hezekiah jones

randman

Don't have time to answer most of this today, but one poster wrote:

"We are asking you to demonstrate that two organisms didn't have a common ancestor. Universal common descent is where science stands now after over 200 years of exploration. Our side has done its part."

1. YOu demand that critics prove a negative, or otherwise you are right. Yea, that makes sense. NOT!

2. Yep, evolutionists have done their part. LOL. Evolutionary theory has primarily been spread via lies. Here are some:

Micro-evolution is evidence for macro-evolution. False.

Recapitulation, or the biogenetic law: false, but still used sometimes

Neanderhtal is an ape-man. false

Piltdown man: deliberate hoax

Nebraska man: false, but used very prominently to convince the American public evolution is true

the fossil record: actually does not show macro-evolution occuring as evolutionists said it did for decades. It wasn't until the last 20 years that evolutionists even seemed aware that things like stasis were real aspects of the fossil record.

horse evolution: falsely presented as a straight-line proof of evolution. False on 2 counts. It is not macro-evolution if true, and it isn't true anyway on the facts.

Vetigal organs: false

Yep, you have done your part in passing off speculation as fact.

Viti

Randman....nobody has ever stated that Neanderthal is an "ape-man"...I pointed this out to you once before.

There is some disagreement on whether they were a separate species (Homo Neandethalensis) or a sub-species (Home Sapiens Neanderthalensis)...but there is no argument about their humanity. Technically of course, we are all apes...but I can find no documentation that Neanderthals are or were considered some sort of missing link or half human half ape

Coragyps

"Nebraska Man" was "used very prominently" to hoodwink the public?? I took biology in the 60's, and never heard of him until I read about this "deception" on a creationist webpage within the last two years. Can you provide any evidence that N. Man was ever viewed as anything other than a mistake after 1930?

randman

Nebraska man was a key part of evolutionists largest propoganda campaign, the Scopes monkey trial. As such, it's importance in convincing the public that evolution is true cannot be underestimated.

Lady Shea, Neanderthals were presented in pictures in texbooks in the 1970s as a hunched over ape-like man. That was what we were taught. I have heard this was due to one of the first Neanderthal bones being that of an old man with arthritis, but however it happened, it was what people were taught, and if you talk to people who were in school at that time, and ask them what they were taught, what is their impression, of a Neanderthal, I think you would see I am very much right on this.

By the way, AIG article dealing with rapid speciation.

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp</a>

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

hezekiah jones

Horseshit. No expert witnesses were allowed to testify at the Scopes trial. Everybody knows this. Some written affidavits were introduced into the trial transcript, but Nebraska Man was never mentioned.

The only "Nebraska Man" in the Scopes trial was William Jennings Bryan, who lived for a time in Lincoln.

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

RufusAtticus

Randman,

Try reading with comprehension. It's a skill most of us learned in grade school. I'm not asking you to prove the negative statement that evolution doesn't happen. I'm asking you to show that the evidence and observations supporting evolution is wrong. It's what you'll have to do if you want to demonstrate that the theory is actually not as sound as science thinks.

Your list doesn't impress me. Try finding these "lies" in an introductory evolutionary biology textbook, and we might listen to you. Remember when I said that you'd have to actually understand the evidence for evolution before you demonstate its problems. It's about time you do.

Put up or shut up.

-RvFvS

NThis is my first post as a moderator. Yeah!

hezekiah jones

Even John Morris knows better than you (what an indictment!):

<a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-080b.htm" target="_blank">Scopes Trial at ICR</a>

randman

It was read into the transcript so it was part of the trial. You have to remember that the trial itself was nearly irrevalent compared to the media campaign which was the primary means of convincing the public, and Nebraska man was a very large part of the effort to hoodwink the public and discredit evolutionists' critics via false informationa and propoganda.

Oolon Colluphid

Please define both of those terms, in reference to a working definition of kinds. How many times do I need to ask for that?

Please name a single biology textbook published in the last twenty years that does use it. And, do you claim that there are no similarities between early vertebrate embryos?

It is true. All humans are apes.

Please name a single book on evolution published in the last twenty years that says anything else.

I’ve no idea how it may have been used. I do know that it is irrelevant. What do you make of this then: human or ape?



As above, define macroevolution. What would you say is going on in this chronologically-ordered series of fossils?



(Go <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/foram_article.html" target="_blank">here</a> for more information.)

Even if true, so?

You’ve read McFadden then? How about this: it looked like a straight line 80 years ago, but rather more fossils found since then showed that it was a branching bush instead. How does that disprove evolution? It was ‘falsely’ presented a long time ago, but in the last thirty years the picture has become more complex, so your argument is out of date. Why is it not macroevolution? Define it. And can you name any facts about the history of horses that refute evolution?

What about vestigial organs is false? That they have no use? In some cases, I agree that they do. But that is not what <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=vestigial" target="_blank">vestigial</a> means. So what else is ‘false’ about them?

Yep, you have done your part in passing off lies and misinformation as fact.

Oolon

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