Evolution Tree vs Creation Orchard

Which explains modern biodiversity more accurately?

Is it just me or has there been a sharp increase in creationism/evolution threads in the last few weeks? Is there an underlying cause or is it a statistical fluctuation?

It was probably just my influence. It's like a virus I tells ya.

There's a bunch of shitters who spam retarded threads. They don't seem very creative, because they cycle through the same handful of topics over and over. Right now they're doing creationism, but they might move on to perpetual energy or global warming denial next.

Actually, there was just one shitter (I think).
It was me mostly.

interesting point, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

Our ancestors were indistinguishable from one another, in fact they so indistinguishable that they would hybridize with other species and subspecies for a long period of time. They most likely resembled chimps, but walked upright like a man. Think Sahelanthropus, and. I don't mean the machine.

Global warming denial was last week, not that that guarantees it wont be next.

>So that means it would have to have features of both
< ERROR: illogical conclusion >

The problem with "missing links" is that they are always well-defined creature in it`s own ecological niche, often not related with it`s supposed descendants.
Coelacanth is a deep sea dweller, who never sees the shore.
Even evolutionists agree that archaeopteryx is a separate lineage to birds.
Neandarthals were not a primitive, more chimp-like humans, but a separate lineage that coexisted with Homo sapiens sapiens.
Then scientists put the burden of being "transitional species" on some incomplete or even theoretical fossil.