Science vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

That is a strong indication of a SOCK PUPPET! They use such accounts to insult, flame etc. without risking having their original account banned.

Unless, of course, they show up to denigrate me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh, my -- where were you every time a newbie showed up out of nowhere and accused me of never-this or never-that, and I had to appeal to my post count to shut him/her up, only to have the old-timers get on me about it?

(Nevermind -- don't bother answering.)

I'd imagine you wouldn't want us to bother answering. Let's look at a sample of your oh-so-special post count (emphasis on "count"):

2123

2125

2127

2129

2210

2212

2176

2178

2180

The newbies are the only ones who don't realize how utterly meaningless your appeals to post counts are, isn't that so, AV?

 

[tanzanos]

The papers you listed were written by evolutionists. Why should i check or read your sources if you refuse all creationist sources?

This is why these debates go nowhere. You ignorantly expect me to check your sources when you refuse mine. It's clear you aren't interested in the other side of the debate, nor do you even bother to look for one second at the creationist evidence. There's no point i waste my time responding to someone who is that ignorant.

I see so what you are saying is do not listen to the surgeon unless you listed to the witch doctor first?

Do sit down before you hurt yourself!

 

[Cabal]

Oh, my -- where were you every time a newbie showed up out of nowhere and accused me of never-this or never-that, and I had to appeal to my post count to shut him/her up, only to have the old-timers get on me about it?

(Nevermind -- don't bother answering.)

This would be relevant if your arguments were rejected because of your youth (hmmmm)

But that's not necessary - they're just wrong.

Unless, of course, they show up to denigrate me.

There's consol and....

that's it.

And he's hardly exclusive about who he picks on!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The papers you listed were written by evolutionists. Why should i check or read your sources if you refuse all creationist sources?

Analyzing your sources and showing that they are wrong is not the same as refusing them. I suspect that most of the "evolutionist" posters here have been refuting these out of context quotes for years. I know I have.

This is why these debates go nowhere. You ignorantly expect me to check your sources when you refuse mine. It's clear you aren't interested in the other side of the debate, nor do you even bother to look for one second at the creationist evidence.

Do you actually think he hasn't seen these 30 year old quotes dozens of times before???

There's no point i waste my time responding to someone who is that ignorant.

YOU are calling Lucas ignorant.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The papers you listed were written by evolutionists. Why should i check or read your sources if you refuse all creationist sources?

This is why these debates go nowhere. You ignorantly expect me to check your sources when you refuse mine. It's clear you aren't interested in the other side of the debate, nor do you even bother to look for one second at the creationist evidence. There's no point i waste my time responding to someone who is that ignorant.

You should read Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" or Coyne's "Why Evolution is True." This may help clear a few things up in your head.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Does this explain why evolutionists have committed fraud after fraud to prove their worthless theory?

YouTube - PROVEN! LIES - DECEIT - FRAUD - The Dilemma of Modern Evolution!

I thought I would point out some of the false claims in this video.

First it does cover some actual fraudulent fossils and of course Haekel's distorted drawings but even what it say is about them is not always accurate.

Piltdown man was a hoax of course but that hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists and some scientists were sceptical of it from the beginning

Archeoraptor was published in National Geographic which is not a scientific journal. It was rejected by both Science and Nature and was never published in peer reviewed journal
The fossil was apparently faked by a Chinese farmer and the motivation was money not any great conspiracy to support evolution.
CC352: Archaeoraptor Was a Fake

Haekel's embryos drawings were altered to support his ideal that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and some textbooks used them long after they were known to be altered. However, vertebrate embryos do go through very similar stages of development
Haeckel's Embryos
still this is a legit fraud claim.

Brontosaurus (now call Aptosaurus) was not actually any kind of fraud but the head was missing and was modelled after other dinosaur specimens that are know known not to be Aptosaurus. This was an error but certainly not part of any great conspiracy to support evolution. Does anyone thing that Aptosaurus was not a real dinosaur.
Apatosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nebraska man was never fully accepted by science and the fantastic picture they talk about in the video was done by a London Journalist. I guess some London papers were as sensationalist back then as they are today. Added in Edit: In any case it was not a fraud.
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

The video flatly states that Java man is a fraud. This is false
Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The video flatly states that Peking man is a fraud. This is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_pekinensis

The video flatly states that Neandrathal fossils are all those of modern humans with arthritis This is False
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

Regarding peppered moths, yes the photos were staged to illustrate the differences in appearance but the claim that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks is false.
Icon of Obfuscation

The discussion thus far has shown that Wells's "most serious objection" to the peppered moth story is completely baseless: first, peppered moths do in fact rest on tree trunks (a significant portion of the time although not the majority of the time, according to Majerus' data). Second, textbook photos are used to show relative crypsis of moth morphs, not to prove that peppered moths always rest in one section of the trees. And third, Majerus himself has taken unstaged photos of peppered moths on matching tree trunk backgrounds, and these are not significantly different than staged photos; this eviscerates whatever vestige of a point Wells thinks that he has.

The claim that abiogenesis is the same as "spontaneous generation" is misleading at best and I would like to see the laboratory experiments that conclusively prove abiogenesis is impossible.

Thanks for providing yet another video illustrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of young earth creationism.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I thought I would point out some of the false claims in this video.

First it does cover some actual fraudulent fossils and of course Haekel's distorted drawings but even what it say is about them is not always accurate.

Piltdown man was a hoax of course but that hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists and some scientists were sceptical of it from the beginning

Archeoraptor was published in National Geographic which is not a scientific journal. It was rejected by both Science and Nature and was never published in peer reviewed journal
The fossil was apparently faked by a Chinese farmer and the motivation was money not any great conspiracy to support evolution.
CC352: Archaeoraptor Was a Fake

Haekel's embryos drawings were altered to support his ideal that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and some textbooks used them long after they were known to be altered. However, vertebrate embryos do go through very similar stages of development
Haeckel's Embryos
still this is a legit fraud claim.

Brontosaurus (now call Aptosaurus) was not actually any kind of fraud but the head was missing and was modelled after other dinosaur specimens that are know known not to be Aptosaurus. This was an error but certainly not part of any great conspiracy to support evolution. Does anyone thing that Aptosaurus was not a real dinosaur.
Apatosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nebraska man was never accepted by science and the fantastic picture they talk about in the video was done by a London Journalist. I guess some London papers were as sensationalist back then as they are today.
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

The video flatly states that Java man is a fraud. This is false
Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The video flatly states that Peking man is a fraud. This is false.
Homo erectus pekinensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The video flatly states that Neandrathal fossils are all those of modern humans with arthritis This is False
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals



Regarding peppered moths, yes the photos were staged to illustrate the differences in appearance but the claim that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks is false.
Icon of Obfuscation



The claim that abiogenesis is the same as "spontaneous generation" is misleading at best and I would like to see the laboratory experiments that conclusively prove abiogenesis is impossible.

Thanks for providing yet another video illustrating the moral and intellectual bankrtupcy of young earth creationism.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Cassiterides]

Piltdown man was a hoax of course but that hoax was uncovered by scientists not creationists and some scientists were sceptical of it from the beginning.

Doesn't matter who exposed it as a fraud, doesn't change the fact it was. The question is - if the theory of evolution is fact why are frauds committed? The obvious answer is because since there is no evidence for evolution, fakes have to be generated.

Archeoraptor was published in National Geographic which is not a scientific journal. It was rejected by both Science and Nature and was never published in peer reviewed journal
The fossil was apparently faked by a Chinese farmer and the motivation was money not any great conspiracy to support evolution.

Again, irrelevant. It was still a fraud committed by evolutionists.

Haekel's embryos drawings were altered to support his ideal that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and some textbooks used them long after they were known to be altered. However, vertebrate embryos do go through very similar stages of development
Haeckel's Embryos
still this is a legit fraud claim.

That's one we agree with then.

Brontosaurus (now call Aptosaurus) was not actually any kind of fraud but the head was missing and was modelled after other dinosaur specimens that are know known not to be Aptosaurus. This was an error but certainly not part of any great conspiracy to support evolution. Does anyone thing that Aptosaurus was not a real dinosaur.
Apatosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was a mistake made by evolutionists. Evolutionists usually are in the habit of making errors in the identity of fossils, mixing them up for fake reconstructions etc. When only a small bone fragment is found they then reconstruct things from entire imagination, i.e as in the case of Lucy (under 40% was discovered).

YouTube - Lucy deception

Nebraska man was never fully accepted by science and the fantastic picture they talk about in the video was done by a London Journalist. I guess some London papers were as sensationalist back then as they are today. Added in Edit: In any case it was not a fraud.
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Henry F. Osborn, a leading evolutionary paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was "the herald of anthropoid apes in America," and that it "speaks volumes of truth" (H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).

In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to pig.

The video flatly states that Java man is a fraud. This is false
Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Java Man was a fraud. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later.

The video flatly states that Peking man is a fraud. This is false.
Homo erectus pekinensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

''Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom''
- R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

The video flatly states that Neandrathal fossils are all those of modern humans with arthritis This is False
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

Neanderthals were fully Human.

Neanderthals Are Still Human!

Evolutionists went from reconstructing them from this:

To this:

Regarding peppered moths, yes the photos were staged to illustrate the differences in appearance but the claim that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks is false.
Icon of Obfuscation

The whole thing was a hoax.

The Hoax of the Peppered Moth

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The whole thing was a hoax.

The Hoax of the Peppered Moth

Let's start with this one. Did you even look at the link and the quote I gave you? The peppered moth story is not a hoax.
From your link

British scientist Cyril Clarke investigated the peppered moth for
25 years, and saw only two in their natural habitat by day - no other
researchers have seen any. Kettlewell and others attracted the
moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing
female pheromones - in each case, they only flew in at night. So
where do they spend the day? Clarke writes, 'The latest story is that
they rest on the leaves in the top of trees, but it's not really known
... either way, they're very good at hiding.'

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees
that the peppered moth story, which was 'the prize horse in our
stable', has to be thrown out.

Now let's look at the work of Majerus which Coyne was reviewing.
Majerus, M.E.N. (1998) Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford University Press, New York
It is summarized on Wikipedia
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Majerus emphasises that the wealth of additional data obtained since
Kettlewell's initial predation papers does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that work, and that differential bird predation of the dark and light moths in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees (directional selection) "is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth".[22][25] Coyne had erred in his statement that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks, as the book gives the resting positions of 47 peppered moths Majerus had found in the wild between 1964 and 1996; twelve were on tree trunks (six exposed, six unexposed), twenty were at the trunk/branch joint, and fifteen resting on branches.[22]

More from Icons of obfuscation
Icon of Obfuscation

The discussion thus far has shown that Wells's "most serious objection" to the peppered moth story is completely baseless: first, peppered moths do in fact rest on tree trunks (a significant portion of the time although not the majority of the time, according to Majerus' data). Second, textbook photos are used to show relative crypsis of moth morphs, not to prove that peppered moths always rest in one section of the trees. And third, Majerus himself has taken unstaged photos of peppered moths on matching tree trunk backgrounds, and these are not significantly different than staged photos; this eviscerates whatever vestige of a point Wells thinks that he has.

• What are the implications if moths rest most often underneath branches? Leaving aside Wells's frantic attempt to create a problem where none exists, the relevance of moth resting locations for the 'classic story' (natural selection by bird predation) deserves some consideration. Majerus' considered opinion is that peppered moths rest more commonly underneath branches than was previously appreciated, and that if this is true then some quantitative estimates of selection coefficients may need to be adjusted. However, he is quite clear that the basic qualitative conclusions of Kettlewell (that differential bird predation of moth morphs on changing backgrounds is the selective force) do not need to be changed. As Majerus notes, crypsis is still important for moths in tree branches. He even comments directly on this with two of his photos (Plate 3, photos (b) and (c)). And of course, birds are known to (a) fly and (b) feed in forest canopies, so it is very difficult to see why resting on trunks vs. branches would change bird predation in any radical way.

Bruce Grant has documents the same effect in American subspecies of Peppered moths
index

You can find links to several of his papers on his website. The peppered moth is not a hoax

Here is quote from Grant
"The case for natural selection in the evolution of melanism in peppered moths is actually much stronger today than it was during Kettlewell's time."
Science 9 August 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5583, pp. 940 - 941

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Posted by FB:
Archeoraptor was published in National Geographic which is not a scientific journal. It was rejected by both Science and Nature and was never published in peer reviewed journal
The fossil was apparently faked by a Chinese farmer and the motivation was money not any great conspiracy to support evolution.

Again, irrelevant. It was still a fraud committed by evolutionists.

It is relevant. The Chinese farmer who faked it was hardly an evolutionist
Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to National Geographic's report, the story of "Archaeoraptor" begins in July 1997 in Xiasanjiazi, China, where farmers routinely dug in the shale pits with picks and sold fossils to dealers for a few dollars. This was an illegal practice, but it was common then. In this case one farmer found a rare fossil of a toothed bird, complete with feather impressions. The fossil broke into pieces during collection. Nearby, in the same pit, he found pieces including a feathered tail and legs. He cemented several of these pieces together in a manner that he believed was correct. He apparently knew that it would make a more complete-looking and, thus, more expensive fossil.

and again this fossil was never published in a peer reviewed journal.

Java Man was a fraud. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later.

How would that make it a fraud? The femur may have belonged to a different fossil or a modern human but the skullcap definitely does not
Creationist Arguments: Java Man
Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dubois' find was a very incomplete specimen, consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species[1]. A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site [2],

''Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom''
- R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

The fact that the original fossils were lost does not make them fraudulent. Also more fossils have been found at the same site.
Homo erectus pekinensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neanderthals were fully Human.
Neanderthals Are Still Human!

No one disputes that neanderthals were human, just not Homo sapiens sapiens
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals

Actually, Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right.

They were apparently close enough to human so that we could interbreed. Recent genetic studies indicate that people outside of Africa have 1 to 4% of DNA inherited from Neanderthals.
Neandertal Genome Yields Evidence Of Interbreeding With Humans - Science News

Since you are YEC maybe you call tell us which of Noah's grandsons gave rise the the Neanderthals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you are YEC maybe you call tell us which of Noah's grandsons gave rise the the Neanderthals.

If you were to find King David's bones today, I believe you would assume he was a Neanderthal.

God judged His people at times by subjecting them to bone-altering pestilences.

Such was the case with Jacob ...

Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

... and David, who died of some strange disease (Psalm 38).

 

[Split Rock]

If you were to find King David's bones today, I believe you would assume he was a Neanderthal.

God judged His people at times by subjecting them to bone-altering pestilences.

Such was the case with Jacob ...

Ge 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

... and David, who died of some strange disease (Psalm 38).

I think you are onto something here, AVET! This may be the solution to your cryptozoology question!

Fowled bat -- Bat cursed by God.
4-Legged Grasshopper -- Grasshopper cursed by God.
Unicorn -- Horsie cursed by God.
Cockatrice -- Chicken cursed by God.
Satyr -- Goat cursed by God.

The Bible is right again!!

 

[tanzanos]

I think you are onto something here, AVET! This may be the solution to your cryptozoology question!

Fowled bat -- Bat cursed by God.
4-Legged Grasshopper -- Grasshopper cursed by God.
Unicorn -- Horsie cursed by God.
Cockatrice -- Chicken cursed by God.
Satyr -- Goat cursed by God.

The Bible is right again!!

Bat eared shenzi dog of Tanzania -- Dog cursed by God.

 

[tanzanos]

Doesn't matter who exposed it as a fraud, doesn't change the fact it was. The question is - if the theory of evolution is fact why are frauds committed? The obvious answer is because since there is no evidence for evolution, fakes have to be generated.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/pepper.shtml

TROLL WARNING!!!!!

 

[tanzanos]

Cassiteredes has yet to answer to my question of "What happened to the dinosaurs"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cassiteredes has yet to answer to my question of "What happened to the dinosaurs"?

The non-avian dinosaurs died out due to the [new] polar climatology that appeared after the Flood.

 

[tanzanos]

The non-avian dinosaurs died out due to the [new] polar climatology that appeared after the Flood.

Even the ones living in tropical climates? How about the Crocks? What about the sea dwelling saurians?

Instead of just making up explanations to suit your beliefs why don't you for once leave religion out of this and explain by showing evidence and proof of what happened to the dinosaurs.

Keep in mind that NO dinosaur bones are found with human bones and other animal bones that are less than 65 million years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Instead of just making up explanations to suit your beliefs why don't you for once leave religion out of this and explain by showing evidence and proof of what happened to the dinosaurs.

If you want "evidence and proof" -- go to your own prophets.

If you want the Truth, I'll do my best as God's ambassador to give it to you.

(Keep in mind, I'm fallible though.)

 

[tanzanos]

If you want "evidence and proof" -- go to your own prophets.

If you want the Truth, I'll do my best as God's ambassador to give it to you.

(Keep in mind, I'm fallible though.)

Are you saying that only you know the truth? The explanation you gave is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Thus you have to come up with something credible than just making up an explanation.

Also I have no prophets. I worship no living and non living thing. I worship no deities.

What happened to the dinosaurs and why are their bones never found together with modern animal and human bones?

It is a straightforward question that begs a credible answer.

An answer such as: "I do not know" will be more honest than making things up.