I read a much longer article Wibble, they recently found a 300,000 year old homo sapien skull with some remains dated as an outer figure of about 350,000 years. Can you at least appreciate that this paints a rather different picture from us walking out of Africa 60,000 years ago?
Really the point is that BK is making, is probably that there are a set of beliefs that come from evolutionary scientists, which basically the public is misled into believing to be solid facts. But the story of evolution is that everything they treat as a fact later seems to be overthrown.
Conclusion; It seems to me that refuting evolution can be as simple as being patient. Their new find which they insist proves evolution, will inevitably be thwarted. Their neat little out-of-Africa story turned out to be a story, therefore why can't the rest of their stories also be fiction?
Answer; No reason why they can't be fiction.
Surely you can see that as creationist Christians, it hardly encourages us to become evolutionists when they are continually and consistently mocked when God or time or both, slowly reveals the facts that uproot their ever-changing stories, in order to show the bible history consistent and the evolution-history erroneous?
Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?
A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).
We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.
However we do have enough push-backs now to show how arguing-from-silence is a rather obtuse fallacy silly people make. To say that "because we don't find X in earlier rock therefore it didn't exist", has been explained to you many times now Wibble, to be a type of arguing from ignorance.
They said the same about pines, but now we find a 300 myo Wollemi pine. They said the same about grass and mammals, that they evolved much later, but now we find them with dinos.
So what are you going to do, repeat the fallacy? That's like declaring that stupidity is the new wisdom.
"No money in a persons bank means they're skint. Bob has none, he is skint."
Abswer; No, his wife and him have a joint account, that is just his current account.
Now here is Jane, she has none in hers.
"That means she is skint."
answer; Erm, haven't we had this conversation before, it doesn't follow that it means someone is skint.
"she is skint."
Answer; forget it, this person will just repeat the mistake so as to lie to people by pretending this argument means something.
Now will you continue the error Wibble?
Conclusion; It doesn't follow that because we don't find humans in the Mesozoic that they didn't exist back then, if the Mesozoic rock was laid down in the same year as all the other rock, which would mean that you only have to find a dinosaur in the Cretaceous, in order to conclude that dinosaurs existed at the same time as the Cambrian organisms.
You make out that to falsify evolution we need to show an out of place organism. No, what we have to do according to logical rules, is show, "not evolution". To show "not evolution" we have to show a conspicuous absence of evolution, which is to show a lot of non-evolution, by showing an absence of evolution. That is easily achieved, the transitionals are absent.