proof evolutionists are propogandizers

[randman]

"Wow! That's interesting. Thanx. Although, please don't tell me your one of thouse people who stands in the middle of a college campus shouting at women who wear pants."

No, but I have preached quite a bit on college campuses, and elsewhere including some pretty bad neighborhoods, even late at night. Preached in a lot of situations and have seen some pretty incredible things happen.

I'll tell you one little snippet. One time the Lord led me to preach downtown in front of the post office in the town I was living in. Almost noone was therem, but I began to preach full volume thinking that maybe the people in the cars would get touched somehow. This guy though comes out and listens, and is agitated. He claims to be a satanist, and it is kind of weirs, but in talking to him (couldn't preach for so long that day), he asks why can't God speak for Himself, and the Lord moved in me to prophesy, and it gets fairly detailed. My eyes are closed, and when I open them, his face is disfigured as a demonic presence is manifesting. To make a long story short, he gets "delivered", the demons cast out, and he didn't even remember meeting us on the street. It was like, he said, he was pushed to the back of his mind. He went on later to become a missionary to Russia and started some churches there.
I tell you this story because it can seem silly to preach. It did that day, but a powerful conversion and deliverance came from it. I know you probably don't beleive in such things, but sometimes God wants us to do follish things to confound the wisdom of men.

Maybe one day you will open up to the possibility of a personal relationship with God and find these things not so strange.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Well, the gradual evolution of a three-toed animal to a one-toed animal would be continuous evolutionary change. That's exactly what the fossil record shows us with the horse series. I would say some of the series onthis page fall into the category of "continuous evolutionary change."

And this page demonstrates conclusively that it's bunk.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1219.asp

Ain't that wonderful? We both just proved that we can include URLs in a post and then use strong language to make whatever is at that link sound credible.

If that's the game you want to play, then it's your link against my link. You can dismiss my link all you want, but I'll just dismiss yours. Fair is fair.

 

[chickenman]

answersingenesis is so scientifically naive its laughable.

 

[randman]

Talkorigins is so scientifically naive its laughable.

 

[chickenman]

The thing is randman, you're not educated enough to know the difference

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
The thing is randman, you're not educated enough to know the difference

The thing is, chickenman (an appropriate handle, I might add), you're not courageous enough to admit when you're wrong.

 

[chickenman]

what am I wrong about? The arguments presented in your link are laughable.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
The reason I am using WorldBook is that is what kids first use generally. I agree it is very limited, but at the same time, it is probably the first written thing a child reads on evolution besides his textbook, and I think the author knows it.

Imagine, for a moment, that an Encyclopedia asked you to do their entry on some subject that you are knowledgeable in. They ask you to keep it simple & keep it brief, and to cover all the important points. Now, you go to your typewriter and start working on it. My question to you is this: HONESTLY, are you going to be thinking more about how to accomplish the task set out for you, or whether this will be the first thing a child reads on the subject outside of their school textbook?

There is a deliberateness to the deception used by evolutionists.

You haven't even proved there IS any deception used by evolutionists. Now you want to claim that there is a "deliberateness" to it as well. Why don't you back up and prove that evolutionists use deception.

And, if that is your main problem with evolution, why are you not, even more so, lambasting creationists and creationism? Why are you not letting Duane Gish have it with both barrels?

They may no longer see it, but they use arguments and terminology honed over the years which is deceptive, and just wrong. They want to make people believe. It's as if the need to have people believe in evolution has blurred the process of educating people about it.

Its as if the need to defend evolution against the organized movement to trash it has blurred the process of educating people about it. Amen.

Nick P on this board is so desperate to convince people NOT to believe in evolution that he is willing to hand-wave and shout, and make assertions and accusations that he can't back up and won't admit his error on. Why aren't you letting him have it with both barrels? Why don't you blast him every time he posts that baloney? Why the double standard?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
The "and" there clearly ties the phrase continuous to speciation, as does the meaning of continuous evolutionary change. In fact, the meaning is the same if the word speciation is not used, but it seems the author is making it clear that change includes speciation.

The rules of English grammar do allow for descriptives to apply to both sides of a conjunction. It also allows for them to not. Consider the following sentence: "Pious Christians and Atheists can agree on some things." In this sentence, does "pious" describe both Christians and Atheists or just Christians? The rules of English grammar do allow for that possibility, but normal reading comprehension would favor the other choice. "Pious" is not usually considered an appropriate adjective to describe Atheists.

Likewise in this case, "continuous speciation" doesn't make much sense from the context you have given us. One only has to look as far as your descriptions of "continuous speciation" to realize that the author did not intend "continuous" to describe "speciation."

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley

And this page demonstrates conclusively that it's bunk.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1219.asp

Wow, Nick. Maybe you should actually read my posts, considering that in this thread I pointed out to you that "Eohippus is a hyrax" is another baseless creationists lie. And what do you do, you come right back and provide me a link that claims as much. Wow you got me there.

Ain't that wonderful? We both just proved that we can include URLs in a post and then use strong language to make whatever is at that link sound credible.

Except that I don't need stong language to make my link sound credible. It already is without my intervention. Sometimes I wonder if you were ever taught about using references properly.

If that's the game you want to play, then it's your link against my link. You can dismiss my link all you want, but I'll just dismiss yours. Fair is fair.

This is not a link against link, but reference against reference. You have the right to challenge my reference, but your AiG article is hardly a challenge. As I will show below:

From Aig:
Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was most likely not related to horses at all, but to modern conies (creatures like rabbits). Indeed, the first specimen was named Hyracotherium by its discoverer, Robert Owen, because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony). Later specimens, found in North America were named Eohippus (' dawn horse'), but there is no sound reason for linking it with horses. So the horse family tree has a false origin.

False claim as evidenced here. Here are skull pictures from that page, yet AiG would have us believe that Eohippus is just a hyrax. I guess I'll let the evidence speak for itself.

Eohippus Skull:

Hyrax Skull:

The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this succession occur in one location. The series is formulated on the assumption of evolutionary progression, and then used to 'prove' evolution!

Amazingly, animals move around, especially horses. Does AiG really expect equids to stay in one place for over 50 million years? Such faulty reasoning ruins their argument.

The number of ribs vanes within the series up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

How dare an evolutionary series show variation! If AiG only knows one thing, it's that evolutionary processes should not show variation. Please. AiG wouldn't understand evolution, if it was written in Genesis. Hint: Variation is what we should expect.

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

Faulty reasoning, probably owing to the fact that their only reference is a National Geographic article from 1981! Alot, can happen in paleontology in 20 years. The fact that there is some debate on some of the relationships among the equids is not good evidence that they must not have evolved. I could make the similar argument by citing difference among Christians about salvation to prove that Jesus never existed.

Here is a page where readers can get a more recent view of horse evolution.

Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other.'

Yes, and the fact that wolves and dogs are found together shows that dogs aren't descended from wolves. I would expect such a comment from a child, but not an organization run by adults claiming to know better than the experts and having all the "answers."

Modern horses come in a wide variety of sizes. There is a great difference between the Fallabella horse of Argentina-- fully grown at 43 centimetres (17 inches) high -- and the massive Clydesdale. Both are horses. end [sic] the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.

AiG seriously missed the mark on this one. Scientists do not claim that larger evolved from smaller because one is larger and one is smaller. It is only a oberservation that the equids progressively get larger. So AiG is doing nothing more than attacking a strawman here.

In view of the above facts, it is amazing that evolutionists continue to present the horse series as one of their 'best proofs of evolution'.

In view of the AiG's errors and sloppy scholarship it is amazing that creationists continue to present this as their best proof against evolution.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Amazingly, animals move around, especially horses. Does AiG really expect equids to stay in one place for over 50 million years? Such faulty reasoning ruins their argument."

So did horses swim or fly then unless you think oceans didn't exist. Sorry I normally don't post on the evolution forums but I think your arguements are weaker then the ones you critisize since this statement isn't really a logical argument at all no matter how fancy you try to make it sound.

"In view of the AiG's errors and sloppy scholarship it is amazing that creationists continue to present this as their best proof against evolution."

And what degrees do you have? And because YOU THINK they are errors doesn't make it so.

One thing any proevolutionist doesn't lack seems to be pride.

 

[Thunderchild]

Hmmm. I wasn't aware that there was any substantial evidence for macro-evolution. It seemed from what I had learned that macro-evolution was largely speculative, based on observable micro-evolution and an extrapolation of those observations. It is known, and acknowledged by evolutionists, that from time to time scientists have fabricated evidence to support the theory (which when such subterfuges are unearthed does no more than undermine honest evolutionists.)

Will check some of these links for further information.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Project 86
"Amazingly, animals move around, especially horses. Does AiG really expect equids to stay in one place for over 50 million years? Such faulty reasoning ruins their argument."

So did horses swim or fly then unless you think oceans didn't exist. Sorry I normally don't post on the evolution forums but I think your arguements are weaker then the ones you critisize since this statement isn't really a logical argument at all no matter how fancy you try to make it sound.

So, basically what you are saying here is that you think the assumption that horse ancestors did not move around is a good one? Can you prove that American Indians came to North America on the Mayflower by this same reasoning?

"In view of the AiG's errors and sloppy scholarship it is amazing that creationists continue to present this as their best proof against evolution."

And what degrees do you have? And because YOU THINK they are errors doesn't make it so.

One thing any proevolutionist doesn't lack seems to be pride.

Rufus will probably be more than happy to provide his credentials... If the debate comes down to credentials, the creationists have already lost. Their half-dozen credentialed evolution-deniers do not stack up against the scientists thousands of PhD's.

The AIG article is chock full of errors, and I am surprised that they leave it on their web-site. The fact that you cannot perceive the errors doesn't make them go away. Rufus did a pretty good job pointing the errors out, so really if you cannot see them it can only be from not looking.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Hmmm. I wasn't aware that there was any substantial evidence for macro-evolution. It seemed from what I had learned that macro-evolution was largely speculative, based on observable micro-evolution and an extrapolation of those observations.

You have to be careful where you go to learn about evolution. In this case, you were taught wrong. But I think its good that you are willing to chalk it up to experience and dig out the better information.

It is known, and acknowledged by evolutionists, that from time to time scientists have fabricated evidence to support the theory (which when such subterfuges are unearthed does no more than undermine honest evolutionists.)

It doesn't strongly undermine them. After all, they are almost always the ones that find the subterfuge and expose it. I think it adds to their credibility that they are busy about exposing the bad apples among them.

 

[Thunderchild]

It seems that all that is cat developed from something that was cat, branching then to form house cats according to their species, and big cats according to theirs. But I still have not seen any records that show not-cat becoming cat. Same goes for dog ... and so forth.

OK - simple question from a person not fully educated on matters scientific.

My understanding to date is that while evolution at the level of family is fairly well conclusive, I have not had access to any evidence prior to family - if such evidence is available, could a link perhaps be provided to sites where it can be checked?

(and I thought micro-evolution applied to family and higher branches, not just to species - if it applies only at the level of species, it is demonstrably inaccurate - even by me.)

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
It seems that all that is cat developed from something that was cat, branching then to form house cats according to their species, and big cats according to theirs. But I still have not seen any records that show not-cat becoming cat. Same goes for dog ... and so forth.

OK - simple question from a person not fully educated on matters scientific.

My understanding to date is that while evolution at the level of family is fairly well conclusive, I have not had access to any evidence prior to family - if such evidence is available, could a link perhaps be provided to sites where it can be checked?

(and I thought micro-evolution applied to family and higher branches, not just to species - if it applies only at the level of species, it is demonstrably inaccurate - even by me.)

Cats diverged from the Carnivore line about 25-30 million years ago. Of course the divergence of a family of organisms is too slow to be directly observed, but it can be established by other means. Genetic studies are very powerful tools for determining the evolutionary history of an organism - genetic comparisons can show that cats are genetically related to other members of the Order Carnivora. However, the evolution of "cats" from "non-cats" also left behind some traces in the fossil record:
Before there were cats, we find Haplogale in the fossil record - it had some cat-like traits, but was not a cat by anymodern definition. It also had hyena traits. about 5 million years later we find fossils of Proailurus julieni, and Proailurus lemanensis, only the later of which is considered a true cat... Even after the advent of true cats, there were no lions, tigers, and kittens for a good little while, but there is fossil evidence of cats that look more like lions and tigers and kittens than the Proailurus...

You can read about it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

The interesting thing is, that the evolution of cat's isn't really the best example from the fossil record. Genomic studies have focused more on human ancestry than cat ancestry, and for some periods, the human fossil record is more complete than the cat fossil record. Other transistions, for instance, between classes of organisms have lot's of documentation too.

Then you haven't even touched on the subject of biodiversity: i.e. why the only kangaroos are in australia...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Project 86

So did horses swim or fly then unless you think oceans didn't exist. Sorry I normally don't post on the evolution forums but I think your arguements are weaker then the ones you critisize since this statement isn't really a logical argument at all no matter how fancy you try to make it sound.

Considering that AiG didn't even provide evidence for their claim or even explain it, we can't tell wheather equids would need to fly or swim to acount for the scattering they mention. Regardless, land masses and oceans haven't always been in their present state.

And what degrees do you have?

I did my undergraduate work at the University of Georgia.
BS Genetics, cum laude with honors
BA Latin, cum laude with honors

I am currently a PhD student at UGA in Population Genetics and Evolutionary Biology.

I can send you a CV and transcript if you want. Do you have any other questions about my educational background? What about your background, Project 86? What degrees do you hold?

And because YOU THINK they are errors doesn't make it so.

I not only think they are errors, I showed why they are such. No matter how much you want to believe it, AiG is not the best place to go to get exposed to science.

One thing any proevolutionist doesn't lack seems to be pride.

You mean the kind of pride that makes someone think he can challenge experts with out a lick of experience? Sorry, I think creationists and kooks have cornered the market on that one.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Thunderchild,

You appear to be confused about microevolution and macroevolution. There is no difference between them except in the scope. Both are evolution. The separate terms only exist because at one time the scientific community was not sure if the same genetic mechanisms underlying the difference between members of the same species (or taxa) underlie differences between species/taxa.

The advent of modern genetics conclusively demonstrated that the differences with in taxa are of the same type as the differences between taxa. What this showed was macroevolutionary differences were only the result of the gradual accumulation of microevolutionary differences. Although they refer to the same process (evolution), the terms have stuck around in literature. You can see my sig for some useful descriptions.

I recommend the following links.
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla

The latter two are from a fellowship of Christians in science.

 

[TheBear]

This thread is just one more example of being problematic, not because of the points raised, but because there are several different points of discussion, crammed into one thread, shotgun style, and lends itself to confusion.

I will allow this thread to remain open, however, in the future please start threads one discussion point at a time.

Thank you,
John

 

[randman]

"Continuous evolutionary change" even without the word speciation is quite clear. The guy, like nearly all evolutionists I have met, is simply deliberately overstating his case in order to convince people to believe in evolution.

The fact you guus defend such practices is not at all surprising, and goes a long ways to making it clear that evolutionism is as much indoctrination as anything else.

As far as creationists, well, when their articles appear in Encyclopedias and in textbooks, I will hold them to the same standards.