Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by DASFEX

 

I welcome the links, please, PLEASE provide them if you have them.

I will post the link again

Skeptical Critics to Resurrection

Don't you think its a little biased that you will only accept atheists interpretations and disregard Apologetic sources, as if atheists are eager to post their positive historical opinions on the resurrection of Jesus. Regardless, here is the quote from the skeptical scholar you requested. Instead of one I did three, there are ofcourse more. They are referring to his post death experiences:

1. Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago:

"The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

Link showing Normann was a skeptic
en.wikipedia.org...

2. Bart Ehraman
"Historians...have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus resurrection, since it is a matter of public record. For it is an historical fact that some of Jesus followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. But the truth or falsity of that belief is not within the purview of the historinan

Citation
Bart D. Ehram, The New Testament, 3rd ed (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2004), 16, 294-227

Here is a link to Barts website as you can see a MAJOR skeptic
www.bartdehrman.com...


3. John P Meir
Citing Gerald O'Collins, Meier assets that "although the 'resurrection is a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth,' the resurrection of Jesus 'is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical,' since 'we should require an historical occurrence to be something significant that is known to have happened in our space-time continuum"


Citation
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol.1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New Yorkoubleday, 1991)

As you can see he admits that the historical Jesus lived and was believed to have been raised from the dead. Here is a link to his wikipedia page. As you can tell he presupposes that Miracles might not be be possible
en.wikipedia.org...

I would now expect in the spirit of logical consistency that you would show me Apologetic Christian scholar who do not believe in the resurrection. FSBlueApocalypse Lets see if you can apply your skeptism to your own belief systemem


[edit on 2-7-2009 by stuff1]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by stuff1]

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by DASFEX

 

I welcome the links, please, PLEASE provide them if you have them.

If you are truly interested in the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ but ignore what Scholars say, who am I to interfere with your willful ignorance.

I say, Have at it pal.

I couldn't care less what you choose to disbelieve or the reasons why. It is hard enough teaching people with an interest in learning much less those who have issues with the subject matter.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by stuff1

 

You made the claim, and it's up to you to provide the evidence. All apologetics does is go "Ok, here's the conclusion, let's fit the facts around it." As for the wikipedia page, that's a 2 paragraph entry with poor grammar and no references.

Examples of this would be more compelling than just belly aching about scholars and books you have obviously never really looked at. You are a google quotemining Christian antagonist who googles for things like "Contradictions of the Bible" you know, things that won't turn your materialist worldview upside down and cause you to consider you have more meaning in life than to just refute historical data with angst aggression and contradiction.

Ever read "J.P. Holding"? he is an apologist after my own heart, he only turns the other cheek ONCE. hehe

Enjoy! www.tektonics.org...



[edit on 2-7-2009 by DASFEX]

oh, you people.


evolution is not how homo-sapiens came to be. random mutations aren't either. most people that argue evolution don't know the difference between analogous and convergent evolution. i don't feel like debating, so research up, mouth-breathers.

Originally posted by Zeroh
oh, you people.


evolution is not how homo-sapiens came to be. random mutations aren't either. most people that argue evolution don't know the difference between analogous and convergent evolution. i don't feel like debating, so research up, mouth-breathers.

That is part of the problem, and this year in fact the top 15 or 16 leading evolutionary scientists are meeting again scrambling to rescue Darwins theory from the latest devastating findings regarding DNA having each creatures "template design" and that DNA doesn't need time to make any thing and already has tempates including the instruction code to create the one it carries with automatic correction restraints and safe codes to destroy any species even attempting to be something else lol

They have found DNA can actually communicate with other DNA from a distance like telepathy and have no idea how it does it.

Interesting stuff science is

reply to post by DASFEX


You sure were quick to jump the shark.

Evolution is not a hypothesis. A scientific theory can not be constructed around a hypothesis. Since evolution is an observable process, a theory can then form. Evolution is a proven process.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Again, your understand of scientific terms is flawed. A theory does not become a law. It can't. In science, a theory and a law are completely different things, one cannot become the other.

Scientific definition of a theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Scientific definition of a law: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b: a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions


If you could give me something to look at in regards to the debate between Dawkins and Prof. Lennox I would appreciate it.

Again, I would like the article from National Geographic if you could please provide it.


If the archeaopteryx is a sham, then why hasn't anyone created a specimen to prove this? It has yet to be done, yet people act as if faking fossils like that is an extremely easy thing to do.


I'm not a religious zealot. Creationists are so quick to call names and insult people.

reply to post by DASFEX

They have found DNA can actually communicate with other DNA from a distance like telepathy and have no idea how it does it.

The answer is very simple...

"Processing"

Just as DNA is a "Chemical Program" and "Chemical Processing" takes place within DNA.

This Processing is Not separate from a Larger Process.

Telepathy is only an explanation, as humankind does Not understand what he really is, how he has got here and doesn't under stand he is a part of a huge processing system, nor does he understand What Life is.

Species are Not alive but Life experiences these through Awareness or Consciousness.

If this were Not True no one would know they are here, and existence would be unknown...

There are No mysteries, except in the hearts of them that can Not accept they are only a Part of a larger Processing System.

Its all quite Mechanical, in All its workings. Physics!

Humankind is on the brink of Discovering Science, in the True Context of the Word!

What he thinks he understands now, is so far from the truth, it is no longer a joke...

The End has come... That is, the end of the Last chapter in the story of Earth but Wait, don't go away the Next Chapter is about to begin.

A New Understanding of Life, The Earth, Universe and especially Humankind and Technology....



[edit on 2-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

First, thank you for changing you post after my initial response. As for your quotes....



"Historians...have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus resurrection, since it is a matter of public record. For it is an historical fact that some of Jesus followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. But the truth or falsity of that belief is not within the purview of the historian."

I just want you to look at what he is really saying here. All he is saying is that it's a matter of record that the BELIEF in Jesus' resurrection spread rapidly across the Empire. What that does not do is provide any evidence that it actually happened. I want you to pay special attention to the last sentence. He is saying that historians can not prove or falsify the resurrection of Jesus based on the available evidence.



Citing Gerald O'Collins, Meier assets that "although the 'resurrection is a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth,' the resurrection of Jesus 'is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical,' since 'we should require an historical occurrence to be something significant that is known to have happened in our space-time continuum"

Meier is a Catholic Priest trying to justify his version of Jesus.



I would now expect in the spirit of logical consistency that you would show me Apologetic Christian scholar who do not believe in the resurrection. Lets see if you can apply your skeptism to your own belief system

I'm sorry, but I want you to just think about what you typed. I'm not going to tell you why, but just ponder that statement.

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution", was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The process of natural selection is NOT an evolutionary process. Although Darwin states it is a part of evolution. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can NEVER develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.
The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. Modern laboratories are still unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and in animals.

Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not. Evolutionists switch tactics when they are pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution.
The human mind has a very detrimental character............, weakness. Humans would rather believe an error, for the rest of their lives than admit they had been wrong.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
What is with the constant comments from evolutionists calling creationists stupid? Why such a strong desire to insult/put down people who believe in God? Does it make you feel superior to insult another? I am just curious.

What would you say about a grown man who believes in Santa Claus?

And we call them stupid, as there is no good evidence to suggest that a god even exists.
the only thing to back the claim is a book written thousands of years ago by people who wrote about a man that lived hundreds of years before them.
Sounds stupid doesnt it?

reply to post by DASFEX


haha!! DASFEX: you really need to look up the word "histrionics" in a dictionary.

Originally posted by DASFEX

If you are truly interested in the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ ...

haha!! the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ... I love that... that is classic...it's worth getting printed on a Tshirt it's so retarded....don't worry I'll cite you as the source for the quote on the back.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

Originally posted by bl4ke360
There still has to be something that causes consciousness, because what's the reason you're born into your current body, than some other body? Souls can be an obvious explanation for that, and evolution doesn't explain what makes us conscious and how we were born into our body.

Its really quite simple; the idea of a Soul is quite complicated by comparison.

The answer is that you were 'born' into your 'current' body because you are your body and your body is you. If you were born into a different body, you wouldn't be you, you would be someone else. Its sounds sort of circular I know, but that is a problem with the question, not the answer.

Mind and body are one, without one, there is neither.

Try approaching it this way: Suppose you were born into a different body. How would you know? Might you wonder why you are in the body you are in? Might you imagine what would happen if you were 'born' into a different body again? It is an infinite loop descending into madness. As you imaginatively descend into each imaginary other body, the less chance you have of finding an answer.

I believe in devine intervention but not by God. Maybee by gods or E/T's. Just because you do not believe in evolution doesn't mean you believe in devine creation by God or you are a Christian...

[edit on 7/3/2009 by Chaos Lord]

Originally posted by PieKeeper

You sure were quick to jump the shark.

No, the minnow

Evolution is not a hypothesis. A scientific theory can not be constructed around a hypothesis. Since evolution is an observable process, a theory can then form. Evolution is a proven process.

People who believe in evolution habitually accuse dissenters like me of not understanding evolution. It's easy to say this, because the words 'evolution' and 'evolve' can mean many different things.


In the context of this discussion, and what I have already shared as what has and has not been observed in evolution the answer is No. It is less than a theory.

Darwin suggested that all living things on earth had 'evolved' by natural selection from an alleged'common ancestor',.


THAT was a Hypothesis


Now either you are going to make up your mind and agree to one of them because so far you have said it is NOT a theory, and then you said it is NOT a law of science and now you are saying it is NOT a hypothesis.


Do you even know what it is then?


A hypothesis is 'A proposition or supposition made from known facts as the basis for reasoning or investigation'. (Oxford reference dictionary) It's an idea which can be tested to see if it's any good
A Theory is stronger than a hypothesis, it should fit the known facts, pass the scientific method and obey laws of science it should make accurate predictions, be subject to testing and be falsifiable and this is why I say M2M evolution is NOT a theory and is merely a hypothesis and a bad one at that which Darwin plagiarized from lord blythe.


None of this applies to molecules-to-man evolution despite assertions to the contrary where typically evolutionist's make a lot of claims using many nouns and adjectives to impress us with. Most are word association in an attempt to language us into belief using such comparisons as "Moutains" of evidence or "tons" even galaxies of it yet, just as you have done and so many before you, I see not one link to even the most compelling item to referance.


I understand the problem for what I see is one post suggesting I am a retard, Ill get to him soon enough. The reasons we see this is even the most notable and reknowned scientists in this field, act as juvenile and as un-scientific as they are in-correct. Richard Dawkins says that anyone who disbelieves evolution is "stupid, ignorant or wicked."That is presumably his way of helping advance the "publics understanding of science"

Again, your understand of scientific terms is flawed. A theory does not become a law. It can't. In science, a theory and a law are completely different things, one cannot become the other.

I never said anything like this, I merely asked a question because you seem to contradict yourself and that was all. The reason I asked is because you don't seem to know WHAT evolution is. You say it is not a law, not a theory, not a hypothesis.


If you can't tell me more than what you don't know, than perhaps you shouldn't be speaking as if you know what you are talking about. The link you provided prove nothing more than what I described as just another equivocation between micro and macro evolution. This has the same DNA as the lizards that were brought there many years before and Ill explain why that is,,


ready?


They haven't changed Genetically because they are the same thing they were when they were brought there.
Pod Mrcaru lizards !


They haven't evolved they have merely shown adaptation variables which do not take long to show up as in the example of the domestic Dog.


If you could give me something to look at in regards to the debate between Dawkins and Prof. Lennox I would appreciate it.

Google Video Link

If the archeaopteryx is a sham, then why hasn't anyone created a specimen to prove this? It has yet to be done, yet people act as if faking fossils like that is an extremely easy thing to do.

No but apparently with evolution scientist's, it IS easy, to get away with.

Creationists are so quick to call names and insult people.

Logical fallacy of guilt by association and sweeping broad generalizations do nothing conducive for a logical argument

are they? what would you want to wager that in this thread most of the personal attacks and innuendo toward either camps not understanding science to mocking the God of their religion is being done by your sides members of the argument? No on second thought, I almost fell for that one. Lets continue on the subject at hand shall we.

I'm not a religious zealot.

Ok


[edit on 3-7-2009 by DASFEX]

Originally posted by Darth Logan
The body and soul of Charles Darwin's "Theory of Evolution", was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. [I]This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.[/I] Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

Not quite. Darwin says that individuals who reproduce will pass on their genes. Variations in a population, however slight, that increase an individual's chances of reproduction will be passed on in greater numbers than those that reduce the chances of reproduction. Eventually enough differences may accumulate that you can recognize a different species.

Evolutionary change happens in just a few generations, not millions.

The process of natural selection is NOT an evolutionary process. Although Darwin states it is a part of evolution.

Natural selection is the 'engine room' of evolution.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed.

Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can NEVER develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.
The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. Modern laboratories are still unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and in animals.

You are correct, "selective breeding" is NOT "natural selection", it is "unnatural selection". Neither natural selection nor selective breeding change DNA. Selection, whether natural or unnatural can be likened to weeding a garden. Weeding a carrot patch does not change weeds into carrots, it merely decides which plants will survive. Natural selection might favor either, unnatural selection will definitely favor the carrots.

Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not. Evolutionists switch tactics when they are pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution.

You are quite wrong. The Theory of Evolution has more scientific support than any other theory in all of science.

Scientists don't "switch tactics". When contrary evidence is presented to challenge any theory, it is examined in exactly the same way as all other data. It is either explained within the the context of the existing theory or the theory is adjusted or expanded to accommodate it. Relativity played hell with Newtonian mechanics, and Quantum mechanics with Relativity. They are, never-the-less, reconciled.

The human mind has a very detrimental character............, weakness. Humans would rather believe an error, for the rest of their lives than admit they had been wrong.

Exactly. And notice that this could be applied to adherents on either side

Originally posted by dotcom
What would you say about a grown man who believes in Santa Claus?

I would say what you expect anyone else would and that is why it is such a bad example because you won't find many that do, however you will find millions of grown men that believe in God many of whom were not brought up by Christian parents. Having said that I would suggest it does you no good at all to insult anyones religious belief because it has got nothing to do with science. I suggest you listen to the Dawkins Lennox debate and perhaps you may see to it that your arguments will never get past the first antagonistic remark so are you there to teach?

No one will listen.

Are you there to learn?

Then listen.

Are you there to test our reflexs?

Don't waste peoples time, it's just rude.

And we call them stupid, as there is no good evidence to suggest that a god even exists.

That is a lot of stupid people then isn't it, it includes me also.
So are you saying I am stupid for knowing something just because you do not and think their is no evidence?

the only thing to back the claim is a book written thousands of years ago by people who wrote about a man that lived hundreds of years before them.

Yes but why do you assume believing in the speculation of evolutionary events written about by men they say happened not just thousands of years ago but MILLIONS of years ago. So long ago that man had not even arrived on the planet yet much less have the benefit of actually observing these alleged events and their is no evidence either.

Originally posted by moobaawoof

haha!! DASFEX: you really need to look up the word "histrionics" in a dictionary.

Originally posted by DASFEX

If you are truly interested in the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ ...

haha!! the histrionics of the man Jesus Christ... I love that... that is classic...it's worth getting printed on a Tshirt it's so retarded....don't worry I'll cite you as the source for the quote on the back.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by moobaawoof]

Perhaps the tee shirt is a good idea for people who don't know the context of the way "story" was told before modern printing and books.

Affectedly dramatic; insincerely emotional; -- sometimes used in a bad sense. -- [His'tri*on"ic*al*ly], adverb

Tainted with false and histrionic feeling. --De Quincey.


Insincere, exaggeratedly emotional or overly dramatical speech or behavior performed to create an impression rather than as an expression of true feeling; feigned emotion. etc.

you know, sort of like the following example below:

it's worth getting printed on a Tshirt it's so retarded

Perhaps you would read about it here as this was the book I first heard about the idea Linky

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by PowerSlave
What is with the constant comments from evolutionists calling creationists stupid? Why such a strong desire to insult/put down people who believe in God? Does it make you feel superior to insult another? I am just curious.

What would you say about a grown man who believes in Santa Claus?

And we call them stupid, as there is no good evidence to suggest that a god even exists.
the only thing to back the claim is a book written thousands of years ago by people who wrote about a man that lived hundreds of years before them.
Sounds stupid doesnt it?

Number of times the theory of evolution has changed: numerous.
Number of times the Bible has changed: 0.

'Nuff said.

Originally posted by PieKeeper


Again, I would like the article from National Geographic if you could please provide it.


If the archeaopteryx is a sham, then why hasn't anyone created a specimen to prove this? It has yet to be done, yet people act as if faking fossils like that is an extremely easy thing to do.


I'm not a religious zealot. Creationists are so quick to call names and insult people.

Human Ancestral Frauds
Haekel’s Forged Embryos

Fake Dino-bird Archaeoraptor

Miscellaneous Fakes and Frauds

Evolution
Home Page

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his “missing link”). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: “Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Human Ancestor Fraud – Creationist Links

A Human Ancestor Fraud
Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists from the Muslim online book Evolution Deceit
Features of Piltdown Skull “Deliberate Fakes”
Human Evolution – Frauds and Mistakes
Lucy’s Fraudulent Fame
Orce man hominid fraud
Piltdown man fraud
The Ape-men fallacy by Malcolm Bowden (Review of book – Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy?)
The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution The following is a transcript of The Apemen Frauds portion of the audio tape.
The Piltdown Man Fraud by Monty White
The Story of the Piltdown Man by the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia
The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal – A UC Berkely professor reports on the intentional alteration of hybridization data which was used to support the theory that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees.

——————————————————————————–

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, “Fraud Rediscovered”, Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

Haeckel’ Forgeries Creationary Links

Another Evolution Fraud Exposed
Evolution Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks – Haeckel’s Ontongeny
Haeckel’s distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould
Haeckel’s Fake Drawings – Pictures
Please Urge Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science Education

——————————————————————————–

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

“Feathers For T-Rex?”, Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105

Interesting Quote – “National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism” Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis Creationary Links

Adventist Scientist Comments on Retraction of Evolutionary “Missing Link” Claim
And now: Feathered Dinosaur Link
Another Evolution Fraud By Tim Friend, USA TODAY
Another Fossil Flub
Another Hoax by Owen D. Olbricht
Another ‘Missing Link’ Takes Flight
Another “OOOPS” For Science
Archaeoraptor Flight Aborted by John Morris
Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the “Dinosaurs-To-Birds” Theory …
Archaeoraptor: Feathered Dinosaur from National Geographic Doesn’t Fly … IMPACT No. 321 by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D
Archaeoraptor Hoax Update — National Geographic Recants!
Archaeoraptor: National Geographic’s Biggest Embarassment by Craig McClarren
Archaeoraptor: Phony ‘feathered’ fossil by Jonathan Sarfati
Archaeoraptor: Some interesting points about this particular hoax
Crying Fowl: Tale of ‘Missing Link’ Embarrasses Scientists
‘Dragon’ fossils seized
EVOLUTION COVER-UP
Evolution Hoax The Archaeoraptor Fraud
Evolution: The Fraud That Shapes The Worldview of Our Kids By Bob Harsh and Chuck Colson. Origins Insights March 2000 Newsletter by the Creation Science Fellowship
“Feathered Dinosaur” Claim Apparently a Fake
National Geographic backs down – sort of! By Carl Wieland
National Geographic Gets a Black Eye
National Geographic Eats Crow
National Geographic retracts boast of dinosaur-to-bird ‘missing link’
Smithsonian criticizes National Geographic’s Dino-to-Bird Claims revealing the lack of consensus on the matter among scientists, despite National Geographic’s sensationalistic “propagandizing”.
Smithsonian critiques National Geographic in open letter archaeoraptor
The Missing Link That Wasn’t … National Geographic’s Bird Dinosaur Flew Again the Facts by Nancy Pearcey,. Access Research Network
The Archaeoraptor Fraud – by Charles Colson
The Archaeoraptor Fraud: National Geographic
The Latest Fraud!
The Missing Link that Wasn’t: National Geographic’s ‘Bird Dinosaur’ Flew Against the Facts
The Piltdown Chicken
Well, Folks…It Happened Again!
News Articles Published on The Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis Discovery

Second Piece of Fossil Forgery Identified Scientific American 11/21/02
Comparing Modern Birds with The Missing Link Fossils
FEATHERED CREATURES FROM CHINA BOOST DINOSAUR-BIRD CONNECTION
Flying dinosaur was mean, graceless: Fiercesome bird may have been first flying feathered animal to evolve
Fossils from China Link Birds With Dinosaurs
MISSING LINK BETWEEN DINOSAURS AND BIRDS FOUND IN CHINA: Dino Land Has the Full Story of Dinosaur-Bird Evolution and the Latest Exciting Development!
‘Missing Link’ Dino Actually Two Animals ABCNEWS.com
New Birdlike Dinosaurs from China Are True Missing Links
NEW BIRDLIKE DINOSAURS ON VIEW: COULD T. REX HAVE HAD FEATHERS / T. Rex mit Federn
Researchers find fossils of primitive flying dinosaur
Think of it as a 120 million-year-old turkey: Archaeoraptor liaoningensis may be missing link between ground-based dinosaurs and birds

——————————————————————————–

Miscellaneous Fakes and Frauds

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus. (source: Paul S. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, [Chariot Victor Publishing, 1989], pp.12-13)

General Evolution Fraud Links

10 Notorious Darwinist Fabrications
Anatomy of a Hoax by Sean Meek
Dinosaur webcam pictures — fake, hoax photos and pics
Evolution Fraud in School Scienfic Textbooks
Evolution fraud in current biology textbooks Worldnet Magazine 2001 Exposed as fakes decades ago, major publishers still include them
Evolution Forgeries from the Muslim online book Evolution Deceit
Gaps in the Textbooks’ Coverage of the Fossil Record by Texans for Better Science Education
Forensic geochemistry solves fossil riddles ..Geological Society News – New forensic tools developed to spot fossil fakes.
Scientists behaving badly – Journal editors reveal researchers’ wicked ways Nature 3/4/2004
Survival of The Fakest Part I or Survival of The Fakest Part II by Jonathan Wells (PDF download)
Textbook Fraud: Inherit The Wind is intellectual pornography!: Full of Lies, deception and very anti-Christian.
Textbook Fraud: The Horse Series; Hyracotherium “dawn horse” eohippus, mesohippus, …
Text book Fraud! Video -& Documentation by Don Patton
THE CASE OF ARCHAEOPTERYX The evidence strongly indicates it is a fake
Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax — it is a true bird, not a ‘missing link’ by Jonathan Sarfati
The Rise of the Evolution Fraud Review of book by Malcolm Bowden

Genesis 1:1 that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," he summarized in a single sentence one of the most important miracles of all—the miracle of creation. In a period of six days, God brought into existence a Universe full of galaxies, solar systems, planets, stars, asteroids, meteorites, etc. The writer of Hebrews said: "We understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (11:3). When God created, He did not use matter and energy that already were in existence. Rather, He spoke them into existence "by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3).

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Beneia]