Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Bible Research Tools]

Ah, so a figment of your imagination then.

Prove it. Prove evolutionary geology is anything more and anti-Moses bigotry.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Poppycock!

You don't get out much, do you?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I've noticed a lot of things creationists bring up aren't relevant anymore. In fact I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention Piltdown Man recently.

I was taught Haeckel's Embryo's were (unquestionable) proof of evolution; and I surmise children are still being brainwashed with that filthy lie. We also know those drawings were still in textbooks as late as 2015. There is no doubt about that.

You and your fellow evolutionists would be much more credible if you refrained from promoting the discredited Icons of Evolution.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Amazingly, the ToE is NOT ABOUT the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

True. It is about the origin of the species.

What is the origin of the species?

Dan

 

[pitabread]

I was taught Haeckel's Embryo's were (unquestionable) proof of evolution; and I surmise children are still being brainwashed with that filthy lie. We also know those drawings were still in textbooks as late as 2015. There is no doubt about that.

I'm doubtful that his original drawings are in modern textbooks and even if they are what is the context?

You and your fellow evolutionists would be much more credible if you refrained from promoting the discredited Icons of Evolution.

The only people around here who keep bringing this up are creationists.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Can YOU explain what Tomkins means, and vouch for the veracity of his claims?

Or do you just accept them because he says what you want to hear and is an 'authority'?

From what I have heard, Clemson is a top-notch public school that (at the time Tomkins was a student) was not forced (by the threat of career-ending smears) to comply with evolutionism dogma by the orthodoxy. Therefore, he is far more credible than virtually any evolutionist; and I use the word "virtually" as matter of kindness to those deceived by evolutionism.

Use the search function on this forum and search for Tomkins - you will see that his claims have been thoroughly debunked.

No, you show us. Show us how Tomkins' research has been debunked.

Dan

 

[USincognito]

Prove it.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.​

That being said, sfs has addressed Tomkins errors and outright dishonesty numerous times on this forum.
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes
Apes and humans have different designs
Journal of Creation papers

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Heh, I just made a comment about how we hadn't had a creationist bring up Piltdown Man lately and there it is. What fortuitous timing.

No doubt, the religion of evolutionism has a long, fraudulent history.

Dan

 

[USincognito]

I know a little about it. Now, answer the question.

Looks like someone thinks they're running the show here. Got news for you champ, you're not.

So, since you know a little about it.
- 203,000 shared endogenous retroviral insertions
- 3,000,000+ shared transposable elements
- a shared broken GULO gene which we also share with all other Haplorhines
- Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimpanzee/LCA chromsomes 2a and b
- MYH16 changed size of jaw muscles
- SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B caused our brains to have more dendrites and our neocortex to grow larger and more dense.

 

[USincognito]

Prove it.

You keep using that word in a scientific context.

Prove evolutionary geology is anything more and anti-Moses bigotry.

Again, "evolutionary geology" exists only in your imaginations. Evolution is part of life science, geology is part of earth science. As your "anti-Moses bigotry" inanity, the first geologists were ministers or church laymen who were looking to find evidence for the Flood. The problem is the more they looked, the more they realize that their observations were holey inconsistent with the Flood.

Rev. William Buckland
William Buckland: Minister and Geologist Grappling with Fossil Feces, Deep Time and the Age of Reptiles
Rev. Adam Sedgwick
Adam Sedgwick - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Tell that to the evolutionists who pretend evolutionism is a fact. That should go over well.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

You are aware that mathematics is not falsifiable, are you not?

Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

So, according to your definition, science depends on who is doing the defining of the word "evidence". I have no problem with that definition. In fact, I believe that to be 100% accurate.

That being said, sfs has addressed Tomkins errors and outright dishonesty numerous times on this forum.
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes
Apes and humans have different designs
Journal of Creation papers

I see that Stephen claimed,

"As an aside, I'll note that I spend my professional life writing computer code and analyzing DNA, and I'd say that the analogy between the two is not a very good one for understanding how DNA works, and especially not for how it responds to mutation."​

Can I assume from that statement that Stephen believes the research he performed during his professional life is more reliable than the research preformed during the professional lives of other researchers? Just curious.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

No doubt, the religion of evolutionism has a long, fraudulent history.

If this were true then why do creationists keep rehashing the same single event that occurred over a hundred years ago? Surely you'd have something newer to talk about by now?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I'm doubtful that his original drawings are in modern textbooks and even if they are what is the context?

It is a well established fact.

The only people around here who keep bringing this up are creationists.

You really don't think evolutionists -- at least the secular kind -- are going to expose evolution fraud, do you?

Dan

 

[USincognito]

You don't get out much, do you?

Hombre I've forgotten more about this stuff last year than you're learned in your entire life. In the few textbooks Creationists have been able to find where Haeckel's drawings were being used they were used contextually to discuss his recapitulation hypothesis. In many other textbooks where they supposedly are being used, they either weren't his drawings at all or later versions of his drawings. This famous one wasn't drawn by Haeckel, but by George John Romanes.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti...yonic-Evolution-Through-Ernst-Haeckel-s-Eyes/
>> Haeckel’s embryo drawings were widely circulated. They appeared in some mid-20th century high school and college biology textbooks in the United States, often bearing the name of a Canadian-British evolutionary biologist and physiologist, George John Romanes, who had copied Haeckel’s work. <<

 

[USincognito]

No doubt, the religion of evolutionism has a long, fraudulent history.

How does one expect to be taken seriously when one posting not even wrong stuff like this?

And it's hilarious hearing a Creationist claim that evolution is a fraud by citing things from 100 to 150 years ago when their own gurus and fellow travelers are spreading lies like the Delk Print and the Big Daddy Chick Tract in 2018.

 

[USincognito]

You really don't think evolutionists -- at least the secular kind -- are going to expose evolution fraud, do you?

Well, let's see. The only two frauds I can think of in the last 100 years was Piltdown and Archaeoraptor and both of there were exposed by other scientists, not Creationists.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Looks like someone thinks they're running the show here. Got news for you champ, you're not.

Am I detecting ruffled feathers?

So, since you know a little about it.
- 203,000 shared endogenous retroviral insertions

Are "retroviral insertions" a part of the so-called Junk DNA? Just curious.

- 3,000,000+ shared transposable elements

How are those a problem for creation science?

- a shared broken GULO gene which we also share with all other Haplorhines

How are GULO pseudogenes a problem for creation science?

- Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chimpanzee/LCA chromsomes 2a and b

There is zero evidence of that ever occurring. However, it does make for good "copy".

- MYH16 changed size of jaw muscles

How is that a problem for creation science?

- SRGAP2C and ARHGAP11B caused our brains to have more dendrites and our neocortex to grow larger and more dense.

How is that a problem for creation science?

You really didn't think any of that mud would stick to the wall, did you?

Dan

 

[USincognito]

Tell that to the evolutionists who pretend evolutionism is a fact. That should go over well.

I don't know what "evolutionists" are and "evolutionism" is yet another figment of your imagination. That said, you seem to be mixing words up.

Evolution is a fact. Facts in science are those things that have been supported to the point where they are provisionally accepted pending any future discoveries. That goes for things as well established as heliocentrism, plate tectonics and germ theory of disease as well. It is because of that need for potential falsification, not matter how unlikely, that we do not consider scientific facts to be "proven".

You are aware that mathematics is not falsifiable, are you not?

Let me just reflect back, you do know you're quoting the author of that article, not me, right? I also don't see how your question follows "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." It's quite frankly a bizarre non sequitur.

So, according to your definition, science depends on who is doing the defining of the word "evidence". I have no problem with that definition. In fact, I believe that to be 100% accurate.

1. That's not "my" definition.
2. I coined So's Law which states - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%. It has again been shown to be accurate.
3. I don't know how you got that from what he wrote. It's yet another frankly bizarre non sequitur.

Can I assume from that statement that Stephen believes the research he performed during his professional life is more reliable than the research preformed during the professional lives of other researchers? Just curious.

Given that Steve works at a prestigious genetics institute, his papers are peer reviewed and they've got over 50,000 citations, his work is certainly more reliable than Jeffrey Tomkins.

 

[pitabread]

It is a well established fact.

You didn't answer my question. I asked if it was actually true, then what is the context? You do know the context do you?

You really don't think evolutionists -- at least the secular kind -- are going to expose evolution fraud, do you?

The only legitimate fraud I am aware of that was ever used to attempt to argue for evolution in some capacity was Piltdown Man. And that was exposed by scientists, NOT creationists.

 

[USincognito]

Am I detecting ruffled feathers?



Are "retroviral insertions" a part of the so-called Junk DNA? Just curious.



How are those a problem for creation science?



How are GULO pseudogenes a problem for creation science?



There is zero evidence of that ever occurring. However, it does make for good "copy".



How is that a problem for creation science?



How is that a problem for creation science?

You really didn't think any of that mud would stick to the wall, did you?

Dan

I thought you said you knew a little bit about genetics. Your questions suggest otherwise.