LOL! Then what produced the "mindset" of African women having abortion
sticks dating back at least 4,000 years! No evolution then. Or the
mindset that led Greeks 3,000 years ago to expose unwanted babies to
kill them? No evolution
then.
Sure they had evolution back then and many other similar paganistic
beliefs which have survived through the ages even to today.
Wherefore, again, again, how merited
Is that adopted name of Earth, The Mother!
Since she herself begat the human race,
And at one well nigh fixed time brought forth
Each beast that ranges raving round about
Upon the mighty mountains, and all birds
Aerial with many a varied shape.
But, lo, because her bearing years must end,
She ceased, like to a woman worn. And what
She bore of old, she now can bear no longer
Lucretius
Evolution was born amidst the multitude of thousands of other pagan
fables of old starting with Anaximander in 600 B.C. Xenophanes,
Anaximander's student, improved upon these Greek paganistic belief's of
evolution along with Herodotus in the 400's B.C. Empedocles of Acragas
taught that Mother Earth had given birth to us all and we began as
organs without complete bodies only to be brought together as a full
body over time. Lucretius Carus 90 B.C. wrote the above poem entitled
"On the Nature of Things". Lucretius taught evolution that he had
learned from these earlier Greek pagans.
When people believe babies are just "embryo" things, or that Jews and
Blacks are not fully evolved their actions towards these groups are
affected. They are "things" or "subspecies" for which different rules
apply. You can throw away a piece of paper and other "things," and
subspecies need "special care" or to just be "eliminated" but never CAN
be your equal. History has proven this over the past 6,000 years. It is
an undisputed fact. The pagans of Moses time and much earlier sacrificed
their babies because they "knew" it would result in a better harvest,
victory in war, or fertility for their race. Their idea's produced
actions. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians all "knew" they were a
higher and far superior race to all others and they acted like it
through enslavements, wars, human sacrifice etc.
The Roman Emperor's and citizens "knew" the Emperor's were a higher race
and should be worshipped. They acted it out by requiring all to pay them
full homage. The Christian's "knew" that God had made Jesus Christ the
King of the Universe and that only He should be worshipped, they acted
out this belief by not worshipping the Emperor.
And on and on and on we could go throughout all of history and describe
how beliefs directly impacted and affected actions. To try and convince
us now that they don't is just another hopeful fairytale.
Morris and Schaeffer are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. That what
happens in nature is what should happen in human society. Evolutionists
for 150 years have battled this idea. That Hitler and others misused
Darwinism says nothing about the validity of the theory. Any more than
the misuse of Christianity by the Inquisition says that Christianity is
invalid.
You are mistaking nature with beliefs. Nature doesn't make us do things
our beliefs do! The perverted beliefs of Hitler were absolutely
consistent with his Darwinian beliefs. The perverted beliefs of the
Catholic Inquisitionist were totally inconsistent with Christianity of
which the Reformation brought to light.
Quote:" And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).
That describes creationism very well.
Quote:I. First, there is no real evidence for evolution.
It remains the "theory" of evolution after one hundred and fifty years,
simply because the evolutionists have no real proof, to make their
theory a scientific fact.
LOL! Semantic games. It's Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravity. Should
we say that neither is true because they are both "theories"? All this
does is show how Morris and crew are playing on your ignorance. And you
swallow the lies
hook, line, and sinker.
No, they're called observation games! We can observe cell's and gravity.
We can't observe "missing links" because they are missing. I wonder why
they are still "missing?"
Quote
r. Joe White and Dr. Nicholas Comninellis say,
We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would
contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search through
younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find gradual transition of
the most primitive life forms into more complex ones...Since the
transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of
years (during which time millions, even billions, of transitional forms
must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be
discovered.
But they have not been discovered!
But they have.
1. http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
13. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/
More -- read this stuff? C'mon, that's a bunch a mumbo jumbo...put it in
your own words. Make it simple for all to see and understand. Show us
clear and convincing proof. All I see here is evolutionaries trying to
justify their research grants...LOL!
Quote
r. White and Dr. Comninellis continue, If reptiles turned into
birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to find fossils with
gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile into the form of
wings like a bird.
.
Strawman. Birds evolved from two-legged theropod dinosaurs. The
forelimbs of the dinos were already extended. They were used for
grasping prey. This is called "exaptation". It's where a feature evolves
for one function and then is
useful for another.
And you put this up after I gave you sources for transitionals! Talk
about the "bury your head in the sand" syndrome!
What proofs? You mean the "read this" posts you are are copying and
pasting? They say absolutely nothing! Do you really think if these
transitions had been found you would need to find them buried in
scientific research papers written to justify research grants? LOL, they
would be shouted from the rooftops and on every news channel from the
United States to Australia. Look at all the evolutionary hoaxes. If they
were true it would change everything!!!! So massive coverage!!!!! But
what happens, they whimper out into fraud, deceit, hoax and deception.
Why did they occur? Because the real thing doesn't exist!
Quote:II. Second, examples of hoaxes used to "prove" the theory of
evolution.
I could give several of these hoaxes, but I have selected three, the
first one from fifty years ago, the second one from the 1990s, and
thethird one from the early twentieth century. First, consider the hoax
of "Piltdown Man."
The American People's Encyclopedia (Chicago: The Spencer Press, Inc.)was
written in 1948. My father gave me a set of this encyclopedia in 1954,
when I was thirteen years old. I still have this set of encyclopedias in
my library. Here is what that encyclopedia said about "Piltdown Man"
back in 1948,
A fossil human skull found near Piltdown, England, in 1912. It was taken
from a gravel pit cut into an ancient alluvial fan. The deposit itself
probably dates from the third glaciation but contains much older
materials washed in from higher levels. The skull while exceedingly
thick and showing some primitive characteristics is essentially that of
modern man (ibid., volume 15, p. 782).
Although the 1953 edition of this encyclopedia does throw some doubt on
"Piltdown Man," it still presented it that year as a credible proof of
the theory of evolution.
That isn't what the quote from the encyclopedia says! It simply says
Piltdown is a mixture of primitive and modern characteristics. Nowhere
is it given as "proof" of evolution. Your source can't even read its own
evidence correctly!
It say's exactly what "my source" quoted! Its statement was a clear
reference to evolution, or should we have inferred creation from it?
LOL! Hey, I wonder if encyclopedia's have changed their "knowledge" of
the Piltdown man? Should we check and provide some quotes? That would be
kinda fun wouldn't it?
No wonder they say evolution is a lie. It's projection from the fact
that all the anti-evolution arguments they are using are lies.
No, they/we are basing the lie of evolution on the lies of
evolutionists. Why lie when the truth is so obviously buried in a
scientific research paper on the web which must be discovered,
interpreted and carefully explained for all to see? Who needs Piltdown
Man when you have all those great sites to copy and paste, right?
Now, the truth is that Piltdown was a fraud perpetrated on scientists,
not by science. Dawson and de Chardin perpetrated a practical joke on
the scientist. One that got out of hand. Remember that de Chardin was a
Catholic priest. So the incident is not a comment on evolutionary
hoaxes, but the integrity of Christians!
Actually, altho de Chardin wrote extensively on an evolutionary
theology, he never used Piltdown in his writings.
You write de Cardin perpetrated the hoax and he was a Christian and this
reflects on Christianity. And you get applause and cheers from your
evolutionary minions. How dishonest and ridiculous, hey wait a minute,
is the next Piltdown man hoax? Is this "the de Chardin man?!?"
De Chardin was a paleontologist who was also a deemed a heretic by the
Catholic Church.
"Was Teilhard de Chardin the perpetrator?
In an essay reprinted in The Panda's Thumb, Stephen Jay Gould argues the
case for a conspiracy by Teilhard de Chardin and Dawson. The case is
circumstantial. The suggested motive is a student jape (Teilhard was
quite young at the time.) It was supposed that Teilhard did not have the
opportunity; however Gould shows that this was not necessarily so. Much
of Gould's case rests on ambiguous wording in Teilhard's correspondence.
Certainly Teilhard is a plausible candidate for the mysterious friend
who helped discover Piltdown II. Gould argues that they had intended to
blow the gaffe shortly after the initial finds but that they were
prevented from doing so by WW I. By 1918 things had gotten out of hand
to the point where the hoax could no longer be owned up to.
I do not think that Gould's assessment of motive stands up well. It is
plausible that Teilhard might have concocted a hoax; that is common for
frisky students. However this fraud was planned and prepared years in
advance and was executed over an extended period of time; the nature of
the execution of the fraud goes well beyond the student jape.
The case against Teilhard is considered in detail by Walsh. He argues
fairly convincingly that many of the circumstances stressed by Gould
have natural and plausible explanations.
Teilhard was also accused of being involved by L. Harrison Matthews who
claimed that Teilhard planted the fossil canine tooth in collaboration
with Martin A.C. Hinton, with Teilhard subsequently "discovering" the
tooth. The evidence for this collaboration is that Hinton told his
friend Richard Savage that Hinton and Teilhard had visited the site
together early in 1913. Matthews commented that Teilhard never mentioned
this visit, and subsequent developments have damaged Hinton's
credibility regarding these
clues."---www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
As far as this being a good example of science correcting itself...what
a joke!!!
"This is a good example of Science correcting itself
It has been argued that this is a good example of science correcting its
errors. This argument is a bit roseate. As the Daily Sketch wrote:
Anthropologists refer to the hoax as 'another instance of desire for
fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that the unmasking of
the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and skill of modern
research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they have taken over forty
years to discover the difference between an ancient fossil and a modern
chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done it quicker.
Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common and
dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the
slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using
the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the
hoax. This failure to adequately examine the fossils went unmarked and
unnoticed at the time - in large part because the hoax admirably
satisfied the theoretical expectations of the time.
The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific
process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and
challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to
be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further
reconsideration."--www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Linear Mode
