Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution

randman · #41 10th June 2002, 04:20 PM

I think Nick has pretty much slammed you seebs.

Evolutionists have relied on lies. They kept up the ape to man progression in textbooks for years with neanderthal being a hunched over ape-man long after it was known to be false. Even within the past 5 years, Haeckel's embryos have been included in textbooks.

Heck, even here we see the deception of evolutionists present. Look over the threads. One admits "intemediaries" are not shown, a nd another lists them. One even claimed PE w as for paelontologists, which basically means it isn't a new model for evolution at all.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any significant evidence for evolution presented for public consumption in a totally objective and honest manner.

npetreley · #42 10th June 2002, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by seebs

2. Theories which were tossed out when data didn't support them.

How about data being tossed out because it doesn't fit the theory? That happens all the time in labs. They usually call it "calibration," but no matter how you "justify" it, it's still a matter of making the data fit the theory.

RufusAtticus · #43 10th June 2002, 08:42 PM

Archaeoraptor
Appeared in National Geographic, shown three months later to be a hoax. Never had any influence on evolution.

Nebraska man
If it was such a lie, why did the same scientists who originally identified it as a man correct himself when he discovered additional evidence about the specimin. Never had any influence on evolution.

Piltdown man
Became suspect because it didn't agree with the rest of the evidence. New techniques revealed its actual origin. Never had any influence on evolution outside of England.

Orce man
Obsure fossil fragment of unknown origin. No hoxes or lies there.

The Haeckel embryo sequence
Probably about the only one that you can say that lied to support evolution. Or rather exagerated. Haeckel's errors do not disprove embryonic similarity between taxa.

Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

Jerry Smith · #44 10th June 2002, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

How about data being tossed out because it doesn't fit the theory? That happens all the time in labs. They usually call it "calibration," but no matter how you "justify" it, it's still a matter of making the data fit the theory.

If data anomalous data are thrown out, it is because they don't fit the other data, not because they don't fit the theory.

If you don't like statistical analysis, then it isn't just evolution you don't like. You can join me in trashing relativity too - in the relativity thread.

If you catch someone making the data fit the theory, that is "fudging" and isn't allowed. They stand a lot to lose by risking it. Even so, some try, and sometimes get away with it. One would have to be a complete idiot to think that thousands of scientists have done this in every research program that provided data in support of neodarwinism.

npetreley · #45 10th June 2002, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If data anomalous data are thrown out, it is because they don't fit the other data, not because they don't fit the theory.

If you catch someone making the data fit the theory, that is "fudging" and isn't allowed.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Calibration *is* fudging the data to fit the theory, and it is standard practice. Scientists simply have enough confidence in the reference (such as the dating of the strata) that they don't realize it's the same thing as fudging the data. But it is.

npetreley · #46 10th June 2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Never had any influence on evolution.

So that makes the lie not a lie, then?

Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

I'm not familiar with your Pauxly stuff or the hyrax thing. But almost all of the rest of what you list are theories and objections to theories. That doesn't make them lies and deliberate fraud, even if they are wrong. So while it makes your list look longer, it hardly qualifies as apples-to-apples comparisons to things like Piltdown man, etc.

Jerry Smith · #47 10th June 2002, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

Gish's Bullfrog proteins come to mind.
The several independent Noah's ark discoveries do too...

That second, especially so - as I stood face to face with a good friend (who is a creationist and actually took a course at Bryan College from none other than Kurt Wise), and had a lengthy conversation wherein I was informed not only that the ark had been found (satellite photos and all), but that "they" wouldn't let anyone "go up there", and futhermore that scientists had tracked down Joshua's lost day...

Jerry Smith · #48 10th June 2002, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by npetreley

Bzzzt. Wrong. Calibration *is* fudging the data to fit the theory, and it is standard practice. Scientists simply have enough confidence in the reference (such as the dating of the strata) that they don't realize it's the same thing as fudging the data. But it is.

BZZZZT. Calibration is sometimes done based on whether the data fit a theory - but never the theory being tested. If a radiometric date is thrown out, it is because it is believed to be in error: because a) the potential for error exists, and b) it gives a spurious result compared to other dating methods -including index fossils, but NOT including the fossil being dated, and/or c) a statistical analysis of the data leaves the erroneous point as an outlyer.

Now please, write that down.

Jerry Smith · #49 10th June 2002, 09:27 PM

Hey guys: BZZZZT Wrong!

(did that make me look smarter?)

npetreley · #50 10th June 2002, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

a) the potential for error exists

The potential for error ALWAYS exists.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

b) it gives a spurious result compared to other dating methods -including index fossils

Bingo. The fossils are dated by the radiometric measurements. The radiometric measurements are checked against each other, and against index fossils. The dates of the index fossils were verified by radiometrics. Which were checked using index fossils. Which were checked using radiometrics. Which were...

Ah, such reliable checks and balances.

And anything that falls outside the accepted ranges is thrown out as an anomaly because we all know that the reference dates must be correct. After all, we checked the data against itself so many times, and it miraculously kept coming out equal.