another forgery from EVOS

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

no that actually makes sense because someone who agrees with him won't alter the resuts or facts or make it look any better to suit their purposes.

Napa has no need for others to alter facts. He does it all by himself.

The rest is just mean and inflamatory.

Considering the lying toad that Napa has repeatedly shown himself to be on this thread alone, it's the least he deserves.

 

[Timo]

no that actually makes sense because someone who agrees with him won't alter the resuts or facts or make it look any better to suit their purposes.

What's the point in him coming in here and having a 'discussion'? Anyone who agrees with him will also ignore all the results and facts that don't suit their purposes. There's a difference between altering the facts and actually bothering to look at them properly.

I find it slightly comical that napajohn, who I thought was arguing against evolution, puts a post up arguing for evolution of birds from a different source to dinosaurs.

 

[LorentzHA]

no that actually makes sense because someone who agrees with him won't alter the resuts or facts or make it look any better to suit their purposes. The rest is just mean and inflamatory.

Like the Bible says, The truth cuts deep and to the quick as a double edged sword. NapaJohn has been known to dish inflammatory comments, so don't weep too hard for him.

And "alter results"? That is a creationist tactic!

 

[Nathan David]

Napajohn, can you find any examples of scientists using Archeoraptor as evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution after 2000?

Also, I'm still waiting for details on the fraud involving ceolacanths you mentioned, because that one is news to me.

 

[LorentzHA]

Napajohn, can you find any examples of scientists using Archeoraptor as evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution after 2000?

Also, I'm still waiting for details on the fraud involving ceolacanths you mentioned, because that one is news to me.

He will be back to give you those details, as soon as he can find an appropriate article to cut and paste.

 

[Jet Black]

Also, I'm still waiting for details on the fraud involving ceolacanths you mentioned, because that one is news to me.

lol scientists said that the ceolacanths had been dead for millions of years but they are still alive therefor evolution is wrong oh and if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys information cannot increase and did I mention piltdown man and Arcaeoraptor yet?

 

[napajohn]

Napajohn, can you find any examples of scientists using Archeoraptor as evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution after 2000?

Also, I'm still waiting for details on the fraud involving ceolacanths you mentioned, because that one is news to me.

why is 2000 so significant Nathan?..the fact is that NG was told by Storrs Olsen( aleading Bird ornithologist) that the possibility of the data being false was wrong and they blatantly ignored them and made the announcement...a show on Discovery Channel Dec 14 of 2003 borrowed from this concept ..they cited fossils from China are giving validity to the dino-bird evolution...are these "scientists"?.. maybe but the impact of Evolution has been "proven" on the mind of the viewers... There were textbooks and documentaries that I read and saw that mention Java Man and Nebraska Man as valid cases for evolution...is this a conspiracy of scientists?..no because Scientists do not constitute 1 mind and 1 idea..were there intents on pro EVO forces to perpetuate this?..If what Discovery Institute and their proponents seem to suggest, then maybe this so called "conspiracy" to perpetuate "facts" of evolution does exist in Academia. Again I'll cite 1 example of Texas Tech Biology Professor Dr Dini who denied anyone recommendation for not believing in evolution..Students who got A's in his class but disbelieved in evolution were denied on the premise that belief in evolution was vital to understanding science (how did the students get A's then?..they must have cheated if you believe Dini)..another is Dean Kenyon who wrote a book on chemical evolution of life, later had doubts about his own ideas and was disbarred from teaching a science class..There are many examples of pro EVOS pushing the agenda before the "science"...that is why a growing number of honest scientist (not just ID's and creationists) that are coming out and questioning the "facts" of evolution.

With regards to coelacanth..this was shown by evolutionists as an index fossil..a possible transition between fish and tetrapods..that was the claim made by the model..however, what was found was that they not only are not extinct but they are fish that live today..Conspiracy to hide their errors?...maybe but EVOS have a way of explaining their errors (since we know Evolution is fact):

"Coelacanths are known from the fossil record dating back over 360 million years, and peak in abundance about 240 million years ago. Before 1938 they were believed to have gone extinct approximately 80 million years ago, after mysteriously disappearing from the fossil record
(my comments: maybe there is something wrong in your assumption of the fossil record)
How could the Coelacanth disappear for over 80 million years and then turn up alive and well in the twentieth century? The answer seems to be that fossil Coelacanths appeared to live in environments favouring fossilisation"
(my comment: did you see that spin?..appeared to live in environments favouring fossilation?..LOL..but they mysteriusly disappear in the fossil record. Huh?)
heres the link if you think I'm making this up
http://www.austmus.gov.au/fishes/fishfacts/fish/coela.htm
the point is Nathan evolution has a way to be so plastic that any information no matter how contrary supports it as a scientific fact..predict coelacanth as an extinct transition fossil..ignore the evidence "The local people from Sulawesi were familiar with the Coelacanth and had a name for it, raja laut or 'king of the sea'." (from the same article) and when proven wrong put such a spin that no one questions evolution. thats how it works Nathan

 

[napajohn]

He will be back to give you those details, as soon as he can find an appropriate article to cut and paste.

No sources have some credibility unlike what you guys often do..say soemthing without citing specifics..heres one you made Lorentz quite a whiles back..I paraphrase here (Its known that pharmaceutical companies use evolutionary theory to get drugs out)..can you cite sources how they use evolutionary theory? or is this a generalization coming out of your big EVO brain.. Pasteur and Mendel and discovered their "science" before evolutionary theory was developed..what method did they use Lorentz?

 

[Phred]

Tell you what Napa... you show me just one area ANYWHERE that someone USES "creation science". Forget about questioning biology or chemistry or mathematics... you don't have the intellectual capacity to deal with the actual explanations. So why don't you validate your life by showing us where CREATION SCIENCE is actually relevant.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

napajohn - maybe you should investigate coelacanths more carefully.

The modern day coelacanths ARE NOT the same species as the fossil ones. There used to be many species.

The fossilized coelacanths were primarily freshwater/brackish water species where fossilization is expected to be more common.

Fossils from deeper water marine environments have always been rare. Most fossilized marine species known are from shallow, coastal environments.

It isn't that shocking that species like todays are not in the fossil record.

Now it would be much more interesting if we found a modern day freshwater coelacanth and a 70 million year gap in the fossil record. Guess what? we don't!

 

[obediah001]

Eviloution is FULL of fraud and gross misrepresentation; the theory stands solely upon the vain and sorely misguded vision of those who hate God i.e. Jesus. It is utterly amazing to look at all the claims the evilotionists make; item by item (carefully) and it quite quickly becomes laughable. Fossils are fossills b ecause they were rapidly buried. If a carcas is not it decays bones & all in rather short order. The earth is covered with fossills too cause of a i.e. thee flood of the Biblical description; easily an open & shut case!!

 

[Arikay]

Nice set of claims obediah001, evidence please?

Yep, the flood did it, as long as you don't look too close and ignore evidence.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Eviloution is FULL of fraud and gross misrepresentation; the theory stands solely upon the vain and sorely misguded vision of those who hate God i.e. Jesus. It is utterly amazing to look at all the claims the evilotionists make; item by item (carefully) and it quite quickly becomes laughable. Fossils are fossills b ecause they were rapidly buried. If a carcas is not it decays bones & all in rather short order. The earth is covered with fossills too cause of a i.e. thee flood of the Biblical description; easily an open & shut case!!

Hey, will you give me spelling and typing lessons?

 

[TheSleepWalker]

Eviloution is FULL of fraud and gross misrepresentation

Will you prove this or is it an empty assertion?

the theory stands solely upon the vain and sorely misguded vision of those who hate God i.e. Jesus

evolutionism IS NOT Atheism

The earth is covered with fossills too cause of a i.e. thee flood of the Biblical description; easily an open & shut case!!

The earth is not covered by fossils in fact they are quite rare where I live. So can you one more time back up your claims?

 

[obediah001]

I;d love to, but dont think am really all that good at it myself; specially so on this puter U know!

 

[obediah001]

By the way the flood is the only thing which could have caused a world wide deposition of said fossils. Dont keep me in suspense with your socalled evildences.

 

[obediah001]

Well sea shells are fossils & they are on top of mountains & in beds dozens of feet thick all over the world u know, in many locals far from & above the sea too.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

By the way the flood is the only thing which could have caused a world wide deposition of said fossils. Dont keep me in suspense with your socalled evildences.

OK - at the risk of a Moderator action,

Don't be so dim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Timo]

the fact is that NG was told by Storrs Olsen( aleading Bird ornithologist) that the possibility of the data being false was wrong and they blatantly ignored them and made the announcement

I am assuming that you don't actually mean what you wrote, as 'the possiblility of the data being false was wrong' implies that it was impossible for the data to be false.

You also seem to expect National Geograpic not to publish something because of one person's opinion. Do you think that anything would get published ever if they did that? If the general consensus of people with the appropriate specialisation supports something, then they will publish it.

It is inevitable that with pretty much anything, there will be some people who disagree with the findings, whatever they are. Einstein didn't agree with Quantum Mechanics - that doesn't mean that it should be disregarded. He also found that a static Universe required the cosmological constant in his field equations. Hubble showed the Universe was expanding. So should they ignore Hubble's findings or Einstein's? What would you do napajohn?

I know, I probably shouldn't quote myself; it's just that I posted previously and you seemed to ignore this explanation of why it was still published.

why is 2000 so significant Nathan?..

I suspect he was driving at the fact that the 'fake' fossil hasn't been used to justify anything since science revealed it as a composite. Well, not been used by anyone but creationalists.

a show on Discovery Channel Dec 14 of 2003 borrowed from this concept ..they cited fossils from China are giving validity to the dino-bird evolution

Two things:
1) It is possible that there have been other fossils found in China. Crazy, I know, but it might just work.
2) You still don't seem to get that some of the individual fossils that the composite was faked from do support dinosaur to bird evolution.

 

[obediah001]

There are many nonsequoiter reasonings of the evilotionist experts who deny the truth of creation solely out of their literal hatred of even the very idea of God & they have stated so in, excuse me, scientific terms. They proffess themselves to be wise but is reality - actuality have as the Bible says, become fools. Nature crys out of creation, it is absolutely absurd to create a hypothesis of all that is coming into being as we see itr is today by some fluke of whatever a big bang & wholla life explodes out of whatever or as some scietists have stated nuthing that actually exploded. I personally still cant figure out how nothing exploded & made something.