It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 54
65
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max777
Hi all,

I'm new so take it easy on me!

(Please, do not box me into a category! For the record: I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist!)

It seems everyone has started this debate or whatever you'd like to call it, without first agreeing to a specific definition for evolution. If I'm wrong I apologize. A lot of comments have been made without working out this rather large detail.

The dictionary gives six different definitions for evolution and none of them specifically uphold any one view that has been argued here.

Let's define, in specific parameters, what kind evolution we're discussing. That way, there's likely to be less arguing and more critical thinking going on.

I personally think one kind of species, animal, etc., cannot transform or evolve into a completely different life form. Let me nail it down a little better; I don't think human beings evolved from apes or that apes evolved from sea creatures millions of years ago. When people call this evolution and then call it fact, that is when I object. There is no empirical scientific evidence to support such a theory.


You are talking about this, correct?


Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality


In which case, how are fossils not a factor of indirect observation? As we see them changing through the ages, usually found in rock strata dated by geologists?

You sound like an intelligent person, I'd honestly like to know.


Depending on what the definition of evolution we are debating I might agree or I might disagree. There is no doubt that life forms evolve through adaptation. Whether a creationist or an evolutionist, both camps seem to have very narrow and stubborn views on the origins of life.


I don't personally have any views on the 'origins of life', although I remember a very good New Scientist article detailing a new quantum theory which would have made life inevitable a little while ago. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced my copy so I'm not sure what the theory was actually called
.

But I agree with you


Science, if we simplify it, is truth, or the search for truth. A debate, in my opinion, shouldn't be about winning an argument, but about coming closer to the truth through fairly respectful discussion. I know it's hard to separate our emotions from such an important subject but it is paramount to do just that. If we're ever going to come to some kind of a consensus on what evolution really is then we have to respect each other.


Yep


So...

What definition are we going with? What parameters does this definition include and what is the fundamental theory of "Evolution" that we're all trying to discuss?

Thanks.


My understanding of it is that:
Evolution is driven by random mutations occuring in animals genes that give that animal either an advantage or disadvantage, and which also would either be picked off by being unfit for or thrive by being beneficial to that animal. Over a long period of time these genetic adaptations, given the selective pressures required to retain and refine these adaptations, the animal would very gradually change over time into an animal that we would then categorise as a different species. A more recent example would be our interfering and selective breeding wolves to become dogs.

That's not to say that gene mutations that have no benefits or fallbacks don't occur, though.

EDIT: Also star for you for injecting a little bit more rationality in here

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Considering the site that carries it as news. I doubt any real scientists have actually examined the prints. Any one of a number of hominids steps into some wet sediment, and over a million years later it's a human footprint? I can say that Homo Sapiens didn't lay that print down unless it was done recently with tools.


No, No, you CAN'T say it was done with tools. Stick to the Science. That doesn't sound scientific to me.

Or

I can just "say" God done it. Would you believe me? Thought not.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


dogs, cats, cattle....even birds....(well, not so much birds....unless you include ducks and chickens)....again, these examples are, really US, we Humans, attempting to behave like YOUR God!!!

Yes, it is true....even though various dogs look very, very dissimilar, to OUR eyes, due to our meddling....their sperm and ova still combine!!!

The bred-in genetic traits still combine, and cause a different-looking, but still viable, member of the same species to be born.

A dog and a cat cannot mate....their sperm and ova are not compatible

But, here's the rub!!! A person of Chinese descent and a Maori from Australia can mate....they look quite different, doncha think?



Like most of the times I have ever seen anyone mention Christians saying "God did it" it is Atheists SAYING we say it but I have never seen any Christians here saying it. Same goes with you saying we always fall back on citing the Bible when no one has done that yet you go right ahead and answer your own suggestion adding ridicule of it so typical of anti religious bigotry you are filled with hate.

You got a issues dude and if you don't like the Bible or Christians and Christianity, TOO BAD! It is usually the Darwinists who bring up religion as part of their ridicule then when we respond to it you cry about it.

You don't like religion then stop attacking it in your posts and I doubt you will see them defending it. YES ATTACKING IT WEED

As for Bauer, your description of him "allegedly" being a Scientist?

This is absolutley the kind of hatred and bigotry that was proven exists in the Science community and why his research in psuedo science confirmed exists and so did the United States Congress who found evolutionist GUILTY! that is G U I L T Y Weed, that means NOT INNOCENT and you are no different yet you criticize US for this when in your own words of intolerance you desire religion GONE when not a society has survived where religion was NOT. You shove your anti religious ideology as well as any fire brimstone baptist preacher I have ever seen with as much zealotry as any I have ever seen. SEE BELOW YOUR OWN BIGOTRY AND I quote:



It's quite obvious, based on this alleged 'scientist's' views.....and I'm referring to 'Bauer'....he is a fraud, a homophobic aberration masquerading as a 'scientist'.

Did I mention he seems to also be a religious fanatic?? Otherwise, he would not hold the views attributed to him.
When backed into a corner, these people will cite the 'bible'.....

...also shown to be unreliable. (Oh, Really?!? Well, yes....really....look it up!!!!)I'd, personally like to see ALL religion erased from the Human psyche. Here's the funny part.....ATS is a World-Wide Forum, no? Yet, what do I see the most??? Very ignorant posts....as of late.

Now, I won't say they are equally from any particular point on the planet...based on idioms used, and obvious spelling mistakes, I can infer quite a lot. What I am trying to say here is.....it seems to come down to, on basis, bashing of Christianity. Now, just to be clear, I am NOT defending Christianity. IN THE MEAN TIME! I would like to see 'evolution' discussed WITHOUT the various religiosity sprinkled in!!!!!!!!!



YOU HYPOCRITE! YOU BIGOT! YOU HATER!



Now, just to be clear, I am NOT defending Christianity.


Gee,, YA THINK!

Did you READ his credentials! How much more Education does this man have to pass with flying colors till someone like you believes he is a scientist? How many world renown icons of academia does he need to become the dean, till you admit the truth!



Yes, it is true....even though various dogs look very, very dissimilar, to OUR eyes, due to our meddling....their sperm and ova still combine!!!

The bred-in genetic traits still combine, and cause a different-looking, but still viable, member of the same species to be born.


Our medlling had nothing to do with it watch the PBS special on Dogs and you will see how they came to be the most varied of species but all are still DOGS. You can't mate with an ape and we are NOT primates did NOT have a common ancestor and if you listen to dawkins speak about this count how many times he says "assume" "probably" "imagine" including the amount of weaseling he does. That isn't science it is SPECULATION! GOT IT!



Quite a number of these 'accidental' mutations result in the death of a branch of said species. Some species find their niche, and see no need to 'adapt'....not unless or until there is an environmental pressure exerted.


Environmental pressures does NOT cause mutations that make a species survive better. They cause things like downs syndrome sickle cell anemia, muscular dystrophy. Man can live in all kinds of environments because we change the environment to make US comfortable, the environment doesnt change us to make us comfortable but for those changes that are already inherent in our DNA to start with.

Did it ever occur to you the reasons every single living fossil thought to be extinct looks just like the fossils of the same creature millions of years ago, look that way because they haven't changed because evolution is a crock! Did it ever occur to you that NOT all of them could have been "suitable for their environment so change wasn't needed" is just an excuse for evolutionist's to explain away the fact that no changes took place. Did it ever occur to you that if their were no environmental pressures, they would not have been on the brink of extinction in the first place! YET STILL THEY STAY THE SAME!



But, here's the rub!!! A person of Chinese descent and a Maori from Australia can mate....they look quite different, doncha think?


My question is, are they both Humans? Do they both carry the seed of their kind? Do they both carry human seed with human ovum?

That's all I need to know.

Macro evolution is a PIPE dream weed, a crock, a sham a fantasy a fable a fib the ever lying illusion of darwinian evolution.

That is the ONLY fact from this theory that has EVER

been proven



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Shocked and amazed! Faith means to believe without evidence - evolution has evidents. Also, evolution is not a belief system - that would be akin to calling the theory of gravity a belief system. .


No that may be YOUR defintion of faith but it isn't ours. It is YOURS because it is more meaningful to you to criticize those having faith which YOU DO. Evolution's evidence? Where? show me ? I have seen NONE that hasn't been debunked as hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax. Scam after scam after scam after scam. How many many more Haekle and jekyl practical jokes are we to endure? How many more lucy's, colorado man, Java Man, neanderthal man, cro-magnun piles of piltdown paleontology imposters posing as proofs do we have to put up with till finally someone says ENOUGH OF THIS BS!

I read what it said ANDRE and Baur never said he doesn't believe in aids he doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS! READ IT! Then try to refrain from misrepresenting his opinions. Is that possible?


I doubt it



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by Fundie
What a shame I stumbled into this thread so late. I would have loved to once again stood beside Aerm... and others




I would have enjoyed that fundie, and as usual your posts prove your above average grasp of science. I too have seen the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent given by Darwits for years and they ignore the call and just continue blathering about exaggerated sums of evidence as proof or showing hatchet jobs of those that have challenged their religion of evolution by assuming they are all creationists who have nothing to show as if that is a requirment for anyone having the right to say anything abhout evolution.

I think this thread has been much more successful than the last one you and I were posting opposite 8 6th graders ad-homing us getting their yaya's and high fiving each other for it.

The battle between these age old arguments rages on but I have faith and they don't. That in and of itself is all I need and where their religion of atheism dressed up as evolution science is faith in man and one thing I know about man is this,,

man is lame and so is man's science


Spot on


I find it incredible the lengths the Evos go to to rationalise the rubbish they spew.. even when they are wrong... Noob was cornered and was condemned by his own words, but he still said he was right... then eventually he shut up.

Funny thing is, I notice a lot of Christians asking questions and trying to find out info... what do the Evos generally do? jump in, start spewing anti-god things even when the christian NEVER EVER mentions their faith.

Just goes to show the lengths these people will go to to not only deny God, but to denigrate everything He stands for and all that follow Him. VERY VERY sad.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Fundie]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Fundie
 


yEAH WE SEE WEED JUMP TO CONCLUSION LIKE THAT ABOUT BAUER yet not one of them has read his books other that what they cherry picked out of wiki and that was probably done right after they saw me make mention of his book but look at what he writes here.


Scientific Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is no better defined a concept than is pathological science. An increasing rate of uncovered cases of fraud over the last two decades, chiefly the faking of evidence in clinical medicine (Broad & Wade 1982) led to much discussion of possible ways to prevent and to sanction misconduct by scientists.

Journals devoted specifically to issues of ethical research were founded, for example Accountability in Research in 1993 (a quarterly, ISSN 0898-9621) and Science and Engineering Ethics in 1995 (also a quarterly, ISSN 1471-5546).

It has proved impossible to arrive at a definition of scientific misconduct that could be approved by US government agencies (National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation) as well as by professional scientific societies and industries engaged in scientific research.

A Web-site originally sponsored by the National Science Foundation (The Online Ethics Center for Science and Engineering, onlineethics.org...) lists many codes of ethical conduct established by various professional groups in engineering, mathematics, and science; the Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions at the Illinois Institute of Technology makes available a similarly wide range of such codes (csep.iit.edu...).



What science has used more frauds to substantiate its theory than Darwinist's? Name one coming even close?

Not only does Darwinist's get busted for using more fraud and using more discrimination and bias to keep out anyone who might challenge them, they are at the top of the list by a LONG SHOT!

These are the most bigoted most unimpartial close minded followers in a science with no leaders and nothing to show for their efforts but days gone by and almost all of those days have been also

debunked a fakes

I'ts sad really because the moment a Scientist says he is an evolutionist, other scietists in Math and Physics will usually say things like "Biology's answer to astrology" or "evoillusionists"under their breath.

They are laughed at and most Scientists think Dawkins ought to just shut his mouth because his crass rudeness and ridicule is a reflection on Science in general and most Scientists do NOT like it.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
What science has used more frauds to substantiate its theory than Darwinist's? Name one coming even close?


Let's call science rationalism. Now rationalism is an ideology, yes? I can name one ideology that has used more frauds to substantiate its claims that all the other ideologies combined. It's called religion. You're doing your part right now.




Not only does Darwinist's get busted for using more fraud and using more discrimination and bias to keep out anyone who might challenge them, they are at the top of the list by a LONG SHOT!


First of all there are no Darwinists. None of us who understand the theory of evolution think that Charles Darwin was infallible. He wasn't. In fact he was wrong about quite a few things. We're not Darwinists or evolutionists or whatever. We're simply rational.

Now, put your money where your mouth is. Name all those 100s (or 1000s or whatever) cases of fraud in the field of study of evolution. Shouldn't be too hard if things really are the way you claim them to be. You can start with naming the 10 biggest frauds of them all.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Let's call science rationalism. Now rationalism is an ideology, yes? I can name one ideology that has used more frauds to substantiate its claims that all the other ideologies combined. It's called religion. You're doing your part right now.



I never said religion and science are the same but what you are trying to do here is offer an excuse for two wrongs making it right apparently.



First of all there are no Darwinists. None of us who understand the theory of evolution think that Charles Darwin was infallible. He wasn't. In fact he was wrong about quite a few things. We're not Darwinists or evolutionists or whatever. We're simply rational.


PfffT where did you get this load of crap from your last OUT meeting with Sam Harris?

Are you a scientist? What makes you think you understand the the TOE any better than I do? You agreeing with it does not.




Now, put your money where your mouth is. Name all those 100s (or 1000s or whatever) cases of fraud in the field of study of evolution. Shouldn't be too hard if things really are the way you claim them to be. You can start with naming the 10 biggest frauds of them all.


Been there done that and No one on these boards has devoted as much time and energy in that regard. I won't jump through all those hoops you are asking for when I have already posted many such examples but here is a link for you to find your own


And YOU can start with 10 biggest frauds of evolution but don't ask me to show you something proving evolution is all frauds when i know the excuses they all use as soon as I do. "Just because someone tried to commit a fraud doesn't mean the theory is wrong" or "Scientists discovered it was a fraud so it is self correcting " when Haekel was given an award recently when he should have been given an asterisk as a crook.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Edited to remove post to make the above's little heart happy



[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread.



Ouch you really nailed em there wow! can I borrow that line for when you and your darwittian clan call us "xtians" or "fundies" to shame them into a more adult behavior or let me guess YOU are a Christian ???

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]


As far as I know, when people are writing "xtians" is a shorter version of christian. People shorten things all the time on the internet LOL


And yes I am a christian and was raised catholic.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
PfffT where did you get this load of crap from your last OUT meeting with Sam Harris?

Are you a scientist? What makes you think you understand the the TOE any better than I do? You agreeing with it does not.


Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..




Been there done that and No one on these boards has devoted as much time and energy in that regard. I won't jump through all those hoops you are asking for when I have already posted many such examples but here is a link for you to find your own

And YOU can start with 10 biggest frauds of evolution but don't ask me to show you something proving evolution is all frauds when i know the excuses they all use as soon as I do. "Just because someone tried to commit a fraud doesn't mean the theory is wrong" or "Scientists discovered it was a fraud so it is self correcting " when Haekel was given an award recently when he should have been given an asterisk as a crook.


All talk no substance, just like I figured. I know exactly what google search will come up with. A large list of websites with urls such as godisreal.com creationismrules.com thruthisjesus.com etc. Just lame fundie propaganda, nothing else.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Aermacchi

To the OP. So what's the point. There can be separate theories using the same tangible evidence. I could say just as theoretically that God created the universe and life as you could say that it just all happened all on it's own just because. This debate is far from over.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Fromabove]


Actually no you couldn't say, "theoretically that god created the universe" as you have no evidence to support that statement as a theory. I guess you could call it a hypothesis but not a theory.



I don't see why not, after all you've been calling evolution a theory without evidence to support it but that's only because evolutionists consider conjecture as evidence and only when it suits THEM and the religion of evolution


To you, there's no such thing as science so there's no point in discussing science with you any further. You see science as a personal attack on your religion and that's unfortunate which means you can never learn anything science related.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]


I only see one of those quotes I recognise as mine, would you care to link them to the proper post .



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

No that may be YOUR defintion of faith but it isn't ours. It is YOURS because it is more meaningful to you to criticize those having faith which YOU DO.


Do you enjoy being wrong? I do not fave faith in evolution because there is evidence for it - unlike creationism!

en.wikipedia.org...


Faith is the confident belief in the truth of or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It is also used for a belief, characteristically without proof



Evolution's evidence? Where? show me ? I have seen NONE that hasn't been debunked as hoax after hoax after hoax after hoax. Scam after scam after scam after scam. How many many more Haekle and jekyl practical jokes are we to endure? How many more lucy's, colorado man, Java Man, neanderthal man, cro-magnun piles of piltdown paleontology imposters posing as proofs do we have to put up with till finally someone says ENOUGH OF THIS BS!


You are quite the character, i responded to this outlandish fake evolution evidence argument on page 28


Originally posted by andre18
WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS OWNAGE - VIEWERS DISCRETION IS ADVISED

(this is what you get when you base your claims on Christian website propaganda.)


Piltdown man:




darwinwasright.homestead.com...


100 years ago, the only human fossils yet known were a few Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Homo erectus. Then an English attorney and amateur archaeologist presented bones and associated artifacts of what appeared to be an as-yet unidentified species. British Imperialists were generally accepting of the news, but French and American scientists were skeptical, doubting that the skull and jaw even belonged together. The British museum touted the “Piltdown man” as authentic, but the American Museum of Natural History displayed it only as a “mixture of ape and man fossils”, which is what it eventually turned out to be.

There was no way to adequately examine such things back in 1915. Chemical tests –common today- didn’t yet exist and we didn’t yet have a practical understanding of radiation. And before the first australopiths were discovered, we didn’t know exactly what to expect of the links that were then still missing between humans and the other apes known at that time. But as we began filling in the gaps in human evolution with thousands of legitimate fossils, a pattern emerged which left Piltdown an increasingly obvious anomaly. Consequently it was taken off display and stored away almost continuously for decades. It lost importance in most discussions because, in light of everything else we discovered over the next few decades, it just never fit, and was eventually dismissed from the list of potential human ancestors for that reason.

As the years wore on, criticism arose against everyone who ever promoted the Piltdown collection because there seemed to be so much wrong with it. Finally, in the 1950s, it was taken back out of the box and scrutinized via more modern means. First fluorine dating revealed that it was much too recent, and it was shown to have been chemically-treated to give a false impression of its age and mineral composition. Then it was finally determined that the jaw must have come from an orangutan, and that it had been deliberately reshaped with modern tools in a well-crafted and deliberate forgery.

No one knows who did it either. And more importantly, why? Errors were already known and previously reported, but few ever suspected fraud because, what would be the motive? Nearly everyone who stood accused was a man of high reputation and credentials. Maybe that was the motive. Maybe Piltdown man was just a joke that had gone too far. But no one was laughing, and they weren’t going to let it happen again.



Nebraska man:


darwinwasright.homestead.com...


Even before the Piltdown hoax was officially exposed, an American paleontologist earned himself a life-time of embarrassment when he found a tooth from an extinct species of pig in Nebraska, and mislabeled it, Hesperopithecus. The cheek teeth of pigs and peccaries are fairly similar to ape molars, and this one was badly worn such that Henry Fairfield Osborne initially believed it to be human. But the real embarrassment came when he publicized his find in a popular magazine rather than submitting it for peer review first.

Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t. Everyone who saw the fossil agreed that it did look like an ape’s tooth. But with only a couple tentative exceptions, the entire contemporary scientific community either immediately rejected the accuracy of Osborne’s assertions, or they demanded more substantial evidence to back them. He obviously couldn’t provide that evidence despite another five years of searching. Eventually, he came to the sad realization that his fossil probably wasn’t really human after all. His more skeptical associate, W.K. Gregory then published a formal retraction in scientific journals.

Creationists often accuse scientists of contriving the illustration of Nebraska man and of conjuring a whole skeleton and facial construct out of a single tooth that was never even human in the first place. But the fact is that the magazine commissioned their own ‘artist’s impression’, and scientists of the day, including Osborn himself, immediately reacted with harsh criticism. As a result, the article was never reprinted.

Now even though Piltdown man was eventually exposed by evolution itself; and even though Nebraska man was simple stupidity, honestly and voluntarily admitted, and even though there were no other such examples in the history of paleoanthropology, -creationists still portray both of these events, and many others, as if they were all part of some ridiculous unified international conspiracy intended to fool the world into believing evolution over creation ex-nihilo. These paranoid propagandists also commonly contend -based only on these exceptions- that each of the thousands of fossil hominids we’ve found and confirmed before and since were all proven to be fakes too –even when the alleged authorities making these claims are already-exposed charlatans currently imprisoned for fraud.



Java man:


darwinwasright.homestead.com...


The two modern skulls weren’t fifty feet away; they were found in a cave over sixty miles away! Despite the many lies repeated by Duane Gish and other creationists, Java man was just one out of hundreds of Homo erectus individuals documented thus far.

Also, Homo floresiensis wasn’t microcephalic; there was a whole community of them. Similarly “Lucy” wasn’t assembled from bones found miles apart; those were different individuals who each bore their own independent evidence of strict bipedality.



Orce man:


www.talkorigins.org...


Gish (1985) tells the story of "Orce Man", a fossil discovered in 1982 near the Spanish town of Orce and claimed to be a human cranial fragment. The fossil comes from the Venta Micena site, and is designated VM-0. A symposium on it was planned for late May, 1984. Earlier that month, says Gish (citing a UPI news report from May 14, 1984):

"When French experts revealed the fact that "Orce Man" was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey, embarrassed Spanish authorities sent out 500 letters cancelling invitations to the symposium."

Two French scientists had suggested the fragment "may have come" from a donkey. Another scientist quoted in the news report admitted there was some doubt as to the bone's identity, but thought it was still quite likely human. A third scientist quoted in another news report from Associated Press claimed it was definitely humanoid. Instead of it being a "fact" that the fragment is "most likely" a donkey, a fairer assessment would be that it was still unidentified, but possibly an equid (not necessarily a donkey).

By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.

It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.



Neanderthal:


en.wikipedia.org...


The Neanderthal is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis).



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
All talk no substance, just like I figured. I know exactly what google search will come up with. A large list of websites with urls such as godisreal.com creationismrules.com thruthisjesus.com etc. Just lame fundie propaganda, nothing else.



Fundie propaganda? HA HA HA You aint no scientist you're a bigot



The human tail and gill slit lie.


The reason I bring this up, even though I did a Earnest Haeckel section earlier. Is because evolutionists still like to beat a dead horse. The picture above shows what became of the claimed gill slits as the embryo became older. For if we humans are forming gill slits, then you could say the same for the picture below. I wonder if that Buick was always a land lover? Them gill slits sure make it look like it was driven in water before land at one time.

if a creationist had done this to pictures to demonstrate truth, what would it have been called? Falsifying evidence. And that is what Haeckel did. The crime does not change because it was done by an evolutionist. They just think it's ok because lying to prove evolution has become such a normal thing. A little twist to truth here and there, not big deal. It just brings out the truth that should have been there. What a joke.

So why do they see it as not being wrong when they do it? Because a theory is not an absolute truth, the person who believes it never has to tell the truth while explaining it. Even though he will claim it to be truth and fact. But the truth in only in degrees of percent. Anything beyond that takes faith.

Here's where it will be brought back to our textbooks, and Haeckel will soon be a re-seated hero for the evolution theory:

The textbook fraud test where Haeckel is concerned:


www.bible.ca...



Notice this evolution website: www.dimaggio.org... They promote the human tail, but leave out that it was found to be a tumor. Leaving out information like this is a common tactic of evolutionists. Deception is the only way they can promote their theory. But while searching the site a little to see what else was there, look at what they complain about with creationists:


www.dimaggio.org... The very same thing I just proved they did, they are accusing creationists of doing. I think that is called: being a hypocrite.



If evolution is such a proven fact, why do evolutionists keep insisting on using proven "falsified" evidence, and information?

And why do they insist on printing this same fraud year after year, as if they present the lie long enough, people will believe it. Do you know who else had that mind set? Hitler was once over heard saying: If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it. Can you see the same tactic being used here? Just keep printing, and teaching it. Soon people will forget it was ever a lie. At least that's what they hope.

1) First they refuse to admit to the lie, until they just have to (twisting truth, and making excuses). And the excuse is that it was scientist that revealed fraud.

2) But, They allow it to continue in our textbooks, as they try and vendicate Haeckel and make him some type of evolutionist Hero. Making a admitted fraudulent person into some type of Hero, just shows what is really behind this belief.

For if they were truly sorry, and remorseful for what Haeckel did, I would not be putting up the information about this subject. Why? Because if the right thing had been done (removing completely Haeckel's works from science), it would not take 4 whole webpages to explain why it is wrong to continue teaching this. Why did it take 4 whole pages? Because evolutionist are so convinced that what Haeckel did was ok (fraud), the subject has to be broken down in such a fashion so they cannot say: I did not know that. Why would they say that? Because another evolutionist is surely not going to give them all this information.









Question: I wonder why the embryo of a chimp is never used in comparison to humans? Do you actually think it has not been looked into?








Dinosaur T-Rex blood.

How does blood, and soft tissue, last for 70 million years? It cannot. But just like the Coelacanth fish that is claimed to be extinct and over 300 million years old, this is another hoax of old age that has reared it's ugly head to bite evolutionists once again. More and more evidence that messes up old age just keeps cropping up.

Evolutionists excuse for this? This is a new way of fossilizing that we do not understand. Well, we are waiting for you to understand, or at least think up a good excuse.


As usual evolutionists ask the WRONG questions, they say this may bring about a whole new way fossils are formed when that isn't the question they should be asking is it.

NOPE, the question they should be asking is WHEN they are formed!

Yes WHEN indeed!











So is Evolution a fact or a theory? It would seem that even most evolutionist can't make up their minds about what evolution is. To many want it to be true, but want does not change the reality that it is not.





Why I don't trust Atheist Evolutionists anymore than I can trust a used car salesman

They say we are stupid. But it is quite funny all the trouble they go to to educate themselves on how to debate people they call stupid and retarded.




Yes, I am a scientist. Going on my 5th year in a faculty of biosciences in a large European university. This makes me think that I understand the theory of evolution a lot better than you do. TOE, by the way refers to "theory of everything"..


The theory of everything came after the theory of evolution abbreviation.

It is also used in this way by many others including scientists "like yourself" If you need more frauds and proof of frauds just ask it is easy to debunk the mountain of evidence supporting the faux of evolution.

By the way,, why wouldn't you choose a more respectable science to get involved in?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



You show me excuses? That is your entire post ya know that?

The whole thing offering excuses why YOUR mistakes are to be overlooked but if that was a creationist!!

WoW! would we be hearing about it.

The fact is they are all faux facts and deliberate frauds andre and their is NO excuse for it .


Ive asked you this before andre but do you ever read how ridiculous your posts are I mean seriosly try reading that stuff and see how silly their arguing to make a fraud less a fraud ! what because one bone wasn't found exactly fifty feet away? That wasn't the point!

The point is why they have to manufacture evidence AT ALL!

Who cares if mistakes are made in the way they got discovered as fakes when the FACT is THEY ARE FAKES PERIOD!

You only prove my point the lengths Darwinists go to to, excusing themselves of something that should be a crime punishable by jail


[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.

It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.


If it wasn't a donkey andre then what the hell was it, because I can tell you what it's NOT!


Now even though Piltdown man was eventually exposed by evolution itself; and even though Nebraska man was simple stupidity, honestly and voluntarily admitted, and even though there were no other such examples in the history of paleoanthropology, -creationists still portray both of these events, and many others, as if they were all part of some ridiculous unified international conspiracy


You know why we think it is a conspiracy? Because the United States Congress PROVED IT!

Because Haekels stupid asinine tweaked embryos are STILL published in text Books!


Creationists like to say that scientists were as duped by Nebraska man as they were by Piltdown man. But they weren’t


The hell they weren't it took over FORTY YEARS to get that crap exposed and even longer to get it out of text books! You would THINK it couldn't happen again but it keeps happening overe and over and over and every single new discovery you guys say proves evolution is debunked 6 mos to years later. ALL OF IT is BUNK!




[edit on 9-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread.



Ouch you really nailed em there wow! can I borrow that line for when you and your darwittian clan call us "xtians" or "fundies" to shame them into a more adult behavior or let me guess YOU are a Christian ???

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]


I'm not going to ask you again if you continue to post quotes as mine when they are NOT Ill alert the mods. last warning.

I try to allow for mistakes as I believe mistakes are made but I find this is no longer an accident by you and you are being deliberate in your misrepresentaion of me and my posts.

google this and see who said it
" You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread."



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
]Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Aermacchi

You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread.



Ouch you really nailed em there wow! can I borrow that line for when you and your darwittian clan call us "xtians" or "fundies" to shame them into a more adult behavior or let me guess YOU are a Christian ???

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



I'm not going to ask you again if you continue to post quotes as mine when they are NOT Ill alert the mods. last warning.

I try to allow for mistakes as I believe mistakes are made but I find this is no longer an accident by you and you are being deliberate in your misrepresentaion of me and my posts.

google this and see who said it
" You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread."


Yes we all make mistakes.
My bad.
Just like the mistake you just made with your post.
Any mistake I've made was accidental. Your rudeness is on purpose.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Yes we all make mistakes.
My bad.
Just like the mistake you just made with your post.
Any mistake I've made was accidental. Your rudeness is on purpose.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]


Of Course they were, now what mistakes would that be?

My rudness? I haven't said a word to you until I saw you mis quoting me and as far as your suggesting rudeness, care to have me cite some of your own? You have misquoted me and i busted you for it before that you were asking questions for me to answer then answering them for me then ridiculing the answer, then you ask why I don't respond to you.

You have proven my point again, that darwinists are never wrong, it's always an accident when they are busted and why I do not trust them anymore. They have NO sense of right and wrong and continue calling evolution a fact when it is NOT.

I would have believed it if it happened only once but three times now?

How does one keep pasting "originally posted by Aermacchi" on quotes I never made?

Accident? Pfffft

yeah riiight




top topics



 
65
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join