An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[premio53]

I'm losing faith in mankind. Damn, premio, viceroy, are you neanderthals with monkeys doing the typing for you? I refuse to believe I'm the same species as you two.

Viceroy sounds like a genius compared to some quotes by Richards Dawkins and a few others.

[Frigidus]

Premio, do you find it at all concerning that your arguments regarding evolution and abiogenesis rely heavily on misquoting and word play? These are the markings of hucksters, not scientists. Why is it that every time we have this argument we see the same flawed creationist "evidence" trotted out just to be immediately shot down and abandoned? The entire strategy behind creationist debate is to spend much more time than the average person ever would thinking up ways of challenging established scientific thought that, while it might not hold up to an educated rebuttal, is beyond the scope of the individual they are arguing with. Once they have come up with a line of attack they will never abandon it, even if it is destroyed as soon as it is brought up. I mean, look at the original post in this thread. He has quotes of people from the 80s, the 60s, and the 1800s in there. This is not modern science, but I'm sure that this "evidence" has been passed around from believer to believer since those statements were made.

[Frigidus]

Read my responses to your quotes again - at least one of the guys you quoted died 4 years before he supposedly quoted anything!

Well, now that that's been demonstrated I'm sure that nobody will ever bring up these lies as evidence ever again. This is an honest debate after all, right?

Oh wait, we see those quotes every fucking time we have these arguments. They're never going to go away.

[BigBallinStalin]

A serious question for Viceroy or Premio or whoever: what is the creationist rationalization for ring species like the Ensatina salamanders?

What do you mean (I ask because if I am confused, I am guessing others might be as well?)

From an old discussion with d1g.

There is a species of plethodontid salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi if anyone cares) that lives in California. Its range is over a good chunk of the state making an upside down (assuming you think north is up, of course) "U" around the Great Central Valley of California. There are a series of seven subspecies that populate the "U," one starting in the mountains of SoCal, one starting in the San Francisco area, and onward around the valley. Here's a pic to illustrate:



The subspecies all interbreed as they go around the "U" making them one species according to the most commonly accepted species theory. However, at the tips of the "U," the first and final subspecies successfully interbreed very rarely, if at all (in some areas they barely can, in others they cannot at all). So now what do we call the populations that cannot interbreed? Are they a different species? If so, where do we draw the line? This is speciation in action, whether we can define it or not, and it illustrates a key point. People take for granted the idea of a species because it is generally clear-cut. A dog cannot successfully mate with a cat. A horse can breed with a donkey, but the offspring is always unfertile. This is not the case with these salamanders. In two subspecies, interbreeding is all but impossible, but if you follow the trail around the valley, it is easy to interbreed. My point is that if you don't understand the species concept that speciation theory is based on, you cannot understand speciation. The case of the salamanders also illustrates how evolution in general works. It is not a parade, but a branching that occurs. Sure it occurs in a timescale we can't observe, but this is a unique and telling snapshot.

If a creationist interbreeds with a homo sapiens, is the offspring a new species?

And do creationists spontaneously generate, or are they really stupid?

[tzor]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

You keep saying that, over and over. But what is the specific "lie" of evolution?

[Gillipig]

I'm losing faith in mankind. Damn, premio, viceroy, are you neanderthals with monkeys doing the typing for you? I refuse to believe I'm the same species as you two.

Viceroy sounds like a genius compared to some quotes by Richards Dawkins and a few others.

[Viceroy63]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

You keep saying that, over and over. But what is the specific "lie" of evolution?

Haven't you been reading this thread all along and you still don't get it. Let me help you out by posting all the links to all of the lies and Hoaxes then. That way you don't have to re-read the entire thread. These links are all on the Original post by the way. I link them there for ease of referencing.

Let's begin with the Horse shall we? The Horse Series is suppose to convince us, dishonestly, That evolution is for real. This illustration with appropriate convincing doctrine brainwashes untold millions of young minds into accepting evolution as fact when in fact it is flawed and they know it. So it's a lie.

FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES [The Evolution of the Horse]

Spoiler

Chapter 17:

Evolutionary Showcase

The Best Examples of Evolution have Proven Worthless

This chapter is based on pp. 775-793 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this paperback chapter are at least 25 statements by scientists in the chapter appendix of the set. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.

Throughout this set of books we have been surprised at the paucity of evidence that evolutionary theory has to offer. We begin to wonder just how evolutionists are able to maintain such a lock grip on the modern world.

In a later chapter (Evolution and Education, on our website, but not in this paperback) we will learn that their secret of success is actually their control of hiring and firing in the scientific world, the colleges and universities, research centers, and scientific organizations. Also they have close connections with the media and the major book publishing houses. No large book company would dare print the book you are now reading under its own name. It is the fear of reprisal that keeps evolutionary theory at the top.

But, to the general public, evolution presents its showcase, assured that they will be ignorant enough of natural history and scientific discoveries to gullibly absorb enough of it to keep them puzzled, believing, and tractable.

Let us begin by considering two of the best evolutionary pieces in this showcase. These are "proofs" of evolution that we have not discussed in detail elsewhere in this paperback. (All the other "best evidences" will also be mentioned in this chapter. The peppered moth has been discussed in detail in the chapter on Natural Selection.)

In all the other "evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one indication of any transition across species. But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some detail:

Eohippus and the Horse Series

1 - THE HORSE SERIES

30 DIFFERENT HORSES—

In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—

When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series.

In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real.

The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

3 - Number of rib bones

. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata.

The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse.

The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus), is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

9 - Bottom found at the top.

Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

A STUDY IN CONFUSION—

In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

FEAR TO SPEAK—

Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake.

"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—

*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—

(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—

*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—

A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—

The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

OTHER SERIES—

(*#4/2 Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.

These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.

When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.

Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."

"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head while two of them have horns in different locations.

The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.

On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.

[18] As explained in the article in the show/hide box, "Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated Fake." [HOAX]
(Dr. Niles Eldredge
[curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City]
In 1969, Eldredge became Curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, a position which he still holds.)
-Source: Wikipedia.com

Other Articles that support the position that the theory of evolution is not even possible or a Hoax:

Is This a Fact?

Feathered fossil proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Programming of Life. (A Video Documentary)

Short Youtube Videos; "Scientist: Evolution is false, Parts 1 and 2"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU_O_8O2Z3M

Expelled - No inteligence Allowed (A Video Documentary)

Scientist: Evolution is Wrong! (A Short Youtube - 8 Minutes)

A Refutal

The Australopithecus Sediba Hoax (Short Youtube Video - 5 minutes long)

The 4 Top Reasons to Believe in Evolution, Or...

Evolution Has Never Occurred! By Viceroy63

A Clever Hoax: The Archaeopteryx Lithographica Hoax!

Science is true... By Viceroy63

What Was Archaeopteryx?

The Kachina Bridge Dinosaur Carving Has Been Authenticated and is NO FRAUD!

[AAFitz]

Quick, now someone post the articles that support Evolution is true.

The CC Database server will fill up, ten times over.

When I get the urge to read some more fiction, Vice, ill check those out.

Thanks for the suggestions.

[Gillipig]

This is a topic that brings together many CC regulars who normally don't get along. Politics is a big divider because it's a very subjective topic. There's no real right or wrong, just different opinions on how a country best should be run. But the evolution deniers are just plain wrong. So it's a very handy tool to distinguish the idiots from those who just have different opinions from you. Here's my list so far:

Idiots:
premio
viceroy
tzor

[Neoteny]

Viceroy, I don't think Dr. Eldredge said what you are quoting him as saying. Indeed, a quick googling of your complete clusterfuck of quotes there (this thread is the third hit on my google attempt) indicates that you aren't even capable of quoting creationists appropriately, much less source them (wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything of the sort; I'm happy to look at any corrections though). This is an unsurprising fact, but somehow unexpected nonetheless. I sort of thought you were just copying and pasting from whatever propaganda you read.

But, again, seriously though, Vice. Would you be willing to, for the first time, demonstrate some critical thinking skills and, in your own words, discuss your feelings on Ensatina salamanders and how they apply to creation and evolution? This is a prime opportunity to show that you are thinking about this and not just regurgitating your favorite bogeymen.

[comic boy]

This is a topic that brings together many CC regulars who normally don't get along. Politics is a big divider because it's a very subjective topic. There's no real right or wrong, just different opinions on how a country best should be run. But the evolution deniers are just plain wrong. So it's a very handy tool to distinguish the idiots from those who just have different opinions from you. Here's my list so far:

Idiots:
premio
viceroy
tzor

Not Tzor , he has argued strongly in favour of evolution , it appears that he doesn't need to bolster his faith by resorting to ridiculous attacks on Science. Such a pity that Viceroy and his ilk feel the need to impede knowledge in the name of outdated dogma.

[Gillipig]

This is a topic that brings together many CC regulars who normally don't get along. Politics is a big divider because it's a very subjective topic. There's no real right or wrong, just different opinions on how a country best should be run. But the evolution deniers are just plain wrong. So it's a very handy tool to distinguish the idiots from those who just have different opinions from you. Here's my list so far:

Idiots:
premio
viceroy
tzor

Not Tzor , he has argued strongly in favour of evolution , it appears that he doesn't need to bolster his faith by resorting to ridiculous attacks on Science. Such a pity that Viceroy and his ilk feel the need to impede knowledge in the name of outdated dogma.

Ah, must've bveen some other thread he said something utterly stupid. Okay now I remember, it was something about how difficult it is to sentence priests who molest children because no one can know if they did it with malicious intentions. It made no sense at all and sounded just like the type of thing you would expect an evolution denier to randomly slur out.

[Lootifer]

Posted in anouther thread but reposting for Viceroy as he has made the same argument in here:

http://www.generalforum.com/science/did ... 94028.html

The above drawing is found in Utah, USA. It was made by American Indians 500 years ago. At the time the Indian people were nomadic tribesmen. That means that they moved around a lot. They were nomads by choice because the hunting of the American Buffalo was their main concern. Well, that and the smoking of the peace pipe. Who can blame them.

The Buffalo never stayed put in just one place. So where ever the Buffalo roamed the Indians followed. They had no cities or high technology and certainly did not have spare scientist digging for bones and collecting the bones where ever they went. Spending the night dancing and singing songs around the camp fire to their gods was the height of their scientific endeavors.

So my question is...

If no one has seen a dinosaur in over 60,000,000 million years, Then just what the hell were they drawing in the cave walls?

There is an image of a man which is certainly definable but what creature even remotely resembles that of a large Horse with a tail the size of a tree and an obvious bump on it's head which we now know that some dinosaurs had atop their heads?

The painting was made 500 years ago.

Lets for a minute assume that we have only been here for a few thousand years (thats inline with your belief Viceroy? take few thousand to mean anything between 3 and 30).

We certainly havent observed a living Dinosaur in human history, and certainly not in the last 2000 years.

So you are saying that a random nomadic tribe that is best known for smoking opiates managed to somehow keep an accurate picture of anything, dinosaur or otherwise, in their memory/records for no less than 1500 years?

You must be a pretty boring person to play chinese whispers with if that is the case...

[PLAYER57832]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

What lie?

And please be specific. What is the lie that the whole field of evolution is based upon?

[PLAYER57832]

Bottom line is everything came from nothing and "spontaneous generation" is a no no so we'll change it to "abiogenesis." Gotcha.

OK, so you continue to ignore the fact that the theory of evolution involves what happened after life got here, not how it originally started.

Still... what answer do you have? How did we get from nothing to something if not via some form of abiogenesis.

[Viceroy63]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

What lie?

And please be specific. What is the lie that the whole field of evolution is based upon?

The theory of evolution dictates that all life on this planet evolved from lower life forms. This has never been observed nor is there any evidence in nature to back this theory up. To say that because mutations occur in nature, then evolution must be true is not proof of the evolution of species from lower life forms to higher more complex life forms. To teach the theory of evolution as fact when in fact there is no factual evidence to prove that all life evolves from lower life forms is a lie. You can not say that something is true and not show the evidence to back it up and say that you are telling the truth.

That there are blacks and whites and yellows and red humans is not proof of evolution of human beings, although it is proof of mutations and diversity of humans as written in the genome. All the different kinds of dogs is not proof of evolution but of mutations in accordance to the genomes. These are two separate things and mutations have yet to be proven a mechanism of evolution. To say that it is, is a lie because there simply is no proof that mutations is a mechanism of evolution. But again, just to teach something as fact, when in fact it is not a fact...

...IS A LIE!

[Neoteny]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

What lie?

And please be specific. What is the lie that the whole field of evolution is based upon?

The theory of evolution dictates that all life on this planet evolved from lower life forms. This has never been observed nor is there any evidence in nature to back this theory up. To say that because mutations occur in nature, then evolution must be true is not proof of the evolution of species from lower life forms to higher more complex life forms. To teach the theory of evolution as fact when in fact there is no factual evidence to prove that all life evolves from lower life forms is a lie. You can not say that something is true and not show the evidence to back it up and say that you are telling the truth.

That there are blacks and whites and yellows and red humans is not proof of evolution of human beings, although it is proof of mutations and diversity of humans as written in the genome. All the different kinds of dogs is not proof of evolution but of mutations in accordance to the genomes. These are two separate things and mutations have yet to be proven a mechanism of evolution. To say that it is, is a lie because there simply is no proof that mutations is a mechanism of evolution. But again, just to teach something as fact, when in fact it is not a fact...

...IS A LIE!

Salamanders?

[PLAYER57832]

Neither of which has any established scientific theory that is presented as a "fact", just a "what we think probably happened is..... but we don't know for sure as we've not managed to replicate the conditions for long enough yet".

Nothing to say about the blatant lies you peddled in your other quotes?

I've shown very clearly that those who support your fairy tale will call evolution a "fact" and and lie about how all scientists today accept it as a "fact." If you can prove I misquoted anyone, I'll certainly apologize. Take care.

No, but you have made clear you don't understand what evolution is or what scientific proof is. You also make clear that you are happy to quote things without bothering to verify if they are even true, never mind check original sources to see if your quote is appropriate.. or just a few words taken way out of context.

I once believed that young earthers had to have some kind of honest reason to believe what they do, but in 20 years of research all I find is garbage like that you spew forth. Too bad you continue to believe lies when even a bare cursory check of your references and data would show you are blowing smoke, or worse.

[PLAYER57832]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

What lie?

And please be specific. What is the lie that the whole field of evolution is based upon?

The theory of evolution dictates that all life on this planet evolved from lower life forms.

Correction, it actually says that evidence supports the idea that some life evolved from lower life forms and that it is very likely that all life did so. This is, however, a theory. It could be wrong, but no one to date, including most particularly you, have presented any evidence to the contrary.

See, you declaring "this is a lie!" doesn't work. You have to actually PROVE your ideas.

This has never been observed nor is there any evidence in nature to back this theory up.

You mean that you, yourself have not personnaly observed this.. of course, you neglect to say that you have not looked and outright dismiss without consideration anyone else who offers other evidence.

To say that because mutations occur in nature, then evolution must be true is not proof of the evolution of species from lower life forms to higher more complex life forms.

It show that species do change over time, which is enough to suggest that evolution might be possible. When added with the fossil evidence (yeah, we know.. you claim it is all lies, but too many of us have actually SEEN that evidence for ourselves, including myself), it certainly suggests that evolution is possible.

BUT.. where is your evidence? And please, don't say "the Bible". The Bible does nothing to dispute evolution, nor is it positive proof of your theories over mine.

To teach the theory of evolution as fact when in fact there is no factual evidence to prove that all life evolves from lower life forms is a lie. You can not say that something is true and not show the evidence to back it up and say that you are telling the truth.

Evolution is NOT fact, though the evidence supporting it is pretty pervasive. Too bad you choose to believe lies over truth. Too bad you consider ignoring evidence to be a valid technique. In the real world, that is considering"lying". It is under God as well... think about that. IF your lauded institute for Creationist research (from whom virtually all of your information comes, whether you know that or not) were so truthful then why do they persist in such deceptive tactics, frauds and outright lies.. such as you have presented here. Why do you think your ideas are valid, but without any kind of real verification...even internet verification.

That there are blacks and whites and yellows and red humans is not proof of evolution of human beings, although it is proof of mutations and diversity of humans as written in the genome. All the different kinds of dogs is not proof of evolution but of mutations in accordance to the genomes.

Nope, that statement is proof that you don't know anything about evolution except what you have been taught to recite. You have never really stopped to think about what your are blindly reciting.

These are two separate things and mutations have yet to be proven a mechanism of evolution.

Uh, wrong. The evidence of changing fossils in distinct layers and locations came before any knowledge of mutations or genetics. Genetics LATER came aobut and supported the idea by giving a potential mechanism. The evidence was so strong, in fact that your whole institute for Creationist research had to back-pedal from earlier ideas and proclaim this idea that "OK, mutations happen, but not evolution". Now they even argue that change in species very much can and do happen over time, but somehow it all is supposed to just stop when it comes to the final adaption that results in a new species.

The biggest problem with this whole concept is that the idea of species deliniation is actually fairly arbitrary. That is, it is a line set for by biologists. The demarcations make sense, but there are more than a few exceptions to basically every rule about how to divide up species. They are very HUMAN rules, not some unbreakable rules set forward by God.

IN other words, your idea.. .and that IS all it is, is an idea that the ideas put forward by scientists are wrong... your idea is wrong.

To say that it is, is a lie because there simply is no proof that mutations is a mechanism of evolution. But again, just to teach something as fact, when in fact it is not a fact...

Two lies in one sentence!

sorry, evolution is not a fact and there very much is evidence. Your ideas fail. Keep putting your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes. But know that real teachers of Christ have no need to deny the truth.


.. no matter how big the print!

[Lootifer]

Viceroy you need to reply to all the questions and replies to you. Or none at all. Picking and choosing posts to reply to shows, to me, that you have holes in your argument.

[tzor]

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

You keep saying that, over and over. But what is the specific "lie" of evolution?

Haven't you been reading this thread all along and you still don't get it.

Oh I get it. I've also been on jury duty for the past week, and believe me you can't get away with that shit in court.

If you could replay that transcript ... thank you ..

The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.

You keep saying that the "whole field of evolution" is wrong because it, that is the "whole field of evolution" is based on "a lie."

So what is the lie that the whole field of evolution is based on. Do not give so called specific examples because you cannot prove a general through a few specific examples.

What is "the lie" that causes the whole field of evolution to be wrong?

You tend to argue like a two bit lawyer who thinks that if he throws enough bullshit on the wall, something will eventually stick. I'm not going to bother to go through all your red herrings and prove them wrong because even if one were true the general is not invalidated.

[tzor]

The theory of evolution dictates that all life on this planet evolved from lower life forms.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

These two statements are not in agreement. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about "lower life forms."

[tzor]

That there are blacks and whites and yellows and red humans is not proof of evolution of human beings, although it is proof of mutations and diversity of humans as written in the genome. All the different kinds of dogs is not proof of evolution but of mutations in accordance to the genomes. These are two separate things and mutations have yet to be proven a mechanism of evolution.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

What's really strange is that these two statements are in agreement. Please see Wikipedia article on mutation for more information.

Although as Wikipedia points out ... "Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution."

[jonesthecurl]

Viceroy stands on a platform called "I am right - not only that but I'm obviously right if you think about it". He thinks that there is room for everyone on this platform.

Then he bans everyone who isn't a Christian.
Then the majority of Christians.
Then most of the scientists who have ever lived.
Then people who use words as they are defined in the dictionary.
In truth, it's a very small platform.

[jonesthecurl]

He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, aned end by loving himself better than all.

(Coleridge)