|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about. How do you know you are right? Your myths don't hold water, stories told by bronze age men who knew nothing about the earth, man, the sun, the universe, weather, etc. How shocked will you be when at the end......nothing Edited by bluescat48, : typuo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about. Your pretense that only "secular humanists" defend evolution is, of course, untrue, and your daydream that one day we will learn that you were right is a fantasy contrary to all known evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
WOW, the sanctimony exhibited by you pseudo intellectuals as you repeatedly insist how right you are at a rate of your 116 combined posts to my 30. Here are all of my arguments in all of my posts which most have yet to be responded to with any substance at all, or rational evidence that anything you defend regarding evolution is based in a solid foundation of proven evidence. And if the foundation is faulty, then so is the house which is built upon it. Unless you're ready to produce this overwhelming evidence that spontaneous life appeared magically around 3.5 billion years ago leading to common descent and all of the crap that follows that term. Also, no comment on the Miller video questions I asked? No interest in defending that experiment which is held up as the best evidence of spontaneous life appearing from non life? Even when I give you the experiment which your most fevered proponents hold up proudly as evidence, you refuse to comment in defense of it by answering my very valid and common sense questions. All I get in response are 10 or 12 more angry and insulting posts which attempt to change the subject by insulting me, and more of your inane obfuscations. So here you go, I proudly repost the links to my posts in case anyone garners the nerve to actually respond to them ON POINT. EvC Forum: Origin of Translation... And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines. Evolution Fraud and Myths We have already debunked the miserable fraudulent crap that you quoted in your OP. The other false statements in your hysterical ravings are off topic. If you wish to scream deluded nonsense about anything else, that would belong on another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about.
You're preaching! You're peddling your narrow interpretation of religion, thinking it has something to do with science. Why do you think for a minute you have anything useful to say about science? Answer: you have nothing useful to say about science. You are peddling your religious beliefs concerning evolution in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and you're ignoring any evidence that we post that contradicts your beliefs. You appear to be nothing but a zealot with a totally closed mind, and nothing you say can be trusted unless you can produce some empirical evidence. But you are amusing to watch--seldom have I seen the like. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course it is only your assumption that the evidence MUST fit with your interpretation of Genesis. Indeed that is your whole modus operandi - you assume that you are right and just throw baseless accusations at others who dare to disagree with you, regardless of the truth,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I'm glad you finally say you're not interested in science Archy, for this:
Archangel writes:
Is of course the classic case of assuming the conclusion before studying the facts. Genesis must be true, that is your conclusion. Whatever contradicts that, must be false. That's not "true" science, that's pseudo-science. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Archangel writes: IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. The Genesis account? Which one exactly? Because there are two creation myths in Genesis, as you undoubtedly know. And they conflict first and foremost with each other. I suggest you sort that out first, and then we'll talk about "true" science. Edited by Parasomnium, : There were two "are"'s as well... "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
archangel writes: With that said, here's a reality check which goes against everything you believe, but is true anyway. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL. You know, I don't have to do anything else other than sit back and laugh until my sides hurt, because you're the source of your own undoing. I quote YOU back at yourself as an answer to that dreck.
Archangel writes: More judgmental criticisms and drivel from the peanut gallery as he offers no evidence at all to the debate. If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service... Now go away until you have something useful to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Thank you for your response Archangel.
As you can see clearly from the link you posted that Abiogenesis(Origins of Life) and Evolution are two distinct ideas Darwin.org writes:
Granted, the website does talk about both, but distinctly says that evolution takes place AFTER life has arose by whatever means like I mentioned before. This is a point that creationist often bring up. It is a strawman arguement and is intended to decieve and confuse. Using it as an arguement is ignorant at best and possibly even fraudulent.
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation. Archangel in Message 145 writes: The ignorance is yours Joe, in assuming that I don't understand how evolution defines itself just because I reject how it defines itself. I refuse to allow it to speak out of both sides of its mouth as it attempts to control the debate by limiting my ability to ask deeper questions about its philosophy than it would prefer to be asked. Could you please provide your definition of evolution AND science and site references please. As has been mentioned before to you, this is a science thread. You need provide evidence. We also need to understand what your definition of these things are in order to ensure we are all on the same page. Again, it appears you do not have a clear understanding of what is and is not evolution. If you like, we could discuss Miller-Urey experiments and the multiple theories for abiogenesis, but that is for another thread. You are supposed to be pointing out frauds that have been used to further evolution. From what I have seen, you have only provide the same arguements that creationist have been using for DECADES and that themselves are fraudulent to use. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you have failed to respond. Please, if you really are an honest Christian, you will look in your heart and see how being honest with yourself and everyone here is the best practice. Again, eagerly awaiting your response.Thanks, Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Archangel in Message 72 writes: Yes it is. Because they both can't be right. If evolution is correct and true, then the bible is a lie, and conversely, if the bible is true, then evolution is the lie. There can be no compromise regarding the opposing foundations upon which each belief system stands. Archangel in Message 165 writes: But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about. I am curious as to whether you believe the Pope and the overwhelming majority of Christians and Christian leaders have been decieved? For they have no problem accepting the sound science of evolution. If you look at the quotes I posted of yours. You can see that you have a lot to gain from trying to disprove evolution. In your mind, belief in evolution basically damns you to your form of Hell. From the question I asked above....is the Pope damned to Hell? You have also said that it is evolutionist who have the most to gain from continuing to promote evolution.Do you realize how famous a biologist would become if he could show that our understanding of evolution is lacking or fundamentally flawed? The 150 years since Darwins Origins many have tried and failed. Does that not speak to you? Again, Thanks for your time and responses,Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4615 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Archangel in message 153 writes: Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science Do you believe the science of genetics and that DNA is a "True Science"? Edited by dokukaeru, : Fix broken quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Come again Arphy? (That's a Britishism meaning you can't be serious) Everyone on the evolution side here is interested in evidence above all else. People will give you evidence for hours if you let them. I could do so myself. There is no credible evidence for a young earth. The only people who believe in a young earth believe it for religious reasons and then look for evidence to support it. And the evidence, unfortunately for you, just isn't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Ok I picked one. I picked the Archaeoraptor. And what do I find in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE? I find this :-
quote:. So National Geographic is now a journal is it, rather than a popular magazine? This deception by the author. It's utterly typical. I long to see integrity and honest evidence, but yet again there is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. Archangel, just present facts, shorn of manipulation and sleaze.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tomorrow morning I will begin actively moderating this discussion. My goals are to focus attention back on the topic, and to eliminate violations of rule 10:
Tomorrow morning I will post a brief note announcing that I have begun moderation, and violations of the Forum Guidelines appearing after that post will bring short (at least initially) suspensions. The key part of rule 10 is, "Argue the position, not the person." Just so there's no ambiguity about my interpretation of rule 10, violations of this rule often correlate with use of the word "you."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1357 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Still no specific evidence in response to my queries I see. Just personal attacks as everything on topic which I offer is ignored out of hand. OK, let me offer another example of the massive assumptions which survive as facts for decades before evolution is unceremoniously forced to face reality and admit their error as they back pedal once again, and disregard yet another allegedly well established claim which they have relied on in order to gain further public validation with what turns out YET AGAIN to be a decades long established FRAUD, when all is said and done. Yes folks, it's called the C—lacanth: An Example of a False Intermediate Form of life which was said to have thrived some 410 million years ago during the Devonian period, was regarded by evolutionists as a powerful intermediate form between fish and reptile. It had been mysteriously erased from the fossil record 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, and was believed to have become extinct at that time.19 Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung. Speculation regarding the C—lacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct.
The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day C—lacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first C—lacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20
The tail of the living C—lacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another. So, is the fossil specimen actually 140 million years old as claimed by evolutionists for so long? You still believe it is, don't you? You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods. Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it..
This 50-Million-Year-Old Fossil Fish, Genus Priscacara, Dating Back To The Eocene Epoch, Was Also Discovered At Green River In Wyoming, Where Some Of The World’s Best-Known Fossil Discoveries Have Been Made. As With This Fish, Other Fossils Discovered In This Region Have Preserved A Large Portion Of Their Soft Tissues. So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community? Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word. I mean, must I post another time lapse video for you deniers of reality? Now come on back and attack me once again rather than actually deal with the massive inconsistencies, contradictions and assumptions your so called science makes until of course reality hits them square in the face. Explain to me about the evidence which is beyond my ability to comprehend since I hate science.http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024