Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Collapse of Darwinism
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 68 (96529)
04-01-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


This is da bomb!
I'm a bit out of touch with the evolutionary biology that can combat creationist arguments head-on; I'm much better at simply analyizng the straegy and discussing how it works (hence, I was not a bad "creation apologist" for a time, myself).
Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 7, part 1:
"Arranging the skulls of these extinct apes from the smallest to the biggest, and adding some skulls of VANISHED HUMAN RACES to the series, evolutionists conconcted the scenario of human evolution."
Here it is again:
"...fossils that are included by evolutionists under imaginary classifications such as homo erectur, hom ergaster, or homo spaiens archaic, in fact belong to DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES."
And in case you didn't catch that...
"When these fossils are inspected, in is seen that their skeletons are essentially the same as people living today. The only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in the skulls... [creepy music] but differences like these are to be found in DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES living today."
OK, this is wacky. They're really in direct disagreement with Answers in Genesis, which steadfastly (and, be it noted, correctly) that there is precisely one race of human beings. I'm certain that you can't detect differences between skulls of human ethnic groups (read Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"). The film could have picked up a bit in noting that the variation within each particular human race was more substantial than the differences between the so-called "races," but they simply maintain this false classification of their own, and tack on a deceptive paraphrase from Richard Leakey (I don't know for certain, but I would strongly expect him to have put forth similar views to Gould about the structures of human skulls). On further searching, I note that the film fails to mention the fact that Leakey is no longer active in field work, but has taken some bold political steps for political equality and justice in Kenya.
So, back to the tomfoolery, was homo erectus a black man or a white? Asian? Aboriginal? Was homo ergaster ne of that rare breed of "vato-niggaz from da 'hood?"
Answers in Genesis also maintains, notably, that there has been no evolution of the human "kind" (why not?), so they stake themselves on these fossils being extinct apes or completely human. I wonder where this film gets its endorsement...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:39 AM Biophysicist has replied
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 05-22-2005 6:52 PM Biophysicist has not replied

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 68 (96530)
04-01-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


One other thing...
The part about the "exposed frauds" of evolution being retained in textbooks today is hogwash; the film is very careful to avoid mentioning any particular fraud that's still around. They're also very careful NOT to mention that it was other scientists, most all of whom were "evolutionists" themselves, that discovered these frauds and set the record straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CodeTrainer, posted 05-29-2005 1:22 PM Biophysicist has not replied

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 68 (96532)
04-01-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


We may be on to something...
Perhaps we should divvy up this carcas of nonsense and see which "evolutionist hayeena" can pick the most carrion from his particular chapter.... hmmm? [Hayeena laugh]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 68 (101136)
04-20-2004 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
04-03-2004 8:39 AM


Re: This is da bomb!
Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.
Well, I am a caucasian male if that's what you mean. If you wish to define "race" as "child of the first or last Adam" well I don't classify myself that way. Scientifically, I'm obviously a human being.
I am not well versed in hominid fossils, but I believe homo erectus was very similar to modern humans although discernible differences do exist between the fossils. The video would have done better to say "hominid." Instead, they insist that the fossils are pureply human, with no features that depart significantly from modern humans. Perhaps some of the paleontologists here (if any) can help me on the particulars of the distinctions.
My original point was more to draw a distinction between these folks and otehr creationists like AIG/ICR. Creationism is really a fragmented, hydra-headed thing, although creaitonists will insist that evolutionists are always "changing their theories" and fighting amongst themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:39 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024