shadowsmith
New Member
Are you joking or serious? It's impossible to tell with creationists.
I'm joking and according to my computers spell check creationist isn't a word.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you joking or serious? It's impossible to tell with creationists.
then you should update you spell checker...I'm joking and according to my computers spell check creationist isn't a word.
I know what the theory of evolution is.
I know what the theory of evolution is.
Go on then. Sum it up in a sentence or two, and then go ahead and tell us all why it's flawed. And oh, while you're at it, try and find an alternative explanation for:
Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons, Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses, Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies
Transitional forms: Reptile-birds, Reptile-mammals, Ape-humans, Legged whales, Legged seacows, Chronology of common ancestors
Anatomical vestiges including: Atavisms, Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs, Humans tails, Molecular vestiges, Ontogeny and developmental biology, Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws, Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches, Snake embryos with legs, Embryonic human tail, Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
Past biogeography of: Marsupials, Horses, Apes and humans
Note that 'I don't know any of that!' is not an adequate answer; it merely displays scientific ignorance or deliberate avoidance of the facts in order to protect the fragility of your world view. Until you know all of this evidence leading into the elegance of evolutionary theory, you have no right to deem it false.
Perhaps this thread would be helpful then: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.htmlI never said it was false. I came in here in search for facts.
I know what the theory of evolution is.
I never said it was false. I came in here in search for facts.
Sorry if I confused you. I was ignorant and confused about ToE. But I've done some deep studying over the past couple of days and now I'm not confused anymore. Again I'm sorry for confusing you.
[/size][/font][/size][/font]
That's so interesting, but what does it have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Did someone here, or anywhere, claim that ToE is true because of this fly?
Speaking of misdirecting....Nice try at misdirecting... You asked for examples of scientific fraud and now you change the subject. That fly was used to claim the ToE is true. The lie of the fly was used to support the lie of macro evolution.
Most Creationists rely on the reveled revelations of the Bible, and a literal interpretation of the OT in particular. As a former Christian I was also taught the inerrancy of the Bible.
I was also taught as a Christian not to bear false witness, that is, to lie, use deceit, or mislead is wrong.
However, the instances where leading Creations do deceive are numerous, and show the dishonesty many Creationists will stoop to in order to persuade those ignorant of science that Evolution and the ToE are wrong.
Kent Hovind claimed of the Vollosovitch mammoth findings, "One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Heres two parts of the same animal. Thats from USGS Professional Paper #862."
When in fact the truth is,
"Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950s and 60s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 with a beaver dam). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.
NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed baby, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said." Karen E. Bartelt
Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis tells us that, "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."
Duane Gish who has a doctorate in biochemistry has said the same thing
While the truth is, it is not true nor is it even close to being true. Human lysozyme is identical to chimpanzee lysozyme thus elementary logic tells us it not possible for another lysozyme to be closer. In reality, chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme in 51 out of 130 positions.
These are leading men in the Creationist debate, yet they rely on lies and half truths to try to "prove" Creationism.
Is this dishonesty approved by other Christians?
Info
Speaking of misdirecting....
The 'Amber Fly" was thought to be an example of a species that had remained unchanged for 38 million years. Not an example of macro-evolution. But rather a fallacious example of millions of years of stability in a species.
Fannia scalaris, fake fossil fly in amber - Animals, Insects and Arachnids at The Natural History Museum, London
Cleared up by Science!To say nothing of the lie that the fly was 38 million years old... More misdirection..
To say nothing of the lie that the fly was 38 million years old... More misdirection..
Evolution has died many deaths only to be resuscitated by the constant invention of new and more convoluted theories.
Terms such as convergent evolution, allopatric speciation, peripatric speciation, paratactic speciation, sympatric speciation, genetic drift, homoplasy and much more, are all created as some sort of links to a resuscitation machine to breathe life into the dead to give some artificial colour and resemblance of life.
Here is an article that does a fair job of outlining the death of TOE. The writer calls the evolutionary theoretical science of TOE, Zombie Science, an apt descriptor.
Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong