Important interpretation? : does having been a monkey, help all future "evolutions" in a monkey way?

[Gene2memE]

but it still requires evidence, got any?

How long have you got?

Name a prominent creationist organisation and let the fun begin!

 

[Shemjaza]

but it still requires evidence, got any?

Well, I they misrepresent transitional species.

You could make the case that it's solely from ignorance... but that's little better given the claim to be able to respond to science.

 

[disciple Clint]

How long have you got?

Name a prominent creationist organisation and let the fun begin!

provide any evidence available.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, I they misrepresent transitional species.

You could make the case that it's solely from ignorance... but that's little better given the claim to be able to respond to science.

Once again say it does not make it a fact. evidence is required.

 

[Shemjaza]

Once again say it does not make it a fact. evidence is required.

Well, what I said a few posts ago was this:

Looking at their content about transitional fossils, they absolutely misrepresent the images presented to support evolution.

The ordering of skulls is not to present a sequential order of ancestry, it's to demonstrate that the entire spectrum of form and size between chimp and human exists in the fossil record.

The also seem to omit any reference to the extensive evidence for the fact that most primate transitional species have bone structure indicating an upright gait.

There are multiple near complete examples of skulls of my two favourite transitional species, Homo habilis and Homo erectus... two species that do not fit into the idea of a fundamentally different "ape" and "man".

The point is that they state false or misleading descriptions of the intent of presented evidence.

Or imply that it is unreliable or fabricated without any justification.



As an aside, it's interesting that the depiction of the antediluvian age as a time when animals were giant and monstrous and supernatural heroes fought them seems more like pulp fantasy than religious history.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How long have you got?

Name a prominent creationist organisation and let the fun begin!

What do you have for CMI? (That's how this started.)

The search terms were too generic and I didn't have a pre-made list of such.

Though there is Andrew Snelling, the geologist. He publishes in both the standard geological literature (using standard dating) and in the creationist literature (using creationist dating) with no cross references between the two publication streams.

 

[Gene2memE]

What do you have for CMI? (That's how this started.)

Not CMI, but here's one from the 'Centre for Creation Science':
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - What Was Archaeopteryx?

"Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery."

This is a lie. Archaeopteryx is demonstrably not a forgery. You might be forgiven for writing that Archaeopteryx was a forgery in the 1860s or 1870s. But this article was written sometime after 2013 (latest source) and updated as of 2020.

The original Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in 1861 (actually, the first was discovered in 1855, but misclassified for ~115 years). However, by 2020 no fewer than 11 complete or near complete Archaeopteryx skeletons had been discovered, and there were several other fragmentary remains. No less than five of these had been discovered and described in the previous 15 years - anyone investigating Archaeopteryx could not fail to be informed about these, even in just the popular press or with the most cursory online search.

Here's another lie, from the same article:

"Fossilized feathers from any animal are almost unknown,"

This is not only a lie, but a really dumb one. Given away by the sources within the article.

One of their own sources states:

"Suspicions dog any specimens from the fabulous fossil fields in northeast China's Liaoning province, where Aurornis and dozens of other new species of feathered dinosaurs and early birds have been found over the past 15 years".

Fossilized feathers are discovered routinely in paleontology. Fossilized feathers from dinosaurs became increasingly commonplace in mid 1990s, starting with Sinosauropteryx. By the time this article was written there were literally more than 100 avian and non avian dinosaur species with evidence of feathers - either complex flight feathers or simpler filament structures. For instance, there are more than 30 described Microraptor fossil specimens with distinct flight feathers.

Oh, and before a creationist tries to home in one the word "suspicions" - the issue here is commercial and amateur dealers trying to sell forgeries and composites as new finds/new species and then paleontologists having to got through CT/X-ray and other testing to determine authenticity. It's not disputing whether these are actually dinosaur fossils, or whether feathered dinosaur species are actually being discovered.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Actually my post is an attempt to point out that it is illogical that we evolved from a lower life form.

There is no such thing as a "lower" life form.
All life forms are equal... except lawyers.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but it still requires evidence, got any?

I provided you with a specific example of CMI misbehaving. Your response? Handwave it away and ask for evidence.

Are you a CMI contributor? You certainly appear to follow their modus operandi.

 

[Mr Laurier]

So you believe your ancestors are apes?

Humans are apes.
Just as gorillas are apes, and chimpanzees are apes.

Where does your morality come from?

The morality factory in Saskatchewan
Seriously, humans share a general human morality, which evolved along with us as a species.
All social animals have a form of morality. Its the rules that allow social animals to survive.

Where does your perception of right and wrong come from?

Observable reality.

Why not just act like the animal you seem to believe you are?

Because I do act like the animal i AM. (and belief has nothing to do with it)
My lack of leaves, chlorophyll, and other vegetative traits, clearly define me as NOT A PLANT.
Whats left?

(No offence), genuine question?

 

[disciple Clint]

I provided you with a specific example of CMI misbehaving. Your response? Handwave it away and ask for evidence.

Are you a CMI contributor? You certainly appear to follow their modus operandi.

one example hardly supports the post.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

one example hardly supports the post.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. You don’t get to pretend it doesn't exist simply because you don't like what it says.

For goodness sake, the CMI guys admitted their dishonesty, but you don't think that's enough?

 

[disciple Clint]

You asked for an example, I gave you one. You don’t get to pretend it doesn't exist simply because you don't like what it says.

For goodness sake, the CMI guys admitted their dishonesty, but you don't think that's enough?

and that example is supposed to support the statement ""The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars" Seriously come on please consider that one example hardly supports the post

 

[Bungle_Bear]

and that example is supposed to support the statement ""The main creationist orgs are all notorious liars" Seriously come on please consider that one example hardly supports the post

Other than CMI and AiG (which are pretty much the same organisation), who do you consider to be a main creationist organisation?

I believe I have met your request. Please stop handwaving it away.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Other than CMI and AiG (which are pretty much the same organisation), who do you consider to be a main creationist organisation?

I believe I have met your request. Please stop handwaving it away.

The other one that comes to mind is the Discovery Institute (sic), but there whole existence is a lie. (For starters the lie that they are "secular" or "scientific" and not just another religious op. Though they have largely dropped that facade and are deep into " the culture wars".)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The other one that comes to mind is the Discovery Institute (sic), but there whole existence is a lie. (For starters the lie that they are "secular" or "scientific" and not just another religious op. Though they have largely dropped that facade and are deep into " the culture wars".)

I had forgotten them. Thanks for reminding me of their existence!

So, @disciple Clint here's an example of Casey Luskin being less than honest.

 

[disciple Clint]

The other one that comes to mind is the Discovery Institute (sic), but there whole existence is a lie. (For starters the lie that they are "secular" or "scientific" and not just another religious op. Though they have largely dropped that facade and are deep into " the culture wars".)

AND is there any evidence to confirm that allegation?

 

[disciple Clint]

I had forgotten them. Thanks for reminding me of their existence!

So, @disciple Clint here's an example of Casey Luskin being less than honest.

Using a blog as evidence, seriously???????

 

[Shemjaza]

AND is there any evidence to confirm that allegation?

The wedge document is pretty clear evidence of underhanded tactics.

 

[AV1611VET]

The wedge document is pretty clear evidence of underhanded tactics.

I agree.