randman

In fact, check out the imagery used here on one of the links suggested to me as more accurate by someone here. It is obvious though admitting Neanderthals probably were religious and beleived in life after death, the imagery still tries to resurrect the earlier false idea of Neanderthals as ape-like men. Look at the pictures for yourself, and you can see what I am talking about.
Is this not deceptive?

<a href="http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB" target="_blank">http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&filei d=235107&flt=CAB</a>

Also, "Boule also believed that "the beast had walked with bent knees and a shambling gait, his head slung forward on a squat neck, his big toe splayed out chimpanzee-like to the side" (Shreeve 1994:18). Of course, later we would learn that this was wrong and that Boule's prejudices got in the way of his examination of the elderly hominid. Actually, the specimen he examined was crippled and extremely arthritic, which Boule somehow managed to overlook."

"This image remained in the mind of many scholars for years to come. It still lingers to this very day."
<a href="http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=125344&flt=CAB" target="_blank">http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=125344&flt=CAB</a>

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

hezekiah jones

You're right. That Far Side cartoon is probably not historically accurate.

notto

According to Creationist Marvin Lubenow (from your AIG links), they were also quite musical.

"Many of these items were discovered in the Neander valley of Germany where the very first Neandertal fossil was discovered in 1856. For instance a tuba, a musical instrument made from a mastodon tusk, what looks like a bagpipe made from a part of an animal bladder, a triangle, and a xylophone made from hollowed out bones."
- Marvin Lubenow (The 9th September 2000 episode of Science, Scripture and Salvation)

Oh, wait, that was a speculative April Fools joke by Discover magazine that he tries to pass off as fact.

lpetrich

One glaring example: that creationist page on ligers and wholphins claimed that all the members of the "cat family" had evolved from a single ancestor. Yes, that's all of the felines from domestic cats to lions and tigers. Even though domestic cats are not much bigger than newborn lion and tiger cubs!

And that was illustrated with a cribbed diagram of feline evolution.

Pomp

randman,

I said:

"Here's a suggestion for you: ignore the hecklers and only address the serious response to your posts. There have been quite a few that you have not addressed."

To which you replied:

PB, every time I have tried that the mods locked my threads.

Have any of your threads actually been locked? I was under the impression that they had been moved to a more appropriate forum after they degenerated into flame wars.

I had typed out a detailed response to the rest of yoru post, but I've thrown it out. I didn't get involved here to argue about evolution with you. There are others far better suited than I for that purpose. I'm only here to sugggest that you ought to present yourself in a more civil manner if you truly wish to have a fruitful discussion. I realize that several of our people have responded to you rudely. Ignore them. Many people have taken the time to address your claims. Deal with them, not with the rude posts.

A few minor points before I shut up:

By the way, if you are referring to the fossil quotes, the fact is the quotes were not taken out of context. It was admitted that the author's of the quotes were evolutionists,

I am referring to the "fossil quotes," among other things. Do you understand what is meant by "out of context?" They are not out of context because their authors were "evolutionists." They were out of context because you (or the YEC site you mined them from) only included a small portion of the quote which, independent of the context of the surrounding sentences, made it apear that the author was saying something that (s)he did not intend to say. This is usually considered an intellectually dishonest tactic.

but the whole point was to get at what evolutionists call "transitional" and what others do. The fact is that the mods here and others insisted that both the fossil record was justifiably incomplete, and that my standards were too high for proof of evolution, and yet in the same breath insisted those standards had been met. They were the ones playing absurd semantic games rather than getting at the truth of what is shown, and not shown.

I've yet to see you give a clear definition of what you would consider a transitional fossil. My speculation is that you fear to do so because of the possibility that such a fossil has been discovered or will soon be discovered. No one has claimed that your standards have been met, simply because you have not defined your standards. I apologize if you did outline a clear, testable standard that I missed. If you haven't done so, then I invite you to do so now and finally put the issue to rest.

There is no apology for instance for evolutionists teaching recapitulation for decades after it was known to be false, and even today, there is the attempt to revive some version of this argument, and why is that?

I'll have to defer to others regarding the teaching of outdated theories. My public school biology class never even discussed evolution. If you were taught outdated ideas in yours then I suggest you campaign for a better science cirriculum instead of attacking evolutionary biology itself. Scientists working in the field are not in charge of public school cirriculums.

Regarding the teaching of "some version" of the concept of recapitulation, it has been pointed out on this thread that a limited amount of embryological recapitulation does, indeed, take place.

In fact, we are still called liars for merely daring to repeat the same data that evolutionists do.

Who is calling you a liar for pointing out that there are gaps in the fossil record?

That alone has convinced me that near to nothing that the evolutionist community publishes is reliable.

What alone? That someone has apparently called you a liar for pointing out an obvious fact that all "evolutionists" accept anyway?

randman

Hezekiahjones do us all a favor, and one of you who knows how to copy and paste the photo of the near ape creature, please do it, and be honest. This is just propaganda.

Ipe, the creationist article you mentions presents the idea of a single kind for the cats as speculation, not necessarily fact. It is the evolutionists who insist on calling speculations as facts.

notto

But it is well known in the scientific community to be innacurate and the information in the link clearly states that.

I'm not sure what you point is. Both of the links you provide to show imagery simply show the history of how the image of Neandertals has changed and been updated as more information is collected. Just looking at the pictures and saying that these are trying to show neandertals as hunched over apemen is again, an issue of context. The pictures in the links are well explained as PAST representations and each clearly shows the current reconstruction of Neandertals.

hezekiah jones

theyeti already did, in the other thread you've been cross posting in. We can all look at it at the linked page without wasting more bandwidth here. Unless you want me to post the Far Side cartoon - it's more appropriate to whatever evidence you think you're offering to refute evolution.

By the way, when are you actually going to get around to providing some evidence that refutes evolution?

notto

Hmmm... Sounds like a statement of fact to me!

"God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galápagos Islands).

The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and ‘fill the earth’, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about."

Automaton

Well, since my attempt at getting you forcibly removed has been shot down, I guess I'll have to stick to trying to give you an education. Perhaps you won't try to ignore everything I say this time, please?
I don't even see how this is relevent, regardless, 1994 is still only recent - modern ideas of creationism have been around since the 19th century.
Do you even know what speculation means? Vestigial organs are an observation, however the idea that X or Y "should be vestigial due to evolution" without testing this hypothesis would be speculation.
So you would refuse to get them removed if you contracted tonsilitus?
Can you back this up, or is it just an urban legend? I sincerely doubt this, since Nobel handled a not of nitroglycerine, and as everyone knows nitro will give massive headaches if so much as a few drops touch the skin, I think he would have made that inference.
You certainly love slinging that word "speculation" around, don't you? Do you absolutely, honestly, think that it can be called "speculation" that vestigial (remember, vestigial does NOT equal useless, this is another creationist lie) organs have been observed? You are absolutely free to dispute conclusions derived from observations, of course. But please don't call them "ideas arived at through conjecture", which is a gross misuse of the term.
Wrong, it is another inference about evolution derived from evidence. Do you want to continue to make this "speculation" straw-man, or do you want to actually address the ACTUAL inferences about evolution?
The original drawings were indeed a hoax. But what you have failed to do is address the ACTUAL, modern idea of recapitulation.
And we all know how reliable the personal testimony of a creationist can be! I highly suspect you have never read a textbook on evolution in your life.
Now who's resorting to personal attacks? This seems to be all you can do whever we simply ask you to back up your assertions. If you claim that textbooks display this and that, then you must PROVE IT! In the real world, we don't just gullibly accept everything everyone says at face value.
What do you think we are, creationists or something?!?
I see you have trouble distinguishing between actual science and "creationist" science. Would you call chemistry professors "indoctrinated" in atomic theory too? Real scientists are unaffected by emotional pleas (propaganda is the use of emotion, rather than evidence, to sway opinions.) Please give ONE example of emotion rather than assessment of the facts used as an argument in the scientific literature (AiG doesn't count as "scientific" ), I dare you.
So you are not a layman? Oh yes, I see. We're all "indoctrinated", and you have doctorates in paleontology, geology, biology, taxonomy, and all the fields related to hominid classification.