Where are all the bones?

[Alithis]

The young earth group is extremely small.


They deliberately misrepresent them. Keep in mind that their target audience is the layman, not the scientific community.

Who told you the young earth group is small ?
Among bible believers through out the earth the percentage that beleve what is written is extremly high.that is why they are believers .because they believe that with God all things are possible.

No, that's not how this works. You made the following claim:

Can you present any evidence to back up this claim?

And dow the rabbit hole it goes...

 

[RickG]

Who told you the young earth group is small ?
Among bible believers through out the earth the percentage that beleve what is written is extremly high.that is why they are believers .because they believe that with God all things are possible.

Alithis, I am talking about "creation science", which is deliberately misrepresented science to support a literal Genesis, not people who believe in a literal Genesis based on a literal interpretation of the bible and the bible only. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Alithis]

Alithis, I am talking about "creation science", which is deliberately misrepresented science to support a literal Genesis, not people who believe in a literal Genesis based on a literal interpretation of the bible and the bible only. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference i just don't care much . you cant put God in a science box and it all works to weaken faith because its all carnal minded .

God creates "spirits "

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Radrook do you have any examples of non-Creationist scientists misrepresenting data?

 

[AV1611VET]

@Radrook do you have any examples of non-Creationist scientists misrepresenting data?

Haeckel's embryos
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Haeckel's embryos
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii

Did I ask you? No I did not.
So your PRATTs can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your PRATTs can take a hike.

Isn't that what you asked for ... PRATTS?

Didn't non-creationist scientists sanction these for awhile, until they were discovered otherwise?

 

[Radrook]

Did I ask you? No I did not.
So your PRATTs can take a hike.

Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.[11] It was found that he falsified dates on many "stone age" fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.[12] The scientific fraud only came to light when he was caught attempting to sell his department's complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.[13] An investigation later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as genuine ones.[14]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I ask for evidence, and I get a link to probably THE single most biased website on the internet.

ETA: Radrook, this makes it so much easier, but don't put any thing you quote in CF's quotations, it makes it really hard to respond to your posts since we just get, essentially, blank posts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't that what you asked for ... PRATTS?

No. If I wanted a PRATT, I'd... well, I wouldn't explicitly ask for one, but really I'd only have to ask you.

Didn't non-creationist scientists sanction these for awhile, until they were discovered otherwise?

I really have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Haeckel's embryos
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii

PRATT : "Previously Refuted A Thousand Times" (for lurkers).

There have been deliberate and egregious misrepresentations of data, but these two are not generally thought to be so - Haeckel's embryos were drawn in support of his (incorrect) recapitulation hypothesis; the drawings emphasised the supporting features, but are thought to be more a product of misplaced enthusiasm than deliberate deception (along the lines of Schiaparelli, Burton, and Lowell believing they saw canals on Mars); the drawings were copied by others and further exaggerated, which may have led to the doubts about their honesty. 'Nebraska Man' (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was just a mistaken classification. A true misrepresentation would be Piltdown Man, which was a complete fraud.

 

[AV1611VET]

A true misrepresentation would be Piltdown Man, which was a complete fraud.

Can't data be misrepresented by mistake?

 

[AV1611VET]

@Radrook do you have any examples of non-Creationist scientists misrepresenting data?

Piltdown Man

 

[Goonie]

Can't data be misrepresented by mistake?

Of course, and when spotted as part of peer review it will be corrected.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Piltdown Man

Once again, I did not ask you. So stop answering for them and go away.

 

[Radrook]

I ask for evidence, and I get a link to probably THE single most biased website on the internet.

ETA: Radrook, this makes it so much easier, but don't put any thing you quote in CF's quotations, it makes it really hard to respond to your posts since we just get, essentially, blank posts.

Whether the website is biased or not I have no way of knowing when I am browsing.
Please note that website bias is irrelevant to what is quoted.
What is relevant is whether the particular quotation is true or not,
In short, evidence stands or falls on its own merit and not on the reputation of the one quoting it nor the publication where it happens to appear. That argument is similar to ad hominem which, as you know, is a fallacy.

BTW
My use of forum quotations creates blank posts on your screen?
Sounds like a glitch on your computer.
Can someone else verify this please?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, and when spotted as part of peer review it will be corrected.

Fair enough.

There's Warden's answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, I did not ask you. So stop answering for them and go away.

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

 

[Radrook]

Can't data be misrepresented by mistake?

It is malicious misrepresentation that we are really concerned with.
Knowingly juxtaposing the jaw of an ape on a human skull, mineralizing fossils to make them appear older than they are, exaggerating prenatal embryological anatomy so that it conveys support for the evolutionist, embryological recapitulation.

That sort of unscientific quacking quackery.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Whether the website is biased or not I have no way of knowing when I am browsing.
Please note that website bias is irrelevant to what is quoted.
What is relevant is whether the particular quotation is true or not,
In short, evidence stands or falls on its own merit and not on the reputation of the one quoting it nor the publication where it happens to appear. That argument is similar to ad hominem which, as you know, is a fallacy.

BTW
My use of forum quotations creates blank posts on your screen?
Sounds like a glitch on your computer.
Can someone else verify this please?

Whether a site is biased or not does make a difference. Conversapedia is a website run by fundamentalist Christians who flat out believe that evolution is true and that every single scientific discovery to do with evolution is a lie, and they do not hide that fact.
I do agree that evidence does stand or fall on it's own merits, but when the evidence is presented in a horribly biased manner, then the evidence is next to worthless, since it's coming from a source that does not value intellectual honesty.

And what I mean is that when I tried to reply to the post you made (#248), my reply (#249) only came up with my reply to your post, and it had none of the content you put up. Although this does sound more like a software problem on CF's part over anything else.