Free Thinkr

I am certainly no expert, but I feel I can give a go at a couple of that link's questions.

Umm.. because the homo erectus is so damn nearly human.

Their answer:
Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

My response: that and the fact that they are human remains.

Again, one would expect to see these similarities.

Their answer:Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

My response: Whatever.. the very fact that anything is dated 2 million years disproves genesis.

What to you mean by "virtually identical?" Human DNA is "virtually identical" to chimpanzee DNA, so what?

their answer:Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

My response: Uh-huh. Its not because the skelaton is obviously not human.. no way that's it. Know what I find interesting? The bible never makes any mention of any of these human ancestors, yet there their bones are. How does a creationist explain this? The only miracle surrounding the bible is the fact that people believe it in this day and age.

RufusAtticus

"Is this article right? If so, it's AIG's best argument."

So what is it if it's not right? Is it still AIG's best argument?

-RvFvS

randman

a few quick points

1. The charts listed are exactly the type of incomplete charts the article states are insufficient. I will follow some of the links and see what they say, but it is surprising to me that incomplete charts would be listed in response to the article. Is it some of you do not understand the article or something? Posting charts that merely state the conclusions in no way answers any of the concerns raised in the articles, and actually is confirmation of one of the main ideas of the article. In other words, posting incomplete charts is an argument for the validity of AIG's stance here.

2. High school textbooks should bring students to the whole data and reasoning process of the conclusions drawn rather than merely restate them. Otherwise, this is just indoctrination rather than developing critical thinking skills. Maybe this is one reason we lag behind some nations in science education.

3. Obviously, AIG questions the accuracy of the dating methods since they are YEC, but their point is they beleive it is clear that evolutionists are not ebing objective about these fossils, and if a human fossil is found prior to some of these missing links, then the bones are thus automatically considered not to be human at all so that the evidence can fit into evolutionary theory.
‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

4. I suspect the mod will lock down the thread if he'she stays true to form. Oh, locking the thread and removing it from this board is not actually locking it. LOL.
It is not surprising that evolutionists must resort to censure in order to maintain their arguments. That seems to be the method preferred as evidenced by their refusal to allow side-by-side comparisons to be taught concerning the tenets of evolution.
Heck, on the other thread, they even deny Nebraska man was even used to convince the public, and that Neanderthal was depicted in textbooks as a stooped over ape-like man.
Hey, wonder if some of you know what the definition of is is.
Btw, not everyone here has acted this way, but a clear majority are obviously afraid of admitting to any mistakes. Guess evolutionary theory is weaker than even suppossed, if the mod just lets a bunch of posts by evolutionists, and then simply locks down any ability to respond here.


[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

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

RufusAtticus

Randman,

Your threads are being moved to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47" target="_blank">Rants, Raves, Preaching, Etc</a> because you trolling. If you actually slow down and show good faith in addressing our comments to you in various existing threads, before you go off on wild tangents, we might stop moving your threads to the loony bin, with the below purpose.

-RvFvS (Moderator de novo)

scombrid

When the thread is locked and moved click on the link to rants, raves, and preaching at the top of the thread and you will be transported to the thread. The thread will be open in that location where conversation may continue.

Dr Rick

More lies to come...

<strong> Randman is lying; they chart the relevant, available data demonstrating the known fossil record and evolution of humans. The only chart that would be "sufficient" for a dishonest creationist would be one that draws a god at the very beginning.

<strong> More lies; randman is implying that he will actually attempt to understand a view that differs from his. Many of the quotes from the AiG article were answered in this thread already; he ignores them because they point-out the flaws in his sky-daddy creation fantasy, and he'll ignore the content of the links, as well.

Peregrine

Maybe RandMcNalleyMan is looking for a laundry list of "human" finds. After all, cretinists always note how incomplete Lucy was, ignoring other A. aferensis finds.

scombrid

I don't know of anywhere in science where all the charts are complete. There are always unknowns, which is the reason science exists. Mistakes are made. I was never indoctrinated with the belief that science is infallible. That you assert that high school kids are indoctrinated in this manner shows a bit of paranoia on your part. Even in the course Evolutionary Biology, offered at VPISU, we were shown some of the examples you've given as evilutionist lies as mistakes that were made and corrected, the horse lineage comes to mind. We were shown the straight line hypothesized early in the 20th and the shown how that had been revised. These examples were used to show why new more reliable morphological and molecular id techniques were developed and being improved continuously.

Then should math texts go through all the proofs for every operation used? The proofs for basic multiplication and division are a bit long and would really be a waste to learn. Kids just don't have the time. High school is a place to learn the knowledge accepted at the time. Critical thinking is useless without baseline knowledge. I used to think, "Why memorize this, I need to know how to think?" If you haven't memorized anything, you have nothing to think about. Our sciences lag because our guidelines aren't stringent enough. We continually dumb down courses for the masses.

Additionally, you want weaknesses in evolutionary theory presented. If that occurred, would you want creationism to face criticism in the science classroom? We had a creationist come and speak to our theology class in Christian high school and his "vapor canopy" model was shreaded by highschoolers.

Kosh

This shouldn't be such a stretch for you. You're
an artist, you're used to working with canvas,
right? What if I asked you to paint a horizon to
horizon picture with every little detail in it.
What? The canvas isn't big enough? Ah, so I
see you must now remove detail in the painting
to get the whole thing in there? Why? Because
your canvas is only so big?

Could it be that there is too much information
to fit onto a reasonably sized chart? Hmmm?
Could that be it Randman? Had you actually gone
to Harvard and got educated, this wouldn't be
so hard for you to grasp...

Of course, we all know what's next. This is
baically just a copy of your "no transitions"
claim. If we produced for you a more complete
chart, you'd simply claim it still wasn't
complete enough.

Back under your bridge Troll!

randman

Ya'll are dodging the issue. How many homonid fossils for instance have been found? Is giving a rough estimate such hard thing to do?
I don't think providing pictures and data on where the fossil was found, nor the dating methods uses and such is unreasonable.
Also, mods, you are dead wrong. I pretty much respond as quick as I can to everything. Some things are easier to respond to. What is going on is the mods here are trying to frame the discussion in such a way as to actually favor one side of the argument. Cutting off one path of discussion, and insisting on discussing another is typical of the censure mode of evolutionists in general, if you ask me.
Moreover, I have even been asked to respond to the same discussions that have been cut-off by the mods, and then lambasted for not doing so.
So it's OK to demand a critic of evolution debate in one area while banning discussions of another.

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