Creation Evidence Museums...

What you are doing is called "projection": "The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others". You are avoiding all the issues by not supporting your claims, and you are trying to distract us by intorducing new claims. A typical creationist tactic called the "Gish Gallop" or the "Hovind Hustle". For example, a few messages back: You said "AiG have extensively covered it", and Crashfrong asked you to support that claim. Give us links to the AIG coverage or admit that you just assumed that AIG has covered it and presented your unwarranted assumption as fact.

That's a book review. It has absolutely no mention of any explanation of how AIG thinks that the fossil record of plants came to be as it is, or of anything that is remotely related to Crashfrog's question:

quote:

---

As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top.

​

What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern?

---

Then your answer to Crashfrog's question should have been "I don't know". You actual answer, "in relation to your last challenge im completely lost ive never studied that but AiG have extensively covered it" was a lie; AIG has not covered it at all.

Nope. The question was:

quote:

---

As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top.

​

What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern?

---

What you posted is a bunch of claims that plants appear fully formed without clear ancestry (which is, of course, false for many plants) .... but it says nothing about the pattern of plant fossils in the fossil record. This is, of course, because the pattern contradicts creationsist ideas; AIG has nothing to say..

Er, that is your peculiar [b]interpretation{/b of what is written in the Bible.You seem to be worshiping the Bible more than God.

Your introduction of new, unsupported claims is really tiresome ... Lying is a serious charge. According the The Merriam-Webster dictionary the primary meaning of "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim.P.S. Piltdown man doesn't count. That was never an inmportant part of the record of human evolution, and the lies were unmasked ... by evolutionists. Nebraska man and Java man and Heidelberg man don't count either, they weren't lied about.

That link contains a collection of unsupported assertions, flat-out lies, and mined quotes. Remember that I instructed you about mined quotes in another thread? But even if everything there were true, it's all irrelevant.Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim. That means quoting statements, demonstrating that the persons making the statements were "evolutionists", demonstrating that the statements are untrue, and demonstrating that they were made with intent to deceive. You haven't even tried to do this, and the page to which you linked has nothing to do with this process.Of course, you won't do it, since you have never expended the effort to think; all you do is blindly parrot the liars you have chosen to follow. Feh.This message has been edited by JonF, 05-08-2004 01:37 PM

I thought I'd provide a demonstration for almeyda of how things are done. From the page to which she linked, Page not found – Evolution-Facts

quote:

---

NEANDERTHALS Evolutionists call the cavemen, "Neanderthals." Scientists recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

​

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis.

​

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

---

"... rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight." A lie, albeit not an mportant one. Rickets is caused by lack of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight is one way of obtaining vitamin D, but far from the only way. See Rickets for more information. Since someone writing an essay like this has the responsibility to verify the claims, this is delberate."Scientists recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets ..." Another lie. Rudolf Virchow claimed in the 1800's that the first Neandertal that we found had rickets as a child, and arthrits in late life. However, the symptoms of rickets and of arthritis do not produce skeletons like Neandertal skeletons. There is serious doubt as to whether the first-found Neandertal had rickets at all. In addition, almost all of the Neandertal skeletons found since then did not hqve rickets or arthritis, and this has falsified Virchow's claim (which may have been a reasonable one given the information he had at the time). Their skeletal features are due to significant differences between them and home sapiens (us). See No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.htmlCreationist Arguments: Neandertals and Neanderthals and Modern Humans.See how it's done, almeyda? A clear statement of that with which you disagree, exactly what you think is wrong with it, a dsicussionof why you feel that way, and rerferences to where you got your information or for further information.

Sorry, it's the other way around. AIG is lying to you. I remind you of forum rules 2 and 4.Lying is a serious charge. According the The Merriam-Webster dictionary the primary meaning of "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive". Provide evidence that "evolutionists" have made untrue statements about human bones, and prove that those statements were made with intent to deceive, or retract your claim.