Evolution's evidences exposed I

[Tomm]

(1) Lucy - nearly all experts agreed Lucy was a chimpanzee.

(2) Heidleberg man - built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Nebraska Man - 1 tooth found...turned out to be a pig's tooth

 

[Dannager]

Would you be averse to creating a thread with these "exposing the evidence" claims in the Origins Theology board? I'd love to discuss the topic, but can't do so here.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Here are a few, the sad thing is some of these are still used in textbooks to "prove" evolution. So evolutionists may be honest enough to expose some of these lies in a sense but then still allow for it to be taught to students...

4. Archaeoraptor, used to support dinosaur to bird evolution, proven as a hoax.

5. Peppered moths - totally unscientific experiement to show natural selection, which creationists believe in anyways.

6. Fake pictures of embyros that distort the growing process of embyros.

7. That human embryos have gill slits.

 

[KerrMetric]

You believe this list?

 

[gloryseven]

Well, the gill slits was pretty bad...

 

[mark kennedy]

Let's not forget Piltdown Man, truly one of the most successful forgeries in the history of paleontology.

The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that because Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! -- see to the right. The Piltdown mandible is the second from the top. Many researchers not associated with the forgery simply saw what they wanted to see in Piltdown. Publications on the "ape-like qualities" of the cranium of Piltdown were not uncommon, and these were authored by trained anatomists looking at a fully modern human cranium.​

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/pilt.html

That's the Smithsonian Institute admitting that it was both a fraud and they were fooled. This lie was perpetuated for nearly a half a century.

Ok, should I get on my soapbox about the genetic diversity between chimps and humans now? I don't know, maybe I had better wait since that particular fraud has not been fully exposed just yet.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Let's not forget Pildown Man, truely one of the most succssfull forgeries in the history of paleontology.

Its not evidence any more though, is it?

(1) Lucy - nearly all experts agreed Lucy was a chimpanzee.

(2) Heidleberg man - built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

Sources?

Nebraska Man - 1 tooth found...turned out to be a pig's tooth

Where does Nebraska man feature in the proposed evolutionary family tree?

4. Archaeoraptor, used to support dinosaur to bird evolution, proven as a hoax.

Indeed. Although, unfortunately for us creationists, the fossils used in the archeoraptor hoax, and those found subsequently in the same fossil beds as those the archeoraptor ones came from... actuall DO rather tend to support the evolutionists claims.

5. Peppered moths - totally unscientific experiement to show natural selection, which creationists believe in anyways.

How is this an unscientific experiment?

6. Fake pictures of embyros that distort the growing process of embyros.

fake?

7. That human embryos have gill slits.

Human embryos DO have gill slits!

 

[Chief117]

I have to say that I appreciate compiling lists like this...but I also want to express using caution as the items in this list really aren't that great. As a Creationist I think we need to be careful about "over-stepping our bounds" when claiming something is or isn't scientific, or does or does-not support evolution. Some things may fall in that category, but let's not be too hasty in that.

For example:

5. Peppered moths - totally unscientific experiement to show natural selection, which creationists believe in anyways.

First of all, it wasn't an experiment. It was an observation. Secondly, it isn't "unscientific". It merely, as you pointed out, demonstrates natural selection. But there's nothing "unscientific" about it.

As a point of agreement, it is NOT evolutionary either.

Quote:
7. That human embryos have gill slits.
Human embryos DO have gill slits!

This is one of those annoying things. Human embryos do not have gills, although they do have folds in the neck. Most (evolutionary?) scientists call them gill slits, despite the incredibly misleading term (which is based on false evolutionary thought).

These so-called "gill slits" have nothing to do with gills, or any alleged development mirroring past evolutionary pathways. The slits are merely folds which develop into several things--such as glands in the throat if my memory serves correctly.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I remind everyone of the Creationism Forum rules:

Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.

If you would like to debate this topic, you are more than welcome to open a new thread in the Origins Open Forum

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hey, as a CREATIONIST! We KNOW we are right, therefore, we can hold ourselves to the HIGHEST scientific standards, because we should KNOW that they will back us up. So engageing in strawmen arguments like those above should be considered beneath us.

Lets deal with ACTUAL evidence... the scientific, empiricial, anarguable evidence that supports creationism, rather than making stuff up that we KNOW is false about what we would LIKE evolutionists to say, but they don't, in fact, say.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

These so-called "gill slits" have nothing to do with gills, or any alleged development mirroring past evolutionary pathways. The slits are merely folds which develop into several things--such as glands in the throat if my memory serves correctly.

I understood them to develop into ears?

I don't believe that any embryologist says that they serve as functional gills at any point, do they?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Heakel did...and faked the drawing to prove our "common ancestry". All of which is still being presented as fact by evolutionists in classroom environments...

Just go read a few textbooks

 

[laptoppop]

Hey, as a CREATIONIST! We KNOW we are right, therefore, we can hold ourselves to the HIGHEST scientific standards, because we should KNOW that they will back us up. So engageing in strawmen arguments like those above (and subsequently addressed by my deleted post) should be considered beneath us.

Lets deal with ACTUAL evidence... the scientific, empiricial, anarguable evidence that supports creationism, rather than making stuff up that we KNOW is false about what we would LIKE evolutionists to say, but they don't, in fact, say.

Forgive me if I am misremembering -- but from my recollection of your posts I thought you were a TE. Would you call yourself a OEC or YEC or ? I ask because this subforum is specifically set aside -- and not for "God created using evolutionary processes".
Thanks

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Heakel did...and faked the drawing to prove our "common ancestry".

What do you mean by "faked"?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Forgive me if I am misremembering -- but from my recollection of your posts I thought you were a TE. Would you call yourself a OEC or YEC or ?
Thanks

I'm YEC now. I'm spending March as one, having been swayed by the arguments of dad, AV1611VET and carico... at the enbd of March I'll eval;uate my position and see how my spiritual welfare is going as a result

 

[Gwenyfur]

Where does Nebraska man feature in the proposed evolutionary family tree?

"In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link"

Source

 

[laptoppop]

What do you mean by "faked"?

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link"

Yes, and this was a mistake. However, I don't think anyone on the evolutionist side is currently pointing to this tooth as an example of evidence of common decent are they?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44).

Do current evolution supporting text books currently use haekel's drawings, or rather, photographs?

Are inaccuracies in drawings the same as "fakes"