-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
I was hoping to get some feedback on this statement from the radio spot that NP wrongly accused ardipithecus of lying about...
See any hooves there???
See any hooves there???
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I was hoping to get some feedback on this statement from the radio spot that NP wrongly accused ardipithecus of lying about...
See any hooves there???
No, I don't. Please ask Ken Ham what he was talking about, because I can't speak for him. But I won't assume he was LYING or even mistaken until I know what he was talking about.
Upvote
0
Oh, please. You've got an audience, and you know it. You're being so pompous in here it's like watching a campy John Waters movie without the bad taste, although it's just as awful. If you weren't, if you were so content that you're right and all the evolutionists are wrong, AND YOU DIDN'T CARE, you would not be in here trying to discredit them. If I'm wrong, then why else are you so desperate to show evolution has holes in it... so what?
- Joe
Upvote
0
Yes, you took dictation pretty well, which is mystifying, since you don't seem to read what's right in front of you very well (as I've demonstrated elsewhere).
Remember that his radio spot was entirely about a specific book on evolution. So, working from your transcription, he said THE PICTURE IN THE BOOK TO WHICH HE WAS REFERRING was based on an incomplete fossil. He was NOT SAYING THAT THE REST OF THE BONES HAD NEVER BEEN FOUND.
He also said the TOES ended in a hoof. I still have no idea what he meant by that, and I don't see a hoof in the fossil (if indeed it would be possible to see one if it was there), but I also don't understand how toes can end in a hoof, so I'm not the one to ask.
Upvote
0
If I were desperate, I'd be responding to well founded points about geochronology with accusations that someone lied about a pelvis. Now THAT is desperate.
Evolution doesn't just have holes in it. It's been shot up so badly and the body has been rotting for so long there's barely enough left to fossilize into something even evolutionists could reconstruct from their imaginations.
So what am I doing here? I'm having a terrific time! It's fun watching evolutionists prop up what's left of this rotting mass and scream, "It's alive! ALIVE, I tell you!" I wish it weren't so much fun, because I really should be doing other things.
Upvote
0
Fossil.
Artist's conception of Ambulocetus.
Artist's conception of a whale.
Okay, now that you mention it, if I squint my eyes and turn my head a little, I guess I can see the connection after all. So I guess that proves Ambulocetus was an ancestor of the whale. I stand corrected.
Artist's conception of Ambulocetus.
Artist's conception of a whale.
Okay, now that you mention it, if I squint my eyes and turn my head a little, I guess I can see the connection after all. So I guess that proves Ambulocetus was an ancestor of the whale. I stand corrected.
Upvote
0
As I mentioned before ... go back and check your original thread. The "points" about geochronology turn out to be no better founded than the "points" about the pelvis...
Yes, the same claim, only narrowed down to the level of a book, and probably bogus in reference to the book's illustration just as much as it was bogus in reference to the AIG "rebuttal" of Kenneth Miller's quote from the PBS series Evolution (which did not come out until last year, long, long after the rest of the Ambulocetus fossil in question was excavated).
Upvote
0
And who honestly believes all this bluster about the pelvis of ambulocetus is merely meant to discredit illustrations of it that may have come from before the rest of the fossil was excavated? Really? Maintaining plausible deniability is not a tactic that adds credibility to something like this. They are trying to convince people that ambulocetus was not a transitional whale, when clearly all of the data points to the fact that it was.
Upvote
0
Npeterly, there will never be gaping holes in evolution as long as creationists are unable to explain the relationships between genomes
Upvote
0
Well, that's good. At least you're enjoying yourself. It's too bad you have such a hatred for evolutionists and their lies, because there's a lot you can actually learn about our origins. You might find it quite fascinating (like I do) if only you stopped being so cynical about it and took it seriously for once.
Oh well.
- Joe
Upvote
0
petreley, you're hopeless.
I would bet money the reason Morat posted the link to the rebuttal of Sarfati's "critique" of the PBS series right off the bat was because he, like many of us, have seen this "missing pelvis" garbage so many times it's positively sick-making.
Not only does Morat's linked article refute Sarfati's most recent jiggery pokery, it refutes antecedent gibberish on the same subject by Jack Batten, also archived without corrective comment at AiG. By extension the lie is also given to Angela Meyer's AiG tripe.
In other words, it's one stop shopping to debunk pretty much everything AiG has archived on the subject. We like to keep up to date around here, unlike the friendly neighborhood creationists. You think we've never seen this AiG crap before or what?
It's not our fault your favorite source of prevarication can't update its own archive of lies to comport with current evidence. How on earth do you expect anyone to take whatever arguments against geochronology (the word is not even mentioned in Meyer's article) are supposedly being put forth in that nonsense when one of its central claims is no longer even remotely relevant?
Whining about the dates on AiG's trash is laughable in the extreme. That AiG was chronologically unable to address articles that appear in the future is no excuse for Sarfati's ignorance in repeating the same tired crap again recently. And all of the referenced articles are still available at AiG's website without a hint of correction. It's a joke, and speaks volumes about your transparent, baseless agenda.
By the way have you started a thread on the Paluxy Man Tracks yet? I hear Carl Baugh is still using them to debunk evolution. You might want to check him out. Then we can post the link to AiG wherein AiG advises the faithful not to cite the Man Tracks anymore. If Ham/Sarfati/Batten say so, it must be true, right?
I would bet money the reason Morat posted the link to the rebuttal of Sarfati's "critique" of the PBS series right off the bat was because he, like many of us, have seen this "missing pelvis" garbage so many times it's positively sick-making.
Not only does Morat's linked article refute Sarfati's most recent jiggery pokery, it refutes antecedent gibberish on the same subject by Jack Batten, also archived without corrective comment at AiG. By extension the lie is also given to Angela Meyer's AiG tripe.
In other words, it's one stop shopping to debunk pretty much everything AiG has archived on the subject. We like to keep up to date around here, unlike the friendly neighborhood creationists. You think we've never seen this AiG crap before or what?
It's not our fault your favorite source of prevarication can't update its own archive of lies to comport with current evidence. How on earth do you expect anyone to take whatever arguments against geochronology (the word is not even mentioned in Meyer's article) are supposedly being put forth in that nonsense when one of its central claims is no longer even remotely relevant?
Whining about the dates on AiG's trash is laughable in the extreme. That AiG was chronologically unable to address articles that appear in the future is no excuse for Sarfati's ignorance in repeating the same tired crap again recently. And all of the referenced articles are still available at AiG's website without a hint of correction. It's a joke, and speaks volumes about your transparent, baseless agenda.
By the way have you started a thread on the Paluxy Man Tracks yet? I hear Carl Baugh is still using them to debunk evolution. You might want to check him out. Then we can post the link to AiG wherein AiG advises the faithful not to cite the Man Tracks anymore. If Ham/Sarfati/Batten say so, it must be true, right?
Upvote
0
Cynical... now that's a good word... Skeptical... he's extremely skeptical. Unless some creationist claims he was instructed to fudge his drawings for a textbook. No need for any skepticism there - it favors his anti-evolutionary thesis, so it must be God's truth.
And when some para-science web-site tells him that people grow a third set of teeth... then you don't see Nick the skeptic. You see the True Believer bursting out from that sketpical frame.
And when someone has a picture of a roughly foot-print shaped outline around a fossil trilobite... No question about whether human's once went trilo-giggin'.
And when someone claims that, according to another creaitonist, there are "whales" in strata above the Ambulocetus...
etc.. ad infinitum...
And when some para-science web-site tells him that people grow a third set of teeth... then you don't see Nick the skeptic. You see the True Believer bursting out from that sketpical frame.
And when someone has a picture of a roughly foot-print shaped outline around a fossil trilobite... No question about whether human's once went trilo-giggin'.
And when someone claims that, according to another creaitonist, there are "whales" in strata above the Ambulocetus...
etc.. ad infinitum...
Upvote
0
ROFL!! First of all, it's not hatred. But regardless, you might as well say...
"It's too bad you think the tooth fairy is something to make fun of, because there's a lot you can actually learn about the origins of tooth fairy believers. You might find it quite fascinating (like I do) if only you stopped being so cynical about the tooth fairy and took it seriously for once."
Oh, okay. That makes so much more sense when you put it that way.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by npetreley
Fossil.
Artist's conception of Ambulocetus.
Artist's conception of a whale.
Okay, now that you mention it, if I squint my eyes and turn my head a little, I guess I can see the connection after all. So I guess that proves Ambulocetus was an ancestor of the whale. I stand corrected.
C'mon guys, you're missing your queues. The artist who drew the picture of Ambulocetus was clearly a LIAR because the creature in the picture is pointing one way and the fossil is pointing the OTHER way.
Shame on him. If people are going to use illustrations like this to poke holes in evolution, they have no credibility at all. You know, I'll bet it was that creationist medical illustrator who did this illustration just to deceive others about the transitional nature of Ambulocetus. In fact, I'll say it WAS him without any evidence, just to discredit the guy. Heck, facts don't matter as long as I can make evolution look good.
Upvote
0
Yup. You can find it right next to the transitional series from 99.9% of the fossil record.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
