Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Smidlee]

NO!

This is not what is done since the word "appearances" is used in a different sense by the 2 groups. One group uses the word as a euphemism for anatomical characterisation and taxonomy - the other uses it on the level of "oh look - all cars have wheels, they must all be of the car kind".

Cambrian explosion is clear evidence againest evolution as well as creature sudden appeared fully formed and suddenly disappear with little sign of change for millions of years (even according to Darwin own time table). Darwinists wants to use appearance of similitiarities of fossil while closing their eyes to any appearance in the fossil record that clearly againest their dogma.

 

[KerrMetric]

Cambrian explosion is clear evidence againest evolution as well as creature sudden appeared fully formed and suddenly disappear with little sign of change for millions of years (even according to Darwin own time table). Darwinists wants to use appearance of similitiarities of fossil while closing their eyes to any appearance in the fossil record that clearly againest their dogma.

That's it. Trot out the rubbish you have never researched. Creationists lie about what the Cambrian explosion is. And people swallow their lies.

 

[random_guy]

Actually I see Darwinism as modern day idolatry just without the wooden statues. In the OT the majority was into idolatry including Isreal. So I don't see a conspiracy theory with evolutionist no more than there a conspiracy with used car salemens. They follow what's natural/naturalism which even christians are tempted to follow.
I don't deny the fact that the fossil records has always been clear evidence againest evolution even in Darwin's day. Darwinist loves using "appearances" of fossils as evidence while trying to deny creationists and ID doing the same. Appearances can be very deceiving except when it come to animals. (Zebras appears to be stripe horses but they are not)

So Christian colleges like Baylor Univesrity are into idolatry since they teach science like Evolution? What about geology? Are Christian colleges also into idolatry since they teach old Earth geology? It seems that idolatry means that any belief rational people such as scientists believe in and you disagree with.

Not only that, you still handwaved the articles I brought up. You haven't explain why the scientists' findings are nothing more than a story. In fact, you just stated that they are misusing evidence without explaining why.

This is why Creationism will never be taken seriously by any universities. It's argumentation without any substance. Of course, what do universities like Baylor U know. They're just the largest Baptist university in America.

 

[KerrMetric]

This is why Creationism will never be taken seriously by any universities. It's argumentation without any substance. Of course, what do universities like Baylor U know. They're just the largest Baptist university in America.

And the University that fired William Dembski.

 

[CardinalBaseball]

That's it. Trot out the rubbish you have never researched. Creationists lie about what the Cambrian explosion is. And people swallow their lies.

And what might that lie be?

 

[KerrMetric]

And what might that lie be?

The lie about the so called Cambrian explosion. Creationists always lie about what it actually is so as to mislead.

ps: In your profile it should say wargaming not wargamming.

 

[CardinalBaseball]

The lie about the so called Cambrian explosion. Creationists always lie about what it actually is so as to mislead.

ps: In your profile it should say wargaming not wargamming.

1.First of all, you are just backing up what I said in the other thread, and tell me what exactly those "lies" are.

2.You're right! I'll change that.

 

[Smidlee]

So Christian colleges like Baylor Univesrity are into idolatry since they teach science like Evolution? What about geology? Are Christian colleges also into idolatry since they teach old Earth geology? It seems that idolatry means that any belief rational people such as scientists believe in and you disagree with.

Man has always tried to give credit of creation to idols (Nature gods/ nature) which is build by men imagination that he uses to deceived himself with.

This is why Creationism will never be taken seriously by any universities. It's argumentation without any substance. Of course, what do universities like Baylor U know. They're just the largest Baptist university in America.

Haven't you studied you scriptures? Didn't the Aaron build an golden calf while Moses was away and cause the nation Isreal sin? Didn't the Jeremiah stood alone while the other priest turn againest his consult? Even the largest Baptist university which no doubt have wonderful christians in them can be dead wrong. Christians can be deceives also which is why the scriptures warns us not to be deceived.
[there is a difference between evolution, since everyone agrees with that which can be observe, (animals adapting to the enviroment) and Darwinism which is dogma based on human imagination.]

 

[random_guy]

Man has always tried to give credit of creation to idols (Nature gods/ nature) which is build by men imagination that he uses to deceived himself with.
Haven't you studied you scriptures? Didn't the Aaron build an golden calf while Moses was away and cause the nation Isreal sin? Didn't the Jeremiah stood alone while the other priest turn againest his consult? Even the largest Baptist university which no doubt have wonderful christians in them can be dead wrong. Christians can be deceives also which is why the scriptures warns us not to be deceived.
[there is a difference between evolution, since everyone agrees with that which can be observe, (animals adapting to the enviroment) and Darwinism which is dogma based on human imagination.]

So you have nothing to back up your argument, other than the belief that you're interpretation of the Bible is correct, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else is being deceived by things like evidence, science, and knowledge. Imagine that, education leads to deception. We just need to go back to the Dark Ages where angels pushed the planets and disease was caused by demons.

 

[Smidlee]

So you have nothing to back up your argument, other than the belief that you're interpretation of the Bible is correct,

If I find my interpretion of scriptures was wrong I would change it. So of course I study to find how to correctly interpret scriptures. Darwinists beleive their interpretion of fossil record is correct and everyone else is wrong also yet they have to ignore that which totally contradicts their claims.

and everyone else is wrong. Everyone else is being deceived by things like evidence, science, and knowledge.

Actually I said they were deceived by their own imaginations and I didn't say everyone. I showed you scriptures where the majority was often wrong and worshiped idols including God's people. So science and knowledge (even scriptures) can be used to deceived people.

Imagine that, education leads to deception. We just need to go back to the Dark Ages where angels pushed the planets and disease was caused by demons.

What makes you think we're not still in the so called the dark ages. Our children two hundreds years from now probably see us like we see those in our past. It's easiler to judge those who worshiped idols in the OT or those lived in middle ages but fail to realizes we are their off-spring as we are made out of the exact same stuff as they were. (The Pharisees also fail to realizes they were just as unrightous as their ancestor who killed God's men.)
education can lead to deception as well as used reveal deceptions. Education just as many things in life can be both used for good and evil.

 

[random_guy]

What makes you think we're not still in the so called the dark ages. Our children two hundreds years from now probably see us like we see those in our past. It's easiler to judge those who worshiped idols in the OT or those lived in middle ages but fail to realizes we are their off-spring as we are made out of the exact same stuff as they were. (The Pharisees also fail to realizes they were just as unrightous as their ancestor who killed God's men.)
education can lead to deception as well as used reveal deceptions. Education just as many things in life can be both used for good and evil.

The Dark Ages were defined as the stiffling of ideas and information. Basically, when we have very little information about that era. There is no way we're in the Dark Ages now since there are so many documents and so much information being spread.

Key ideas about not being in the Dark Ages is the spread of information, hence things like colleges where the most learned people teach the next generation. However, according to you, the same brightest people are being mislead, and laypeople like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are truly informed.

Funny how the same people that come up with computers, cure diseases, and help all of humanity are the same ones helping to lead the deception. If I was not a Christian, and the first missionary I met told me that colleges are full of idolters, I would've never converted. God gave me a brain to use.

 

[Smidlee]

The Dark Ages were defined as the stiffling of ideas and information. Basically, when we have very little information about that era. There is no way we're in the Dark Ages now since there are so many documents and so much information being spread.

Yet we have two World Wars in the last century and still have weapons to destroy whole cities off the face of the map. So it could be said centuries from now we also lived in a dark age. Of course this will be determined by future generations not us.

Key ideas about not being in the Dark Ages is the spread of information, hence things like colleges where the most learned people teach the next generation. However, according to you, the same brightest people are being mislead, and laypeople like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are truly informed.

I haven't mention either one of these men and really know very little about them. WW2 is evidence to me that the brightest people can just as easily be deceived if not more so than someone who isn't. (Until the last fews years everything I read or saw about nature/science came from evolutionists. I saw how much effort they used to glorify evolution (evolution did it) and refused to gave God any credits even when there was clear evidence of design. I heard one evolutionist tried to explain why evolution wired our brains to recoginize God.)

Funny how the same people that come up with computers, cure diseases, and help all of humanity are the same ones helping to lead the deception.

And are just as much as a sinners as those who worshipped idols in the OT. The only difference they don't carry around a wooden statues anymore. Do I need to remind you what business makes the biggest profits on computers? As with knowledge it can be used by good and evil but the normal pattern is ususally toward idolatry/unrightousness

If I was not a Christian, and the first missionary I met told me that colleges are full of idolters, I would've never converted. God gave me a brain to use.

The problems isn't with the head of man but with the heart of man. At least you understand why the OT prophets wasn't too popular either since they also identified idolatry among their own people.

P.S. this is the christians section so I assume you are a christian.

 

[random_guy]

Yet we have two World Wars in the last century and still have weapons to destroy whole cities off the face of the map. So it could be said centuries from now we also lived in a dark age. Of course this will be determined by future generations not us. I haven't mention either one of these men and really know very little about them. WW2 is evidence to me that the brightest people can just as easily be deceived if not more so than someone who isn't. (Until the last fews years everything I read or saw about nature/science came from evolutionists. I saw how much effort they used to gloryful evolution (evolution did it) and refused to gave God any credits even when there was clear evidence of design. I heard one evolutionist tried to explain why evolution wired our brains to recoginize God.)

Are you sure about anything you just wrote? We have lots of recorded data on Paris, Hiroshima, Berlin, etc... We have journals of people living in those places.

Even more absurb, the brighter a person is, the more easily they're deceived. Tell me, 15% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Sun. How many of those are scientists and engineers? If anything, the less education someone has, the more easily they are deceived. Would you bet that on your life that more scientists believe that Iraq attacked us on 9-11 or more average Joes believe it?

Even more funny is how little you understand how science works. Just because an evolutionist might say, "evolution disproves God," that person is dead wrong. Science makes no claims whether God exists or not. What people believe science says has no bearings on what science actually says. It's the less educated people that think that's true. That's why in Utah, the less educated Chris Butters (local House Representative) said, "evolution denies God." It's because people like you and him who continue to spread this myth.

And are just as much as a sinners as those who worshipped idols in the OT. The only difference they don't carry around a wooden statues anymore. Do I need to remind you what business makes the biggest profits on computers? As with knowledge it can be used by good and evil but the normal pattern is ususally toward idolatry/unrightousness The problems isn't with the head of man but with the heart of man. At least you understand why the OT prophets wasn't too popular either since they also identified idolatry among their own people.

Why do you hate knowledge/learning so much? Knowledge can be used for Good or Evil, but the same can be said of everything. The same can be said of ignorant people. Look at the Salem Witch Trials. Ignorant religious people believing in the witches and demons lead to the death

P.S. this is the christians section so I assume you are a christian.

Yes, I'm a Christian. The point was, if I wasn't, and someone told me to ignore everything I've learned, close my mind from learning about God's creation, I would never become one. Again, God gave us a brain. Why not use it to learn about the world?

 

[Critias]

Yes, I'm a Christian. The point was, if I wasn't, and someone told me to ignore everything I've learned, close my mind from learning about God's creation, I would never become one. Again, God gave us a brain. Why not use it to learn about the world?

Some, like myself, choose to this brain of ours to learn about God instead of what the world says.

 

[Scholar in training]

Some, like myself, choose to this brain of ours to learn about God instead of what the world says.

What about what the earth says about God?

 

[Critias]

What about what the earth says about God?

Last I checked, the earth didn't have vocal cords and doesn't speak in a language that anyone understands. It has been the scientists who interpret what they find. Anyone who implicity states the earth speaks without human interpretation is lying.

 

[stumpjumper]

Last I checked, the earth didn't have vocal cords and doesn't speak in a language that anyone understands. It has been the scientists who interpret what they find. Anyone who implicity states the earth speaks without human interpretation is lying.

Yes, but our natural world is comprehensible. If you believe that God has given us purpose, a rational, intelligent mind, and a transparent universe. Sure we can and do make errors in our interpretation of the world but the fact is that we are capable of interpreting what we see and it makes sense and points to a universe that is governed by natural and dependable laws. Since that is the case I find nothing wrong with using creation to speak for God. God is responsible for creation and artists let their art speak for them.

 

[Phospho]

Hello Phospho

When you said Middle-Earth Creation, I thought you were talking about Lord of The Rings, LOL. I do not think there was an actual Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden. I believe that Genesis is a mythical creation story and that chapters 1-11 were not ever intended to be taken literally. The theological truths are separate from the literal history, IMO.

Hello Stumpjumper...
Unfortunately for some, what they believe is in error...not that I am trying to be rude or anything. I once believed in monsters, then when I grew up and grew in accurate knowledge between what is fact and what is not fact, the monsters disapeared. The first 11 chapters of Genesis were written as quite literal, which was never seriously doubted until the advent of secular theologians...(secular theologians...what a thought!) and their efforts at disclaiming Scripture. No, hermenuetical study demonstrates, along with peripheral evidence from the Ebla Tablets and others, that the Genesis account is quite historical. Check out BAR on line for a plethora of historical evidence.

Well even many evolutionary theologians will state that it is God’s action that has created and allowed complexity and purpose that we find in nature.

Is this a new religion? What is an "evolutionary theologian?"

God is as much Creator today as he was at the time of the Big Bang but the method of creation is insignificant it is our source that truly matters.

I agree to a certain extent. The historical veracity of scripture has been unearthed and attested to now for the last hundred years, it is quite trustworthy. In other words, the attacks by so-called liberal theologians on scripture that it has been messed with by man, things have been added or subtracted, are all false claims. Either God can write holy writ through the hands of men and then preserve that Word by His power, or He isn't God.This means that when God says He spoke things into existence, He literally spoke things into existence.

The Big Bang is not really scientifically doubted anymore. But our investigation of the universe suggests that the Big Bang happened about 13 billion years ago not 10,000 or 20,000.

While I understand the physics part of cosmology, which is where most (if not all) the evidence of the Anthropic Principle hails from, I do not see the forth right evidences for the age of the universe. I am not saying that I believe that it is 10 - 20 thousand years...or even 50 thousand, again, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, and our concept of generational time cannot begin until they left the garden because they had not children until after they were kicked out.

Saying that, I need to follow up with this: most of the cosmological "evidences" for the age of the universe I find wanting big-time, as they are based upon speculations and mechanics that we cannot possibly know FOR SURE that they are correct. For example, how do we know how far away a galaxy is from us? It was explained to me by a cosmologist that they take a photo of the galaxy in question from one point in our orbit, then six months later they take another photo and use these to triangulate the distance...the only flaw with this is the fact that the galaxy we are photographing is also in motion. How many millions of miles has that galaxy moved while we were in our six month travels?

I find that scientists many times get caught up in the sway of things and believe that they can know anything or do anything, forgetting that they are finite and our methods of scientific discovery are sometimes anything but accurate. Unless we are there, or can be there to measure for sure and be able to measure things for a certainty (I can measure for a certainty an inch with my ruler - can we ACTUALLY and with CERTAINTY measure the so-called speed of light? I don't think so, how can you measure something that is almost instantaneous to our finite perception?), we have no way of knowing IN TRUTH what the answer to the question is.

Also, extinct hominins and transitional fossils disprove a recent, unique special creation.

Extinct humans...like Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man? Or how about Lucy, a few scanty bones that did not even add up to 1/8 of the creature? Or how about the various remains that have been found that were thought to be great ages but instead discovered to be diseased, and so gave illusions of great age (I must admit, I cannot for the life of me remember the name they were given, I can't even remember where they were found). All such "extinct human" forms where originally claimed to be one thing or another in an attitude of scientific racing games (to discover some great thing and get your name in the scientific lime light) only to be later dubbed either full ape or full human with physical ailments of one kind or another under closer scrutiny. Of course, these blatent blunders are never reported in the news or in other public means, and is sometimes even hard to find in scientific journals.

As for "transitional fossils" I have heard of none that can not be placed in either all ready existing specie families (because they are not transitional, they are sister species just not yet discovered), or they belong to mosaic species, such as the platypus or feathered dinosaurs.

You seem like you have done a great deal of research unfortunately there is plenty of information that contradicts your above claims. Every transitional fossil we find opens up a new gap so therefore it is unique. In terms of scientists throwing out fossils that do not fit that is an unsupported and unsupportable assertion.

Unfortunately, I have come across a lot of information that was false information...and false information abounds within evolutionary theory beginning with the Synthetic Theory's not-so-humble beginning. Ever wonder why Darwinism gave way to Neo-Darwinism? Its because Darwinism was a legitimate effort by some scientists to validate evolutionary theory, but with the advent of genetics the theory was effectively destroyed. But certain of the evolutionary faith, one in particular (Mayr) could not give up on the dream of the false philosophy he espoused, and so the symposium he and others arranged began couching terms and definitions of words in an evolutionary symbiotic format so as to give the illusion that evolution is a reality - when in fact, it had just died...wallah!!! Neo-Darwinism was born, like a phoenix, from the ashes of its mother, Darwinism. And where did the foundation for Neo-Darwinism come from? Ironically from the very place that signed its death-certificate...also the subject of your next post...

This is false. That mutations are only deleterious is a blatantly false claim. Mutations can splice genes together and replicate entire sections of the genome elsewhere.

Go back and read the history of genetics, and you will find that the true definition of the word "mutation" is this: "a copying error made during cell replication." Any other genetic change, whether it be chromosomal rearrangements or whatever, are NOT mutations, they are simply genetic changes (a great many now classified as being induced by mechanisms of the cell, especially in connection with adaptation). All mutations are inherently deleterious if the expression damages in any way, shape, or form the protein or developmental specificity (I suppose gene duplication MAY not have deleterious side affects, but the ones I have heard of did), and before you claim that it is false, I challenge you to study the subject with a fresh eye (in other words, do not assume that evolution is true when examining these mechanisms - examine them for what you can see and know, NOT for what you have to assume). Yes, mutations can splice genes together and replicate entire sections of genes elsewhere...to what end? Be honest in your assessment.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence from fossils, genetics, and homology to name a few.

Fossil evidence demonstrates only two things: the fossilized remains of organisms from earth's past and some idea of what they looked like (or in the case of imprints, exactly what they looked like), and that the poor creatures died violent, catastrophic deaths. Nothing more.

Genetics tells us a great deal...and none of it outside of evolutionary surmisings gives any credence to evolutionary theory, not one shred. In fact, all of the genetic evidence that touches upon TOE demonstrates that it is a false theory when you remove the evolutionary second hand definitions from key words. See Remine's "The Biotic Message" where he thoroughly thwarts all efforts within genetics for evidence in TOE's favor. As for homology, when used in evolutionary texts it is strictly circular, and therefore is dismissed and cannot be used by any legitimate individual as evidence for evolution.

Yes lets. There is no factual evidence for a literal reading of genesis.... Creation is a method of God’s revelation and it shows us that a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 is not correct.

you are incorrect, sir, and I would challenge you to learn how to correctly interpret historical documents (Hermenuetics) and then study the peripheral evidences that document from other ancient cultures the same historicity of those first 11 chapters. Also from a theological standpoint, if all men did not descend from one parental stock (Adam and Eve), then Christ would have had to come and die one time for each individual family represented in the human race...as it stands, there is only one, and we all belong to it.

There is evidence of intelligence in nature. Our investigation of our natural world has shown that our current universe had a beginning, has a purpose, is rational, and is comprehensible. “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” (Albert Einstein) If we can infer God from the rationality of the universe then we must also listen and accept what we find from the world.

Are you then unaware of certain statements by "the grand old man of evolution" Ernst Mayr? And I quote, "It must be admitted that it would be impossible to believe in evolution by descent from common ancestors if one were convinced of the complete rationality of the world..." E. Mayr, Evolution and the Diversity of Life–Selected Essays, 1997, p. 265


According to Mayr, if you believe the world is a rational place, you can't believe in evolution by descent from common ancestors, yet you claim that you can see rationality in nature...are you sure that you know what you are believing in? Just asking.

That’s because abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE.

Ahh, another lie that you have bought into, or haven't you read any evolutionary history books? Abiogenesis most certainly is a part of evolutionary theory, for if you cannot begin life by random chance happenings, then you most certainly cannot expect the intelligent public to believe in building up of organisms from a single cell by random chance happenings. Abiogenesis was only recently demarkated from TOE in the early 60's when it becam painfully obvious that life can only come from life...THEN, and only then, did placing "Abiogenesis" and evolutionary theory in the same sentence become heretical and strictess taboo in TOEist circles.

Blessings...and good dialogue! I hope that I did not offend, if so, I apologize. I did not mean to sound..."mean" or rude or anything of the sort.

 

[Critias]

Yes, but our natural world is comprehensible.

That is assuming you are able to comprehend it correctly; that there is nothing left to be found that would indicate another outlook.

If you believe that God has given us purpose, a rational, intelligent mind, and a transparent universe.

Of course He has. But was that given to study the earth or to know Him and carry out His work?

If you are to say science is carrying out God's work, then where does evolution point to God.

Sure we can and do make errors in our interpretation of the world but the fact is that we are capable of interpreting what we see and it makes sense and points to a universe that is governed by natural and dependable laws.

Just as we are capable of interpreting the Bible and it making sense through the Holy Spirit.

Since that is the case I find nothing wrong with using creation to speak for God. God is responsible for creation and artists let their art speak for them.

And science doesn't speak for God or about God.

Since you say God is responsible for creation and as an artist He lets the creation speak for Him, does this go for God's creation of man as well? Are those who blaspheme Him also speaking for HIm? If not, then you are assertion is not necessarily valid in all cases.

 

[shernren]

Actually I see Darwinism as modern day idolatry just without the wooden statues. In the OT the majority was into idolatry including Isreal.

If evolution is idolatry what's the idol? And what makes evolution idolatry but not all the other scientific theories? Besides, in the NT Israel's major sin was not idolatry any more, but restrictive, deadening, super-literal legalism ...

Unfortunately for some, what they believe is in error...not that I am trying to be rude or anything. I once believed in monsters, then when I grew up and grew in accurate knowledge between what is fact and what is not fact, the monsters disapeared. The first 11 chapters of Genesis were written as quite literal, which was never seriously doubted until the advent of secular theologians...(secular theologians...what a thought!) and their efforts at disclaiming Scripture. No, hermenuetical study demonstrates, along with peripheral evidence from the Ebla Tablets and others, that the Genesis account is quite historical. Check out BAR on line for a plethora of historical evidence.

Don't twist too much, it's bad for your back. Just because Genesis was written to be literal (i.e. not poetic, etc.) doesn't mean it is historical ... don't jump too fast. For example in Chinese literature there is the epic "The Naming (?) of the Gods" which is presented quite literally, and yet is obviously a myth.

While I understand the physics part of cosmology, which is where most (if not all) the evidence of the Anthropic Principle hails from, I do not see the forth right evidences for the age of the universe. I am not saying that I believe that it is 10 - 20 thousand years...or even 50 thousand, again, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, and our concept of generational time cannot begin until they left the garden because they had not children until after they were kicked out.

Wrong.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

IE God originally created humans to reproduce (whether or not one takes this historically ) and thus procreation was originally meant to take place with or without Fall. From the Genesis 3 account we infer that since God only spoke to Adam, Eve, and the snake, there were no other humans around i.e. they had not reproduced yet. This cannot be because the Fall had not yet happened, but simply because they hadn't gotten around to doing it, which suggests although does not prove that they were only in the Garden for a short while. Finally:

Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

The maximum time he could have spent in the Garden of Eden is 130 years, unless you can show me Scripturally that living in the Garden of Eden does not count as living.

Saying that, I need to follow up with this: most of the cosmological "evidences" for the age of the universe I find wanting big-time, as they are based upon speculations and mechanics that we cannot possibly know FOR SURE that they are correct. For example, how do we know how far away a galaxy is from us? It was explained to me by a cosmologist that they take a photo of the galaxy in question from one point in our orbit, then six months later they take another photo and use these to triangulate the distance...the only flaw with this is the fact that the galaxy we are photographing is also in motion. How many millions of miles has that galaxy moved while we were in our six month travels?

Who on earth told you that?? You're right, that method of measurement would not be able to ascertain galactic distances. However, they would be able to accurately measure relative galactic motion.

Galactic distances are measured using standard candles. Google them.

Extinct humans...like Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man? Or how about Lucy, a few scanty bones that did not even add up to 1/8 of the creature? Or how about the various remains that have been found that were thought to be great ages but instead discovered to be diseased, and so gave illusions of great age (I must admit, I cannot for the life of me remember the name they were given, I can't even remember where they were found). All such "extinct human" forms where originally claimed to be one thing or another in an attitude of scientific racing games (to discover some great thing and get your name in the scientific lime light) only to be later dubbed either full ape or full human with physical ailments of one kind or another under closer scrutiny. Of course, these blatent blunders are never reported in the news or in other public means, and is sometimes even hard to find in scientific journals.

Go on, refute all the other hominid fossils which have been found to date. While many paleoanthropologists may not agree on what they are, many will agree that they are not fully human nor fully ape.

As for "transitional fossils" I have heard of none that can not be placed in either all ready existing specie families (because they are not transitional, they are sister species just not yet discovered), or they belong to mosaic species, such as the platypus or feathered dinosaurs.

But all transitional fossils can be placed in already existing families. Remember that evolution does not "break out" of older taxonomic boundaries, but rather creates new boundaries within its existing taxonomic space. For example, if there had been paleoevolutionists extant at the time that amphibians were evolving into reptiles, the transitional species would all be classified as amphibians, albeit more advanced amphibians. Only after the evolution of reptiles were complete, then it would be seen in retrospect that this succession of transitional amphibians were becoming progressively reptilian - and yet they would still be classifiable as amphibians. (The same approach holds to narrower taxonomic groups like families.)

Unfortunately, I have come across a lot of information that was false information...and false information abounds within evolutionary theory beginning with the Synthetic Theory's not-so-humble beginning. Ever wonder why Darwinism gave way to Neo-Darwinism? Its because Darwinism was a legitimate effort by some scientists to validate evolutionary theory, but with the advent of genetics the theory was effectively destroyed. But certain of the evolutionary faith, one in particular (Mayr) could not give up on the dream of the false philosophy he espoused, and so the symposium he and others arranged began couching terms and definitions of words in an evolutionary symbiotic format so as to give the illusion that evolution is a reality - when in fact, it had just died...wallah!!! Neo-Darwinism was born, like a phoenix, from the ashes of its mother, Darwinism. And where did the foundation for Neo-Darwinism come from? Ironically from the very place that signed its death-certificate...also the subject of your next post...

Gee. Since Newtonian gravitational theory was massively flawed, and GR was a counterintuitive attempt to salvage the idea that humans could actually understand gravity, I guess that means gravity doesn't exist. Get the analogy?

Fossil evidence demonstrates only two things: the fossilized remains of organisms from earth's past and some idea of what they looked like (or in the case of imprints, exactly what they looked like), and that the poor creatures died violent, catastrophic deaths. Nothing more.

Really? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC401.html

Genetics tells us a great deal...and none of it outside of evolutionary surmisings gives any credence to evolutionary theory, not one shred. In fact, all of the genetic evidence that touches upon TOE demonstrates that it is a false theory when you remove the evolutionary second hand definitions from key words. See Remine's "The Biotic Message" where he thoroughly thwarts all efforts within genetics for evidence in TOE's favor. As for homology, when used in evolutionary texts it is strictly circular, and therefore is dismissed and cannot be used by any legitimate individual as evidence for evolution.

So, can you disprove the evolution of fossilized creatures too old for any DNA to have been preserved?

Last I checked, the earth didn't have vocal cords and doesn't speak in a language that anyone understands. It has been the scientists who interpret what they find. Anyone who implicity states the earth speaks without human interpretation is lying.

And we are confident about the validity of the conventional scientific interpretation because of the remarkable consensus shown cutting across creeds and cultures. This is in the same way that you are confident about the validity of your interpretation of Scripture because of the remarkable consensus you see concerning it among many theologians (namely, the ones you quote )

You can go ahead and choose any of the few massively antiscientific interpretations of the world and its natural history you want for the sake of YECism. I personally find that YECism doesn't do me enough good to justify that sort of mental contortion, me being the scientifically-inclined Christian I am.