Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. You say there's evidence for evolution, macro or micro. I say that the conclusion from whatever evidence is said to be there, is manufactured, and by that I mean, made up in the human (not non-human <g>) mind. Pigs and the greater ape links other than said humans are not talking about these things. Fossils are there. Bacteria are there. Worms are there. Humans are there. That is pretty solid material. Evolution is conjecture. I haven't really checked out if one can get along without a coccyx. Maybe they can. Maybe it's not necessary -- for -- ??? what? decent function?

And you are wrong. But then you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

This makes no sense. You are an ape so you "act like an ape". One should not be offended by reality.

So you say. So if someone calls you a pig, tell me, are pigs and apes linked in the evolutionary scale? Same line? How about snakes? This is really getting more interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes,my bad. Typing too fast.

Creationists must see the clear evidence of embryology so they tilt at an idea that does not exist any longer. Haeckel's idea was wrong, but embryology still supports evolution. That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence.

Ah, finally! Took a while (like evolution?) to get there! Congratulations. Haeckel was WRONG BUT taught in textbooks as TRUTH (and I emphasize the word) for decades. Now perhaps I can move on to fish gills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say. So if someone calls you a pig, tell me, are pigs and apes linked in the evolutionary scale? Same line? How about snakes? This is really getting more interesting.

No, pigs are in a quite different family, you are related, but you are not a pig. Nor a snake.

But you are an ape.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you are wrong. But then you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

I already said that fossils are evidence that something was there and died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, finally! Took a while (like evolution?) to get there! Congratulations. Haeckel was WRONG BUT taught in textbooks as TRUTH (and I emphasize the word) for decades. Now perhaps I can move on to fish gills.

What! No. You were corrected on this a long time ago.

Are you trying to lie?

 

[dad]

Because I have a fully functioning brain.

Not sure the brain has much to do with believing worms are your kin. Probably the heart has more to do with it. Once we believe lies in our heart, anything apparently goes. Science has rejected God and truth and deals in the anything goes dept. You deal in the pretend you have prof dept. I deal in the tired ofbs dept.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, pigs are in a quite different family, you are related, but you are not a pig. Nor a snake.

But you are an ape.

LOL, ok. So would you happen to know why or how pigs are in a different family although you seem to be saying the families are related. But different. OK. I'll do a little more research about what came before the "apes."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already said that fossils are evidence that something was there and died.

Right, you confirmed that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

It is a shame that your fear is keeping you from learning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure the brain has much to do with believing worms are your kin. Probably the heart has more to do with it. Once we believe lies in our heart, anything apparently goes. Science has rejected God and truth and deals in the anything goes dept. You deal in the pretend you have prof dept. I deal in the tired ofbs dept.

Knowing, not believing dad. Believing is your flaw.

 

[dad]

Yes,my bad. Typing too fast.

Creationists must see the clear evidence of embryology so they tilt at an idea that does not exist any longer. Haeckel's idea was wrong, but embryology still supports evolution. That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence.

I would say the way science facilitates killing embryos shows that they are murderously insane.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, ok. So would you happen to know why or how pigs are in a different family although you seem to be saying the families are related. But different. OK. I'll do a little more research about what came before the "apes."

When you get over your fears we can go over the basics.

 

[dad]

Knowing, not believing dad. Believing is your flaw.

You believe you know you are worm kin. I know you are wrong and have only self inflicted beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say the way science facilitates killing embryos shows that they are murderously insane.

Citation needed.

 

[YoursTrue]

What! No. You were corrected on this a long time ago.

Are you trying to lie?

You just said this, I'm going by your words. Wait, let me look for them. A few posts back you said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." So now let's see. Let's look over your words. Was Haeckel wrong, or was he not wrong? Which line are you sticking to? You said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." I won't even discuss the EVIDENCE you are talking about now in relation to Haeckel. Just your sentence. "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe you know you are worm kin. I know you are wrong and have only self inflicted beliefs.

No dad, if you knew you could support your claims. You, like most creationists are too afraid to learn.

 

[YoursTrue]

Citation needed.

I imagine you will use the argument that it was necessary to use napalm (depending who is using it) as well as nuclear bombs, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just said this, I'm going by your words. Wait, let me look for them. A few posts back you said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." So now let's see. Let's look over your words. Was Haeckel wrong, or was he not wrong? Which line are you sticking to? You said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." I won't even discuss the EVIDENCE you are talking about now in relation to Haeckel. Just your sentence. "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence."

Purposefully trying to misunderstand is a form of lying.

Can you be honest? The proper thing to do when you do not understand is to ask questions without any false assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I imagine you will use the argument that it was necessary to use napalm (depending who is using it) as well as nuclear bombs, right?

No that was some wildly inaccurate claim of dad's. He needs a valid source to support thst claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

Citation needed.

Here is an interesting piece of evidence from Stephen Jay Gould, although dead, his writings live on. So let's see what HE said, in part, at:
Natural History:
I quote: "To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent --simply copied the same figure over and over again."
What?? A procedure that can only be called FRAUDULENT??? What? Stephen Jay Gould said that? (A very interesting article, by the way.)