Bible Research Tools
Well-Known Member
- May 12, 2018
- 495
- 152
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, so a figment of your imagination then.
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.
Amazingly, the ToE is NOT ABOUT the ORIGIN OF LIFE.
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.
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'?
Use the search function on this forum and search for Tomkins - you will see that his claims have been thoroughly debunked.
Prove it.
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.
I know a little about it. Now, answer the question.
Prove it.
Prove evolutionary geology is anything more and anti-Moses bigotry.
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
No doubt, the religion of evolutionism has a long, fraudulent history.
I'm doubtful that his original drawings are in modern textbooks and even if they are what is the context?
The only people around here who keep bringing this up are creationists.
You don't get out much, do you?
No doubt, the religion of evolutionism has a long, fraudulent history.
You really don't think evolutionists -- at least the secular kind -- are going to expose evolution fraud, do you?
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.
Tell that to the evolutionists who pretend evolutionism is a fact. That should go over well.
You are aware that mathematics is not falsifiable, are you not?
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.
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.
It is a well established fact.
You really don't think evolutionists -- at least the secular kind -- are going to expose evolution fraud, do you?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?