Evolution is Not Science

Originally posted by edge:
Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again? Just because you do not accept various lines of evidence, does not mean that others are not permitted to do so. You seem to fixated on the word "proof" here. This leads me to believe that you really do not understand science.***No, but perhaps you do need to explain things to some of the Evos. Several seem to think that evolution is a "proven fact", and have stated as much. I would never expect the TOE to be "proven", because I know that it never can be. And as for your statement concerning the acceptance of "various lines of evidence", that, my friend, is a two-way street.***Jetedge: Sounds like you are parroting something you read from a creationist website...Yep, good old number 65! (Do you actually understand these arguments?). You are right: could'a, might'a, should'a...***I can only assume you were not paying very close attention as you read the post. Not surprising.***JetEdge: Actually, evolution is a theory that explains the data.***Actually, it only one theory that attempts to explain the data, and does an extremely poor job in its' attempt to do so.***Jet***It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Originally posted by mark24:
Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology.***You mean "explained away", don't you. This has been, and continues to be, the common practice of Evos. When something is discovered that fully refutes the Evo position, they either ignore it completely, or give some unscientific explanation for it, or dismiss it as an abberation, or simply call it an elaborate hoax by the creationist crowd. So much for Evos being interested is true science. True science seeks the truth, regardless of where that truth leads, or what the source of that truth is. True science is all about discovering the truth. Evolutionists do not qualify to be categorized as seeking truth. They seek only to have evolution accepted, no matter the cost to the truth, no matter the cost to the reputation of true science.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Mark24 writes:

---

Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology.

---

There are no details here. Mark said to see earlier post, but I could find no post with any details in this thread.

Jet replies:

---

You mean "explained away", don't you.

---

Without the details from Mark there's nothing to rebut. If Mark could provide a link to the details, Jet could then provide a reason why he thinks they represent an "explaining away" rather than an explanation.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
edge: Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again? Just because you do not accept various lines of evidence, does not mean that others are not permitted to do so. You seem to fixated on the word "proof" here. This leads me to believe that you really do not understand science.

​

***No, but perhaps you do need to explain things to some of the Evos. Several seem to think that evolution is a "proven fact", and have stated as much. I would never expect the TOE to be "proven", because I know that it never can be. And as for your statement concerning the acceptance of "various lines of evidence", that, my friend, is a two-way street.***Jet

---

Hmm, now where did anyone here say that evolution is a "proven fact?"***It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!***Yeah, well, you might consider the post that I had to work with. Just what are the specific facts that you deal with, by the way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Originally posted by mark24:
Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology.

​

***You mean "explained away", don't you. This has been, and continues to be, the common practice of Evos. When something is discovered that fully refutes the Evo position, they either ignore it completely, or give some unscientific explanation for it, or dismiss it as an abberation, or simply call it an elaborate hoax by the creationist crowd. So much for Evos being interested is true science. True science seeks the truth, regardless of where that truth leads, or what the source of that truth is. True science is all about discovering the truth. Evolutionists do not qualify to be categorized as seeking truth. They seek only to have evolution accepted, no matter the cost to the truth, no matter the cost to the reputation of true science.***

​

---

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/geologic_column/out-of-place.html'Polystrate' trees show every sign of extremely rapid burial, generally when rivers flood over their banks.
(Eldredge, 1982, p.105)An example of this very thing is given by Dunbar and Waage (Dunbar & Waage, 1969, p.52). They show a photo of the Yahtse River area in Alaska, which depicts a number of upright, brokenoff stumps stripped of most of their branches. The taller stumps poke out above the alluvial mud. This is the result of natural processes accompanying river course change. A couple of pages later we find a photograph showing how trees can be buried fairly quickly in another way. In this case, volcanic ash has partially buried a forest whose trees are mostly reduced to brokenoff stumps stripped of their branches. Continuing volcanic eruptions over a period of years (dead trees last a long time!) and the interaction with wind would create variations in the strata which finally bury the stumps.In some cases, burial might well be less than instantaneous. In the San Francisco area fossils of cedar and redwood (dated at 23,000 years) are found in place 20 feet below present sea level. This may be due to a rising sea level from melting ice-caps. (Encyclopedia Americana, 1978 Annual [Geology].) A similar find exists off the coast of Japan where remnants of a forest of willows and alders are found in 70 feet of water. They are some 10,000 years old (Chorlton, 1984, p.90).Thus, we have polystrate fossils in the making, without the aid of Noah's flood.That’s polystrate fossils in the making, mate, via two different mechanisms.Now YOU explain how fossil forests, rooted in paleosols appear all through the gc.I wish you luck.BTW, I’m still waiting for your positive evidence that disproves evolution.Also,Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying gravitational theory. Five examples should do it.Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying the existence of electrons (after their acceptance). Five examples should do it.Or have you given up on that?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

You are the kind of person I have been looking for!
you're information is the kind I have been seeking.
I am a Biolpgy major that plans on teaching Creationism in the public school system!
I too get disenchanted with evolutionists being so smug that it's their way or it's not Science, but Psuedo-science.
Yet the same methods they use to prove evolution exists can also prove that it does not.
Maybe you can be of assistance.
I have a friend that is an evolutionist-aetheist. Not because he can state with his own mind what he beleives,but instead uses the idea that because his father is a member of mensa and is clear in his beleifs and why; that there is no room for God because of logic.
I would like help with locating resources etc. and people such as yourself that have a scientific approach as to why his ideas are fallible and not absolutes.
I need the "big guns " so to speak the really in depth turn evolution on it's side stuff.
I would really appreciate it and i can't stae enough it is good to finally see science being used for it's true purpose~. I wrote the theory of purpose under the Big bang Forum.
Let me know what you think.
Jennacreationist~

quote:

---

Originally posted by jennacreationist:
You are the kind of person I have been looking for!
you're information is the kind I have been seeking.
I am a Biolpgy major that plans on teaching Creationism in the public school system!

---

Interesting. If you were to attempt that today, you’d likely be removed by the local public school board to avoid possible litigation for infringing the constitutional rights of public school students. Even more interesting might be your proposed syllabus. Could you please share with us, an overview of your course material ? Such as
-General concepts
-Supporting Evidence
-Text Books
-Peer Review articles on
-Research Conducted
etc [b] [QUOTE] I too get disenchanted with evolutionists being so smug that it's their way or it's not Science, but Psuedo-science.
Yet the same methods they use to prove evolution exists can also prove that it does not.
[/b][/QUOTE]This is intriguing. Specifically, which methods were you discussing ? [b] [QUOTE] Maybe you can be of assistance.
I have a friend that is an evolutionist-aetheist. Not because he can state with his own mind what he beleives,but instead uses the idea that because his father is a member of mensa and is clear in his beleifs and why; that there is no room for God because of logic.
[/b][/QUOTE]Doesn’t it concern your friend in the least that evolution and atheism are not synonymous ? What would you tell your Christian Public School students who accept Evolution and are also devoted to their faith ? Do you use the public school as a forum to dictate proper Christian conduct ( as YOU see it ) upon Christians who don’t need your advice on such, personal matters ? You seem to ignore the entire demographic of Christian Theistic Evolutionists.
Don't the thoughts of, otherwise honorable, Christians interest you in the least ? [b] [QUOTE] I would like help with locating resources etc. and people such as yourself that have a scientific approach as to why his ideas are fallible and not absolutes.
[/b][/QUOTE]In real science, there virtually are no absolutes. The theory of evolution can be falsified in an instant if the falsifying evidence is made public and substantiated.
What’s the problem ? [b] [QUOTE] I need the "big guns " so to speak the really in depth turn evolution on it's side stuff.
Jennacreationist~
[/b][/QUOTE]Again, you really don’t need ‘big guns’ to falsify the ToE. Show us a Precambrian fossil of a Maple treeor of a Goldfish.
Blammo~!
Evolution (as we know it ) is gone.
Ordemonstrate that all living organisms share identical DNA, and the Common Ancestor hypothesis is running on empty. Or maybe notYou’d still have to explain the fossil record in a better manner than the ToE. If you think about it, the only reason the ToE was conceived ( and is still around today ) is because it explains the evidence, rather well. And it also seems to do this while remaining consistent with all the other scientific disciplines. Is this just coincidence ?or conspiracy ?regards,jeff------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

hey Jeff. I think you misunderstood my wanting to introduce Creationism in Public schools.
My purpose and format is not a religious one.
It is a scientific one to get the kids thinking especially in a Biology class about how well the earth and all of the things in it work so purposefully together. I still have to discuss evolution , but why not let kids use their brains?
So in other words I know I can't discuss God as a topic however I can show how there are other theories besides evolution and how in the grand scheme of Biology ,it's intresting to note the purpose and exchanging of things like oxygen carbon dioxide etc. as purpoeful and not neccessarily random.
Does that clear things up for you?
There are alot of things that show the Toe to not be truthful and it is not against any school laws to get the kids thinking about other theories.
So to answer your statements, No I am not thrusting my ideals of Christianity upon any classroom~ Evolution wise or otherwise...
It was intresting to me the comments you made about the goldfish and maple tree, I have not heard of this on topic so please elaborate..
Thanks Jennacreationist.
I was just showing my gratitude towards Jett, because there is not a whole lot of other creationists out here and any info. to give my friend is helpful.

Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup.Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stmTake peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.
Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.Then there is homology. Quote Dr Beer, ‘Because homology implies community of descent from a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes’Then there's archaeopterx.
"as Wells points out, the position of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is now very much in dispute, and in fact ‘its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in modern science’ (p. 112). Most paleontologists now agree this member of an extinct group of birds15 is not the ancestor of any group of modern birds, nor is it a link between reptiles and birds. Evolutionists conclude from cladistic studies (i.e. of shared common features) that bird-like dinosaurs would have lived in the Cretaceous period, which according to evolutionary dating methods was long after Archaeopteryx had supposedly become extinct. That leaves evolutionists back at square one: where are those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles"Take Darwin's finches-Recent evidence shows that the supposed different species can reproduce with each other. A recent scientist (I don't remember who) found the supposedly different species mate. Also, the species are not locationally isolated. The species are found on all of the islands.Fourwinged fruit flies-
"Geneticist Ed Lewis showed that three strains of laboratory mutant fruit flies could be interbred to produce four winged flies. The balancers or ‘halteres’ required for flight stability in the third thoracic segment were replaced by two new wings. The evolution-oriented textbooks use this to claim random mutations provide some useful changes on occasion, which natural selection then favours.The exceeding unlikelihood of three such mutations, introduced in the laboratory, is never mentioned. More serious is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive nor mate in free nature. Duplicate organs may be interesting, but what is needed is evidence that novel functionality or organs can develop by random and unguided processes."Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these.Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup.

---

Well, your first paragraph is not very promising. It is just a rambling, disorganized litany of complaints. Perhaps you could keep it to one major subject at a time.

quote:

---

Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp

---

Why do you ask us to tell you about science and then proceed to tell us about it? Perhaps Haeckel is not my favorite evidence or my best example of science.

quote:

---

has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stm

---

No, not another one of my choices.

quote:

---

Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.
Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.

---

I think I would like to talk to your language arts teacher about paragraph construction. Could you please repost this entire diatribe and organize it a little better. Perhaps pare the subject list down, also. It shows great disrespect for you audience when you will not take the time to be more cogent and develop your arguments. It is also very unflattering toward yourself.(rant snipped)

quote:

---

There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

---

Are you sure that you want to get involved in discussing hoaxes? What really do they have to do with the validity of a theory when they are not used as evidence and are not espoused by anyone in the scientific community? Are you prepared to find out that some of these hoaxes were perpetrated by creationists? Are you prepared to discusse the strawmen presented by your professional creationist leaders? I have found this to be a really fruitless endeavor. Why not discusse the most established facts and the most accepted concepts?

"Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup."
--Your right, evolution isn't science! Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. But Evolution, its only scientific.... :\ I can't go back in time and watch Christ die on the cross, and I have a hunch your going to argue against that.
--Evolution is not, the believe that life came from primeval soup. That is abiogenesis if anything."Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stm
--Thats nice, and their significance?"Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day."
--And? Wooptididdlydoo, it doesn't matter if you could see a nail puncturing the moths head with a big 'made in china' engraving shown in eminent detail. The point is the statistics of the population of white and black tinted moths. Natural selection isn't a bunch of bunk."Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration."
--Last I heard was that the oldest rock is almost a billion years younger than the earth is thought of as being (about 3.65Ga) so you might want to iterate its significance."Take Darwin's finches-Recent evidence shows that the supposed different species can reproduce with each other. A recent scientist (I don't remember who) found the supposedly different species mate. Also, the species are not locationally isolated. The species are found on all of the islands."
--Lions and tigers can produce offspring as well so whats your point?"The exceeding unlikelihood of three such mutations, introduced in the laboratory, is never mentioned. More serious is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive nor mate in free nature. Duplicate organs may be interesting, but what is needed is evidence that novel functionality or organs can develop by random and unguided processes."
--Your arguing through example not definition. This argument is analogously similar to 'Evolution cannot be demonstrated feasable untill we can observe an eye evolve in a wild population'."Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these. "
--Raise your hand if you care! ..anyone?"Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists."Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists."
--Goodie two shoes! I still can't seem to find anyone raising thier hands... Good luck anyways.--Sorry about the hostility, I'm a YEC, but I just can't take Hovind all too seriously after the first couple hundred times. Respond to posts if you find anything interesting.*Leaves the thread without taking time to spell-check*------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup.

---

First, what you have described is NOT evolution.Second, that potential is testable ... because it's about chemistry.
Set up the right environment and see if you can produce organic
compounds ... didn't someone do that already ?Is archeology religion too ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stm

---

These are hardly linch-pins of evolutionary theory, and the
embriology stuff has been rejected via peer-review and
research ... which tends to suggest that evolution IS scientific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.

---

For photgraphs, perhaps, we cannot say they intended to
deceive.Where do they rest ? And what factors could have affected the
differences in colour distribution in the locations studied ?It is still evidence of population trait distributions changing,
which is all that was intended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.

---

Not sure of the relevence of this to evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Then there is homology. Quote Dr Beer, ‘Because homology implies community of descent from a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes’

---

Did you intend the wording above ? 'Not necessarily' and
'need not' imply that sometimes homology can be related to the
same gene doing the same thing. Common descent and convergent
evolution are both considered to be encompassed by ToE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Then there's archaeopterx.
"as Wells points out, the position of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is now very much in dispute, and in fact ‘its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in modern science’ (p. 112). Most paleontologists now agree this member of an extinct group of birds15 is not the ancestor of any group of modern birds, nor is it a link between reptiles and birds. Evolutionists conclude from cladistic studies (i.e. of shared common features) that bird-like dinosaurs would have lived in the Cretaceous period, which according to evolutionary dating methods was long after Archaeopteryx had supposedly become extinct. That leaves evolutionists back at square one: where are those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles"

---

OK. And that refutes evolution because ... ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Take Darwin's finches-Recent evidence shows that the supposed different species can reproduce with each other. A recent scientist (I don't remember who) found the supposedly different species mate. Also, the species are not locationally isolated. The species are found on all of the islands.

---

Still, it supports natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Fourwinged fruit flies-
"Geneticist Ed Lewis showed that three strains of laboratory mutant fruit flies could be interbred to produce four winged flies. The balancers or ‘halteres’ required for flight stability in the third thoracic segment were replaced by two new wings. The evolution-oriented textbooks use this to claim random mutations provide some useful changes on occasion, which natural selection then favours.

​

The exceeding unlikelihood of three such mutations, introduced in the laboratory, is never mentioned. More serious is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive nor mate in free nature. Duplicate organs may be interesting, but what is needed is evidence that novel functionality or organs can develop by random and unguided processes."

---

Unlikelihood is hardly relevent. It is unlikely for any one
person to win the lottery, doesn't mean no-one does (unless there's
a conspiracy I don't know about )The argument is that mutations can promote no-lethal changes that
are claimed to be impossible. How do we know that the absense
of flying ability is a disadvantage in all environments ... I mean
ants seem to do alright.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these.

---

The fossil record is incomplete ... no one will tell you otherwise.Too many differences for what ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "

​

There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

---

So people pull off hoaxes, your point is ?Perhaps you are saying that ALL support for ToE has been
hoaxed and/or manipulated and that no-one has attempted to
do the same in support of creationist views.Perhaps these hoaxes were perpetrated BY creationists to
ultimately discredit ToE ... who knows.The existence of hoaxes does not detract from the many lines
of evidence which are not hoaxed.

quote:

---

Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these.

---

What differences between the species are you talking about, specifically, and how are you defining "huge" and "way too many"?Would you like to talk about toes, teeth, skull size, leg length, or spine rigitity?(I have a degree in Equestrian Studies, so I like talking about horse evolution.)Given the rarity of fossilization, how many transitional species do you expect to find under your competing scientific theory, which of course explains things much better than the ToE?What would these transitionals look like? How do you define "transitional"?

Schraf,Not that you need any help, heres a phylogeny showing genera only. The actual number of fossil species belonging to the Equidae number over 200. The reason, should Blitz ask, is why genera only are shown, is that there ARE TOO MANY FOSSIL SPECIES TO FIT IN ONE DIAGRAM!!Gaps, indeed. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I am not sure yet how to respond. Globalization surely has changed the way I am addressing this issue today. We have the capacity for this but seems like the intensity is not strong enough.