Originally posted by npetreley
This from a peron who (obviously, because he certainly doesn't object to the practice) approves of the practice of lying about what creationists say and publish in order to discredit any valid points they make.
Jerry, your credibility is in the precambrian, so anything you have to say about what creationists do in the court of public opinion is about as meaningful as evolution itself. Zero.
Just where did Jerry or anyone else lie about what AiG specifically claims about Ambulocetos, even when
those guys know it's untrue or entirely misleading?
Many scientists believe in evolution.
The majority of the American public does not.
Sounds to me like it's the scientists who are hoodwinked.
*Jaw drops*
Appealing to PUBLIC authority now? Let me ask you this--if a majority of the public believed in UFOs, Atlantis, Bigfoot and other things despite what 99% of scientists studying the relevant fields say, does that make the public right?
The fact of the matter is that no scientist can claim that YEC models provide an accurate and complete explanation for the data, because there exists data and contradictions that blow them out of the water. Not just a few things, but entire mountains of evidence and problems totally and irreconcilably incompatible with a global flood, six-day creation of everything 6000 years ago, and separately created 'kinds', to name but a few. On the other hand, evolution has mountains of evidence behind it and none contradicting it so far. It also has the observed mechanisms and clear indications from a zillion different lines of converging, independent evidence that they were used.
... 'Wow!' is all I can say. I'm completely flabbergasted by your fallacy-ridden posts. I really shouldn't be surprised, though, because I've seen even worse cases of cognitive dissonance on the parts of YECs previously... It is my sincere hope that you, like other victims, will one day recover and charlatans like AiG, the Society for UFO Research, revisionist historians and other pseudoscientists who prey on the gullible public will be increasingly exposed for who they are--basically, liars for their faith.
Dogmatic YECs in particular, the ones who claim equal scientific status for their 'models' such as the folks at AiG, give religion an undeserved bad name. They should probably be laughed out of their congregations before they do more damage to the credibility of Christianity than they already have.
Lanakila: I'm strangely unaware of Haeckel's diagrams being used in
any modern textbook as evidence, as opposed to historical reference. Moreover, embryonic homology is still very strong evidence for evolution--when a baleen whale fetus has teeth that later become reabsorbed and never appear in the infant, and the evolutionary hypothesis is that whales evolved from animals with teeth, you're gonna have a tough time explaining it via 'intelligent' design.
The fact that YECs often mention 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' as some kind of massive error that undermines evolution is exactly like their other claims, such as 'vestigial organs aren't vestigial'--total and complete ignorance of the relevant science.
If anything, it's an argument for MORE science education, not LESS--if no biologist accepts Haeckel's simplistic diagrams and actually base conclusions off of much more sophisticated data, but the public still accepts them surprisingly often and is largely unaware of embryonic homology, what does that say except that the public is ignorant of the last 80 years of research?
How come under close inspection to anyone besides an evolutionist wanting to believe in evolution, the fossils are incomplete and not transitional at all.
Paleontology is a well-respected science that uses principles known to be somewhat accurate even when working on a single bone. This can be checked by having a paleontologist (not the same at all as an 'evolutionist') successfully infer the characteristics of a known species merely by looking at an incomplete skeleton. Moreover, there are quite a great many things that you or I would simply be unqualified to tell from a fossil without advanced training.
When such reconstructions, based on the science of paleontology (not evolution) are compared, they provide extremely compelling evidence for evolution.
In other words, your objection basically boils down to 'if I can't hear radio waves directly, their reception must be highly inaccurate, even though radios are known to work'.
