Evolution is a Fact

[AV1611VET]

If science predicts something, then that prediction was wrong, then that's not gonna falsify the whole theory, unless it was something seriously major.

Forget predictions --- what about discoveries?

What about Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ?

Was he not hailed as an important scientific discovery?

What about C[sub]13[/sub]H[sub]10[/sub]N[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]4[/sub] ?

What about Phlogiston Theory?

What about...

 

[laconicstudent]

Forget predictions --- what about discoveries?

What about Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ?

Was he not hailed as an important scientific discovery?

What about C[sub]13[/sub]H[sub]10[/sub]N[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]4[/sub] ?

What about Phlogiston Theory?

What about...

The theory is adapted.

Seriously, you still don't seem to understand the fact that science never claims to be infallible. When it is wrong, it admits it and changes the theory to fit the new data. A few mistakes does not disprove the overwhelming positive evidences that AREN'T mistakes.

 

[Sanguis]

The theory is adapted.

Seriously, you still don't seem to understand the fact that science never claims to be infallible. When it is wrong, it admits it and changes the theory to fit the new data. A few mistakes does not disprove the overwhelming positive evidences that AREN'T mistakes.

'Sactly.

Science is capable of learning from its mistakes, correcting them, and coming out the other end much, much stronger.

Religion never learns, it just repeats the same mistakes, the same old fallacies and PRATTs over and over again.

 

[Cabal]

Evolution runs on the No True Scotsman Principle: if it's right, it's evolution; if it's wrong, it's not evolution.

Because of that, you can almost predict what they are going to say in response.

Yeah, except fakes aren't fossils, genius, so they can't fit into the fossil record

 

[Cabal]

You might not like or appreciate the truth, but that doesn't change the truth or make it go away. It would be an impossible task to refute it.

There is no truth there, only more lies from someone touting their Christianity at every turn.

One or two hoaxes does not upend the theory of evolution.

The fossil record is not based on the fakes, and indeed fakes could never be part of the fossil record. And all your fakes are decades old anyway, get with the times.

Unless you want me to apply your logic to you. Because of the bad apples at Westboro baptist church, Christianity is a total lie. Give up your wasted efforts and become an atheist.

 

[Split Rock]

Forget predictions --- what about discoveries?

What about Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ?

Was he not hailed as an important scientific discovery?

No it was not. Only by the Illustrated London News, which was trying to sell papers. Even the discoverer, Henry Fairfield Osborn called the artist's drawing accompanying the article, " a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate". You will never see a creationist website mention that, will we, AVET? Why is that? Also, I asked before, is there a reason you people have to go back to 1922 to come up with "one of many examples" of how science gets everything wrong?

What about C[sub]13[/sub]H[sub]10[/sub]N[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]4[/sub] ?

How many times a year is this drug issued to pregnant women today? Now compare that number to the number of creationist websites and creationists here that continue to lie about Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

What about Phlogiston Theory?

Wooo.. now you are going back even further than 1922!

What about...

What about The Rapture? Its coming, its coming, its coming... its....

 

[pgp_protector]

The theory is adapted.

Seriously, you still don't seem to understand the fact that science never claims to be infallible. When it is wrong, it admits it and changes the theory to fit the new data. A few mistakes does not disprove the overwhelming positive evidences that AREN'T mistakes.

I don't think some understand that concept.

 

[Wedjat]

Or that they seem to think that stagnancy is a virtue and if something needs to be changed occasionally then it can never be trusted.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Forget predictions --- what about discoveries?

What about Hesperopithecus haroldcookii ?

Was he not hailed as an important scientific discovery?

What about C[sub]13[/sub]H[sub]10[/sub]N[sub]2[/sub]O[sub]4[/sub] ?

What about Phlogiston Theory?

What about...

So -- what are you looking to falsify?

 

[Hawk007]

I have a question too evolutionists....how is it possible to find authentic artifacts of thousands of years old that shows that dinosaurs were part of their culture/man?

I am pretty sure they did not have the science and imagination of that of modern evolutionists......

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?-Literature, Art & History Crawling with Dinosaurs

This really makes evolution look stupid!

 

[USincognito]

You got it, macro-evolution. I bolded part of your statement to clarify where I stand .

If you're not actually going to address points raised, don't bother replying with fluff like this.

I mentioned in one of my posts that I recently read an article about a tooth being fabricated into a wonderful discovery for an evolutionist until a jawbone was discovered that ruined the illusion. I was challenged to produce that article, so here it is:

Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
{snip}

Fred M. Williams' EFT site? That arrogant fool wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up wearing a t-shirt that said "FACT" on it and introduced itself. I remember back on Yahoo message boards that he claimed archeologists insisted the Hittites didn't exist because they were mentioned in the Bible until they were forced to admit it after the discovery of Hattusas. I pointed out to him that we had plenty of extra-Biblical evidence on the walls of Rameses II's temples for the Hittites, but couldn't read them until Champollion translated the Rosetta Stone and that was in the 1800s. He was completely ignorant of a whole 'nother set of facts that conflicted with his narrative.

I also remember seeing a page he did "debunking" whale evolution by showing drawings of a wolf on iceberg diving into the water and drowning. If that's his idea of whale evolution, he's the one believing fairy tales, not the scientists.

You'll notice pretty quickly that I did read exactly what I said that I did. The tooth did stand as a great evolutionary discovery for 20 years until a jawbone was discovered that debunked the fraud.

I will admit, you were talking about Ramapithecus, not Nebraska Man, but there's still several problems. First, you misquoted Fred's claim. He doesn't say "a tooth", he says a tooth and jaw fragments.

For more than 20 years Ramapithecus was proudly displayed in museums across the country as man’s first direct ancestor, based entirely on jaw and teeth fragments!14 When a complete jaw was found, evolutionists where forced to admit that it was actually a relative of the orangutan!

Bold mine. So it wasn't "a tooth", it was jaw and teeth fragments. I notice that Fred also fails to mention that the finds were first discovered in 1932, but didn't gain traction until the 1960s. Also the Britannica article Fred cites makes no mention of it being displayed in museums across the country.
Britannica article
And who was it that corrected the erroneous initial conclusions? Creationists? No, it was other scientists who, based on genetic evidence, realized that the human/ape split occured much later than the date for the Ramapithecus fossils and who, after further evaluation, concluded they were related to Orangs.
And finally, where did you get the notion that Ramapithecus was a "fraud"? When more information became availible, the fossils were reclassified and eventually lumped in the with Sivapithecus genus. Where is the "fraud" in that?

You can read about many other gross errors and frauds by evolutionists in this article, so read it carefully. When you finish this article, please go back to the main site and read some more. The site is appropriately named and does much to expose the gross errors, imaginative fabrications, frauds and hoaxes of evolutionists.

Well, he's incorrect either factually or due to the conclusions he draws from the 5 examples you posted the other night. He's wrong about the dinosaur fossils and Archeopteryx. His main point about the majority of fossils is bogus because there are trillions of tons of marine invertebrate fossils in limestone, chalk, etc. formations, so will the percentage of terrestrial vertebrates is small their number and the species they represent is quite expansive. He cites an encyclopedia, something no serious scholar does after middle school. And it's the hight of irony for him to talk about fairy tales and then to try and then to include is "an analogy" section which itself is just a fairy tale he makes up himself.

Many people prefer truth over fairy tales.

And many people don't have an ironic bone in their body. Fred M. Williams is one of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

So -- what are you looking to falsify?

Probably the same thing you are: nothing.

It's not my job to go around with a clipboard falsifying and confirming things.

That's not my calling.

 

[Wedjat]

I have a question too evolutionists....how is it possible to find authentic artifacts of thousands of years old that shows that dinosaurs were part of their culture/man?

I am pretty sure they did not have the science and imagination of that of modern evolutionists......

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?-Literature, Art & History Crawling with Dinosaurs

This really makes evolution look stupid!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooow
Really?
Let's start this off on the right foot, first two sentences of the home page.

We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world. Ooparts are evidence, we think, that the Flood actually happened.

So basically, reliable source or we continue laughing.

And secondly, are ancient peoples not allowed to be creative and fanciful? I suppose since the Greeks wrote about them and drew them then Griffins must exist (or have existed) as well. I suppose that if one decides to enlarge a lizard or serpent to epic proportions it could not possibly be creative liberty, the Chinese must have actually encountered giant flying limbed serpents.

 

[Sanguis]

I have a question too evolutionists....how is it possible to find authentic artifacts of thousands of years old that shows that dinosaurs were part of their culture/man?

I am pretty sure they did not have the science and imagination of that of modern evolutionists......

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?-Literature, Art & History Crawling with Dinosaurs

This really makes evolution look stupid!

It's people like you, and dad and Av that are the reason I enjoy this site so much.

Just knowing you exist makes me feel, on average, a lot more intelligent than I actually am, 'cause I can tell myself; "Well, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but at least I'm not as bad as the creationists on CF.com.".

Do some serious research, don't just read creationist propaganda sites. Read journals, read published, and peer reviewed papers. Or failing that, go back to school and pay attention, this time. You really have no idea how much it exposes your stupidity when you copypasta PRATTs, that are built on fallacies, lies and scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just knowing you exist makes me feel, on average, a lot more intelligent than I actually am...

I'll take your word for it.

Speaking of intelligence, if a dinosaur had a navel, would that disprove evolution?

I know it runs on the No True Scotsman Principle, but at least, by definition, would it disprove it.

Or would the goalpost just be moved?

 

[Sanguis]

I'll take your word for it.

Speaking of intelligence, if a dinosaur had a navel, would that disprove evolution?

I know it runs on the No True Scotsman Principle, but at least, by definition, would it disprove it.

Or would the goalpost just be moved?

Any reptile that's born from an egg, and has a navel would cause a re-think, at the very least.

I couldn't say whether or not it would 100% falsify evolution, because more would have to be known about the specimen.

Same goes with birds, arthropods, and pretty much everything non-mammalian.

Equally, a mammal with feathers, a fish with dexterous thumbs, spiders with a spine, birds with mammary glands, etc, would also raise serious questions as to the validity of evolution as an explanation to the biodiversity of life.

Either way, good luck finding any of them. If you did, you'd completely revolutionize biology, paleontology, biochemistry, and any other field that's used evolution for 150 odd years, extremely effectively. You'd be remembered through history, just as Galileo, Einstein or Darwin are, now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any reptile that's born from an egg, and has a navel would cause a re-think, at the very least.

Then you'd better start rethinking:

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Going into denial might help too --- just pretend it isn't a dinosaur.

You'd be remembered through history, just as Galileo, Einstein or Darwin are, now.

Sounds tempting, but God gets the glory.

 

[Hawk007]

Wooooooooooooooooooooooow
Really?
Let's start this off on the right foot, first two sentences of the home page.

So basically, reliable source or we continue laughing.

And secondly, are ancient peoples not allowed to be creative and fanciful? I suppose since the Greeks wrote about them and drew them then Griffins must exist (or have existed) as well. I suppose that if one decides to enlarge a lizard or serpent to epic proportions it could not possibly be creative liberty, the Chinese must have actually encountered giant flying limbed serpents.

Hahahahahahahahaha, how refreshing, people of 2000 years ago includes dinosaurs in their art, I guess they saw the dinosaurs on National Geographic? But what is interesting is that the dino fossils found in that area is the same as the dinos on the artifacts, so much for creativity.....

Evolution is a fact?

 

[Sanguis]

Hahahahahahahahaha, how refreshing, people of 2000 years ago includes dinosaurs in their art, I guess they saw the dinosaurs on National Geographic? But what is interesting is that the dino fossils found in that area is the same as the dinos on the artifacts, so much for creativity.....

Evolution is a fact?

What was that I said about PRATTs and independent research from reputable sources, that don't have a religious agenda?

 

[Cabal]

Hahahahahahahahaha, how refreshing, people of 2000 years ago includes dinosaurs in their art, I guess they saw the dinosaurs on National Geographic? But what is interesting is that the dino fossils found in that area is the same as the dinos on the artifacts, so much for creativity.....

Evolution is a fact?

There are so many logic leaps in this statement I don't even know where to start.

You do realise that even if dinosaurs existed 6000 years ago, that in no way prevents the earth and things in it from being older than that?