS: I'd like to commend you for all those chained up quote tags without missing one. It seems to be on it's way to become a lost art.