• 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.

Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟109,603.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It appears some try to discredit others to undermine what they present.

And think they have answered the question when they didn't.

Once again, RC

Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans

20180825_201726.jpg


This macro-assemblages list is a guess without sequences of fossils between them.

You know, Paleontology Without Conjecture
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟135,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans
6 September 2018 Heissonear: Once again a stupid demand for arbitrary fossils and lies about the fossil record.
This is the inane creationist tactic of asking for fossils in-between the fossils that we have which is then repeated when those fossils are found and repeated again and again and again.

We have fossils that already establish the evolution of cetaceans. Any more discoveries will be icing on the cake.

A "guess without sequences of fossils between them" lie when he has a diagram of the sequence of fossils worked out from the evidence.
Cetaceans have distinctive features, e.g. the involucrum. Any fossil with those features is a cetacean. The dating of the fossils gives their sequence. The sequence is confirmed by the changes in the fossils, e.g. the nostrils moving up the snout to the top of the head, limbs becoming smaller, etc.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It appears some try to discredit others to undermine what they present.

And think they have answered the question when they didn't.

Once again, RC

Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans

View attachment 240111

This macro-assemblages list is a guess without sequences of fossils between them.

You know, Paleontology Without Conjecture

Could we have a link for the source of your illustration please?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It appears some try to discredit others to undermine what they present.
It appears that a select handful of creationists embellish their educational background to make people think they understand more than they do.
Where are the missing fossils between these Cetaceans

This is a spectacularly naive and simple-minded "argument" - the Gish gap gambit.

This is why I know you are ignorant of genetics and development, for you seem to believe that changes in genomes (the basis for the raw material of evolution) must produce minute changes that have to add on top of each all the time.
Coupled with your already-admitted ignorance of paleontology, and we have a recipe for self-parody on your part.

I have mentioned this before and you dutifully ignored it - a single point mutation in a gene for a fibroblast growth factor receptor produces an achondroplastic phenotype. This results in things like disproportionate limb growth, reduction in interphalangeal joints, etc.

If your grade-school level notions had merit, then it would be impossible for a 'normal' phenotype parent to give birth to an achondroplastic child with such pronounced morphological differences from the parent.
yet, there they are - no "intermediates" at all.

Learn some biology BEFORE you pontificate using your Abeka homeschool texts as your sole source of knowledge.
This macro-assemblages list is a guess without sequences of fossils between them.
Lie.
You know, Paleontology Without Conjectur

Show us the skeletons of each of your ancestors back to Adam, or creation will be proven false, just conjecture.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The quote-bombing plagiarist is back with a sad Gish Gallop on creationist website compilations that he has never seen the primary sources of.

Such sad dishonesty is a blemish on the religion, it seems to me.

And of course, never any evidence FOR the bible tales.

You should have read this cautionary tale - it is why I do not believe or trust you to be honest on any topic:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/on-the-dangers-of-arguing-via-quote-yec-style.8077057/
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
*staff edit*


The Fossil Record


“Evolutionist see what they want to see, they see a past they believe has happened, and that desire drives their vision.”
-Randy Guliazza P.E M.D the imaginary Piltdown man


Artistic License

“Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.”
-Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific AmericanHYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"'HYPERLINK "http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf"s Nonsense


“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to advertisements for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape—stocky, jutting jaw, hunched in the knuckle-walking position. On the right, a man—graceful, high forehead, striding purposefully into the future. Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans, as the shoulders start to pull back, the torso slims down, the arms retract, the legs extend, the cranium expands and the chin recedes. Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
-Wood, B., Who are we? New Scientist 176(2366):44–47, 26 October 2002


Why is it evolutionist think that dead organisms can do something “long ago” and “far away” that the same organisms cannot do today? Which is reproduce something other than its kind. In part because most of what is presented as missing links is just artistic license. Artists are told to draw the creature from the perspective of evolution and how old the fossils are said to be, thus how far along in the evolutionary process they are. Most fossils are really only fragments of the original animal a piece of jaw or tooth and can be interpreted various ways and disagreements over even what species they are occur. Than they draw pictures of what they believe it may have looked like in this evolutionary process to try to convince you of evolution, Allot of imagination and interpretation go into these finds and drawings. Here is the missing link “European man”

View attachment 239627

“Imaginative action stories, art, and computer animations must be employed to “sell” evolution to the public.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the fossil Record 2017


Lucy is a well known claimed missing link [more on lucy later]. She is also a very complete fossil 40%compared to most usally 10% or less. Yet even with Lucy there are many forms and ways she has been presented by evolutionist.

View attachment 239628
View attachment 239629
View attachment 239630

The above shows the actual fossils found . With enough interpretation you can make fossils appear as you wish them to. In the book The greatest hoax on earth by Jonathan Safarti he talked of any interview with a fossil artists. Who says they draw a picture of what they are told to make the fossil look like, than the drawings are sent back to make more ape like, more human, or whatever is desired, until the picture matches what the evolutionist wanted. So when ever you see a picture in a textbook as proof of a missing link, ignore it and first see the actual fossils to see if the evidence matches the story told about them, what they want you to believe the fossils say.

fossils are fickle, bones will sing any song you want to hear”
-Shreeve j arguments over a woman discover 11[8] 58 1990


“In science, “seeing is believing” but in evolution, “believing is seeing.” It takes a lot of believing to see an evolutionary thread through the scattered, shattered fossil fragments that serve as a basis for so many different “just so” stories and illustrative paintings.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin the Fossil Record 2017


In fact they dont even need fossils

“I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
-Charles Darwin



Nebraska man

View attachment 239631

Nebraska man was used to support evolution as a missing link It was presented in the museums and textbooks, shown in pictures in newspapers, as a missing link. They had enough fossil evidence that they could tell what environment Nebraska man lived in, what his wife and kids looked like, and what they ate. It was examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US and classified as a missing link. The fossils remains were estimated to be around 10 million years old. Later it was found out the only actual evidence found was 1 tooth.

View attachment 239632

As Creationist Duane Gish said, science is truly an amazing thing when they get that much information from one tooth. Not only that, it was a tooth of a pig. Here is the real Nebraska man

View attachment 239633

This shows how much imagination goes along with these finds and that they see what they want to see. How many believed in evolution because of this “missing link” over the decades.


Piltdown man

View attachment 239634


“Darwin's theory is proved true”
-NY Times sep 22 1912


“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.
-Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.


Piltdown man was in the textbooks and museums as proof of evolution for over 40 years it was seen as the fossil evidence for evolution. Hundreds of peer reviewed research papers were written on the fossil and information was factually given about how they died, their language and parenting. Tax money was used to build a monument and national sanctuary at the site of the find for this “most important evidence for evolution.” Claimed to be between 100,000 and 500,000 years old as newspapers around the world sold it to the public as proof of evolution.

“Researchers shaped reality to their hearts desire.”
-Blinderman The Piltdown Inquest

“Many scientist were so elated by the discovery that they uncritically accepted the sloppy forgery”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries


Later it was found to be a human skull with an apes jaw chiseled down to fit and stained to look old actually only a few hundred years old. Many scientist were involved with the forgeries including sir Arthur Smith Woodward director of the natural history museum in London who was given many awards and honors for the find. The job was even done horribly, scratch marks were left teeth artificially ground down in one case the pulp cavity was worn down and had to be filled with sand. The teeth were angular instead or rounded, flattened at different angels and standard store bought paint was used on the canine tooth.

“How easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for.”
-biology philosopher Jane Maienschein Maienschein, J. 1997. The One and the Many: Epistemological Reflections on the Modern Human Origins Debates. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. Clark, G. A. and C. M. Willermet, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 413.

*staff edit*


If you want to see how he fared when he regurgi-trolled his plagiarized quotes on another forum, and not waste time producing lengthy replies, just go here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eation-vs-evolution-the-fossil-record.538071/

Sad that he is still using documented liar Randy Guliazza as a source.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol.

Was it a creationist that faked piltdown man?
No, but it wasn't a creationist that figured out it was fake.
Was it a creationist that faked Nebraska man?
No, but it is creationists that lie about it - it wasn't 'faked' , it was a mistake. You know - like quoting a paper on hybridization that explains that alleles arise via mutation to argue that alleles do not arise via mutation. Or was that just ignorance and malice?
Was it a creationist that drew flippers, flukes and blow holes where none existed?
No, it is creationists that do not understand anatomy.
No, it was creationists that objected and so were accused of lying, even if in the end it was the evolutionists that were found to be the liars......

On the contrary - the creationists are shown to be liars over and over. Even on this forum, not to mention the professional liars like Randy Guliazza or Duane Gish or Jeff Tomkins.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am guessing you are referring to Archaeopteryx. So if you think it is a missing link argue it.
Do you consider your cousins 'missing links' between you and your great grandparents?

Archie had both bird and reptile features. Isn't that enough?
Respond to what I have said.

What, exactly, have YOU actually ever said here or on the other forums that you spam-troll your same lists of dubious plagiarized quotes that was not merely at best a paraphrase of some quotes you lifted from other creationist sources?

Surely you are not still going to pretend that you have gleaned your quotes via reading the original sources - we all know that is a lie.
Show us why it proves evolution.

Nobody has said that it "proves evolution" that I am aware of. Archie is but one of thousands of fossils that, in their totality, point inexorably to long-term evolutionary processes and not god magic.
Instead of just more baseless claims support your posts.
Wow...

You lack of introspection, humility, and integrity is thunderous.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My apologies...I was confusing Piltdown and Nebraska.

Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time. But that is the beauty of peer review...liars get caught.
Funny that it was not creationists that caught it...
How is this a bad thing?
And, as you probably know, there were many that doubted Piltdown's authenticity from the get-go. A fellow named Olson or something like that comes to mind - it has been some time since I read about it. I think it is in one of Gould's books.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I love when science proves evolutionist wrong in their attempts to mislead the public, nothing to object to at all from me.
Do you love it when, for example, Jeff Tomkin's lies (or incompetence) is exposed? Most creationists do not - they ignore the facts in order to prop up their ancient middle eastern myths.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh, and feel free to give some examples of published "evolutionists" who have quote mined to support evolution. Or an evolutionary scientist in good standing who lies about his education.

You say that you have seen all these same things, but I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.
Agreed on all counts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I prefer to keep threads on topic and also to lay out the case in full for new topics. You bring up a subject that deserves its own topic and thread.


I never said science was a religion. i said evolution is a anti science religion refuted by science and observation such as the fossil record.

I agree i also hate when evolutionist are anti science, rather they should allow observation and the fossil record to form their beliefs rather than their faith ignore science.

It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).


Further than we can do science shows evolution is false.


Science only Makes Sense in a Biblical Worldview


If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter or there is a creator. Its strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second”
-John Lennox prof fellow of mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university 2009


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.
Wow - you've been copy-pasting this exact post (or large chunks of it - or plagiarizing it)since 2011.

We can add 'lazy' to the negative attributes of creationists, now.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
6 September 2018 Heissonear: Once again a stupid demand for arbitrary fossils and lies about the fossil record.
This is the inane creationist tactic of asking for fossils in-between the fossils that we have which is then repeated when those fossils are found and repeated again and again and again.

We have fossils that already establish the evolution of cetaceans. Any more discoveries will be icing on the cake.

A "guess without sequences of fossils between them" lie when he has a diagram of the sequence of fossils worked out from the evidence.
Cetaceans have distinctive features, e.g. the involucrum. Any fossil with those features is a cetacean. The dating of the fossils gives their sequence. The sequence is confirmed by the changes in the fossils, e.g. the nostrils moving up the snout to the top of the head, limbs becoming smaller, etc.
Once again, after you on another post presented which fossils prove evolution, see attached of said fossils. They do not show detailed morphological proof of evolution.

20180825_201726.jpg


What you presented, as showing in the illustration of Cetaceans, is a macro-assemblages. That is not proof of evolution. You think we need to make a conclusion on insufficient data. Missing fossils between the shown fossils.

That is called conjecture.

Evolution is based on conjecture.

You have yet to show the inbetween lifeforms that morphologically details on of the above lifeforms changing through step by step morphological feature into another creature.

Where are the inbetween fossils?

You have yet to proof evolution by the creatures of the past.

No hand waving. Let us all see the fossils that prove evolution occurred.

How many times now have I requested this? And the best you can do is macro-assemblages. And the need for conjecture.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.....................This is a spectacularly naive and simple-minded "argument" - the Gish gap gambit.......................
I asked a simple question for you to prove evolution by the fossil record.

You keep dodging your opportunity to answer.

That is because the fossil record does not prove evolution.

And you have no data to prove evolution every happened.

All you present are possibilities, speculations, and conjecture-based claims.

Evolution has hit a scientific wall of evidence, and all we see arround us are pieces of conjecture.

Evolution by science lacks proof. It has been built on conjecture.

I faced up. Now, how about you?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0