Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: borntowatch

Dont throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Evolution science is full of lies and corruption, or do you pretend it is beyond question.

I am not saying its all corrupt, but a percentage has been proven to be.

Mars meteors with fossils, yeah right.
Fake missing link bones.
Its endless.
Evolution, holier than thou, holier than all.

www.nwcreation.net...

but hey I know, dont read anything that challenges your faith, it could corrupt your soul.

Did you try following any of their links on that site? Might want a new source where their sourced material can be critiqued as well. Also, it's ironic you make a post about archaeological hoaxes in a thread that uses hoaxes in the videos as evidence against evolution

originally posted by: TechUnique

I said my opinion in your farce science is worthless. My opinion of your farce science, is however entirely correct. Both of our assumptions of each other are based on our own assumptions. I know that you are wrong, just as you 'know' that I am wrong.

We are both using our own methods of evidence to prove to each other, yet both of us don't recognize each others evidence as evidence. You guys not only think that I am wrong and you are right, you think I am stupid and that you are better than me, at least for the most part.

I only think that you are wrong and I am right, that is all. You guys have got some serious growing up to do.

Well whenever you want to prove to us that our science is a farce, feel free to disprove gravity (since it is merely a theory) by jumping out of a plane without a parachute and praying for god to allow you to float to the ground for showing your faith. The evidence is there whether you want to disregard it out of hand it or not.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Another point I don't recall if that video made or not.. But if Noah's Ark indeed happened as the Bible story goes, why isn't all life traced back to Mount Ararat? Or why wasn't the environment totally screwed over because all or most plant life would have been killed being underwater for that long? What did all the animals eat after disembarking? What did Noah's family eat? These points and those in that video deserve their own thread in my opinion.

originally posted by: borntowatch

Dont throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Evolution science is full of lies and corruption, or do you pretend it is beyond question.

I think "full of lies and corruption" is a gross over exaggeration. And nobody pretends the science is beyond question. That's why we have the peer review process and its how hoaxes and shoddy research are discovered and revealed. Fact.

I am not saying its all corrupt, but a percentage has been proven to be.

And exactly what percentage would that be? That state,net could be applied to any profession, religion or group of humans from every walk of life. Its a bit of a generalization no?

[/uote]Mars meteors with fossils, yeah right.

And what exactly is your evidence against it aside from "yeah right"?

Fake missing link bones.

As this is an extremely generalized blanket state,met, I will address it below when addressing your link.

Its endless.

Endless? You gave one example ad a blanket statement. Not exactly endless as you put it.

Evolution, holier than thou, holier than all.

If that were the case, the science would be resting on its laurels and pontificating from its ivory tower as opposed to continuously refining the model and seeking out more information to get a more clear picture.

www.nwcreation.net...

but hey I know, dont read anything that challenges your faith, it could corrupt your soul.

believe it or not, many of us do actually look at the links and evidence provided to us by people with a different viewpoint. Otherwise I wouldn't know your point of view let alone be able to succinctly rebut it with facts.

Here are some of the misconceptions your link claims as evidence for evolution being a crock of S#

PILTDOWN MAN- yes, it was a legitimate hoax but right from the start the find was questioned by others working in Paleontology and Anthropology. The fact that it took 40 years for everyone to get on board certainly isn't a bastion of great moments in scientific history but at the same time one actual hoax does not diminish an entire scientific discipline as a whole. Especially when as I pointed out, numerous scientists thought right from the start that it wasnt right and that something was off with it. One of the things that helped to prove its lack of provenance was the advancement of science between 1913 and 1950 increasing not just the comprehensiveness of knowledge but also a number of new fossil hominins which made it very clear that API,town was bunk.

NEVRASKA MAN-

The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were skeptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labeled as highly imaginative.

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially skeptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.

Not hoax there at all. The only hoaxing is when people use it as evidence for evolution being wrong or false.

ORCE MAN -claimed by many who oppose evolution to be a falsified hominid skull fragment that is actually a donkeys which illustrates just how dumb and gullible anthropologists and biologists really are.

The truth of the matter is that there is not nor was there ever, enough of the fossil , to make any definitive ID possible. Its a clear misrepresentation to claim the fossil was misidentified because there was never a consensus on whether it was hominid or equine.

JAVA MAN- per your source, it is claimed that it is alleged to have been part of the skull of a "missing link" and that 2 definitively human skulls found nearby prove that it couldn't have been a human ancestor. Apparently in creationist land "very close" means in a cave 65 miles away from the river bed where the Java Man remains were found. Based on the teeth, femur and skull cap recovered, it has been identified conclusively as the same species as Peking Man and both are now referred to as Homo Erectus. Several other more complete H. Erectus specimens were found nearby the original site and no I don't mean within 70 miles distance I actually do mean nearby. Endocranial casting indicates that everything matches the parameters of the more complete H. Erectus remains found as well as the Peking !an remains and did I mention the more complete remains were much older than DuBois' find in 1892?

NEANDERTHAL- your source claims they are still associated with brutishness which is BS. That's an anachronistic viewpoint that's been outdated for nearly 60 years. Your source also claims that the first Neanderthal specimen was found in France in 1908. It was actually found in 1856 and in Germany. If your source is getting such basic facts wrong, should it be trusted with more critical details?

ARCHAEORAPTOR- your source claims this is the most recent and infamous of evolution frauds, perpetrated in China and published in the JOURNAL National Geographic. And that the bones were composed of several different species and were attempted to be passed off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

Just a couple of problems here, this "fossil" was not put together, sold or presented by any member of the scientific community, Chinese, American or otherwise. It was done by a private fossil hunter gathering fossils to sell to private collectors, not for scientific advancement or anything of a similar nature.he may or may not have known he was piecing together parts of different fossils but it was still aimed only at getting money from a private co,lector as opposed to goading the scientific commu its. It was not published in a peer reviewed journal as your source would have us believe which if that were the case would have been evidence of further fraud or poor science. But that's not what happened, it was published in popular magazines with no peer review, among those magazines were National Geographic and Time. Once the fossil was actually examined it was quickly redacted because that how science really works. M

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I agree those two videos would be great for a thread. They don't address how animals got to where they are now but there was a line about sloths getting to the Ark and they were going "that must be a feat swimming all the way from South America" to which Noah asks "South what".

It is a conundrum for creationists the whole Noahs Ark story. If they insist the story to be true then they have to admit evolution is real.

Matter of fact I do
Actually some of the frauds on the site I linked are still used by proponents of evolution today, in this very thread.

and I will say it again.
Show me some irrefutable evidence that I cant question and I will come on board.
Not circumstantial or debatable, just hard solid evidence.

Whats out of interest is the latest new thing you have heard, read, seen lately???

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I agree those two videos would be great for a thread. They don't address how animals got to where they are now but there was a line about sloths getting to the Ark and they were going "that must be a feat swimming all the way from South America" to which Noah asks "South what".

It is a conundrum for creationists the whole Noahs Ark story. If they insist the story to be true then they have to admit evolution is real.

That would be according to your understanding
Your understanding may not be right on this matter.
Seriously do you think the continents were exactly the same as they are now....seriously a global flood changed nothing on the earths map....seriously
Please just stop and think

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TechUnique

We are both using our own methods of evidence to prove to each other, yet both of us don't recognize each others evidence as evidence.

What evidence have you put forward???

I hope you don't mean the YouTube video's that are using the Loch Ness Monster as Evidence for Dino's walking with Humans. If that's what you mean by evidence I think you should try a little harder next time.

I can show you YouTube video's all day long where someone is spouting ridiculous nonsense and claim it's evidence of something but that hardly means it's valid.

I mean my evidence that God exists versus your evidence that Evolution proves YEC wrong. You are using a false science to try and prove my beliefs wrong.

Actually, no that's not correct. You are conflating Modern Evolutionary Synthesis with Geology. Geology is what proves YEC wrong, evolutionary theory does support the geology and vice versa but the age of the earth and radiometric dating are separate disciplines from evolutionary theory. It is the geologic record that demonstrates the age of the earth. The biggest farce I'm seeing throughout these threads is your misunderstanding of some basic aspects of the sciences involved and are simply summing it all up u der the umbrella of the farce of evolution.

a reply to: peter vlar

Sorry Peter I am afraid you have missed my whole point and your rather long winded reply is a testimony to that fact.

Try understand this simple clear point.

Creationists have made mistakes and falsified information for wrong reasons

Atheists evolutionists and scientists have made mistakes, falsified information for wrong reasons

Please dismount from your high horse and cut the holier thou attitude, you sound like a fundamental Christian.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I agree those two videos would be great for a thread. They don't address how animals got to where they are now but there was a line about sloths getting to the Ark and they were going "that must be a feat swimming all the way from South America" to which Noah asks "South what".

It is a conundrum for creationists the whole Noahs Ark story. If they insist the story to be true then they have to admit evolution is real.

That would be according to your understanding
Your understanding may not be right on this matter.
Seriously do you think the continents were exactly the same as they are now....seriously a global flood changed nothing on the earths map....seriously
Please just stop and think

You would have to see the videos to understand what I am talking about however since you brought up what a global flood would change here are a couple facts.

It would destroy all the plant life which means no veggies for the poor critters getting off the dinghy and kill off fish populations seeing as how the salinity and temperatures would change so drastically.

So no foods for the critters they all die. I am sure your answer to those problems will be they were magiced by the overlord deity.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Actually, no that's not correct. You are conflating Modern Evolutionary Synthesis with Geology. Geology is what proves YEC wrong, evolutionary theory does support the geology and vice versa but the age of the earth and radiometric dating are separate disciplines from evolutionary theory. It is the geologic record that demonstrates the age of the earth. The biggest farce I'm seeing throughout these threads is your misunderstanding of some basic aspects of the sciences involved and are simply summing it all up u der the umbrella of the farce of evolution.

You know the one thing, the hinge that denies your evolutionary beliefs for me

Dating methods of the geological time scale. Its a farce and I have seen no evidence it holds any validity at all.
The geological record is a joke and nobody can justify its circular reasoning,
Dating rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks. Thats silly and nonscience

a reply to: borntowatch

I'm on a high horse because I have demonstrated that everything you claim is falsified and the source you cited is completely wrong on nearly every single count it lists? Wow... That's some extra special logic your tossing with the salad right there. Especially with the back pedaling you throw in by trying to say I misunderstood you because now suddenly creationists have made mistakes and falsified information, which is the first you've ever stated that. Nowhere else in this thread have you even implied it. There is 1 issue of someone pushing a hoaxed fossil find, only one in 155 years since Darwin published his little book. I found misrepresentations, lies and errors with every single one of your sources examples. That's not being on a high horse its pointing out reality to someone who's horse is so high up they have altitude sickness. Its cute how instead of addressing the actual facts I pointed out you instead resort to a ad hominem attack. Good on you, Jesus must be super proud of you today!

a reply to: borntowatch

If that were how the dating were actually done, I would totally agree with you. Thankfully its not done in that way therefore no circular reasoning needs to be invoked. I would love to see you dispute the actual science just once instead of tossing out one liners and non sequiturs.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Jobeycool
I cannot understand how this world keeps buying into the bizarre hatred and rampant bashing of christians all over the internet

It's not bashing of Christians because they are Christian. It's the bashing if a particularly vocal minority who can't be bothered to educate themselves and spew foolishness with no basis in reality. In sorry but anyone who insists the world is 6000 years old simply should not he taken seriously. It has nothing to do with their Christianity, it has everything to do with the arrogant superiority complex they dole out to anyone who doesn't bow to the god of Abraham.

over evolution which is never been proven.

YOu do not have to bow down to the biblical God of Abraham unless He is real.We beleive by faith just as you put trust and faith in evolutionary theories.Can we use common sense.

There's an entire scientific community and a literate populace who disagrees vehemently with that particular rationale. Since you disagree with the visits of modern evolutionary synthesis, why don't you detail the flaws so we can have a proper discussion as opposed to you issuing blanket statements and dismissing it entirely out of hand.

What part do people not understand the love of money is the root of all evil.Not money itself.

And what exactly does that have to do with science? I can see how it ties into religions but nobody working in science is getting rich. And definitely not on the scale of some churches.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

It would destroy all the plant life which means no veggies for the poor critters getting off the dinghy and kill off fish populations seeing as how the salinity and temperatures would change so drastically.

So no foods for the critters they all die. I am sure your answer to those problems will be they were magiced by the overlord deity.

You are trying to explain a story you have never read or understood.
You have no idea what you are talking about
I blame Christians for teaching the story like a fairy tale.


As for your two issues, they are addressed in the bible and by science, you would need some idea about both to understand,
I could explain it to you but I know you are not interested.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

If that were how the dating were actually done, I would totally agree with you. Thankfully its not done in that way therefore no circular reasoning needs to be invoked. I would love to see you dispute the actual science just once instead of tossing out one liners and non sequiturs.

well show me the science of dating fossils and rocks

Why even have "Index fossils"?

What part do evolutionary atheist not get about FAITH.They also have FAITH in evolution because they observe science then come up with a theory.Same thing as historical archeological evidence that show evidence of dinosaurs with mankind.You put faith and trust in your observations.Some stuff you cannot prove and some stuff you can with the bibles history.There is no historical evidence of anykind that can totaly prove evolution has happened with mankind and animals.We have no evidence of the origin of life and where we came from whatsoever.You have faith and large egos driving this stuff and large massive money and wealth drive both the creationist and evolutionist.They both make massive amounts of money.So you can stop with the stupid petty preachers makin to much money nonsense.There are millionaires who are professors of evolution in all these institutions and these institutions that teach evolution are massive wealthy.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Grimpachi

It would destroy all the plant life which means no veggies for the poor critters getting off the dinghy and kill off fish populations seeing as how the salinity and temperatures would change so drastically.

So no foods for the critters they all die. I am sure your answer to those problems will be they were magiced by the overlord deity.

You are trying to explain a story you have never read or understood.
You have no idea what you are talking about
I blame Christians for teaching the story like a fairy tale.


As for your two issues, they are addressed in the bible and by science, you would need some idea about both to understand,
I could explain it to you but I know you are not interested.

Ha showing your ignorance aren't you. I have read the story and for your information science not your christian pseudoscience but actual real science will tell you the Noah story is an impossibility.

After watching the statements you have made on here about science you are completely unqualified in that department. Hell you can't even distinguish the difference in a scientific theory and a layman's definition of theory. BTW if you care there is a link in my signature.

Here I am sure you will ignore this link as it would challenge your religious beliefs about the story but just in case you want to leave your ignorance behind I will post it.

ncse.com...

And since you are so interested here is the video we were talking about. There are two parts. I doubt you will watch it same reason I doubt you will read the info in the link.

a reply to: Jobeycool

What part do you not get about evolution and atheism and their lack of mutual exclusivity? Would you even know the evidence in favor of modern evolutionary synthesis if it bit you on the ass? Tell me, which professors are millionaires so I can apply to teach at their universities. I could use a little pay bump after I get back from Tulum

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Ha showing your ignorance aren't you. I have read the story and for your information science not your christian pseudoscience but actual real science will tell you the Noah story is an impossibility.

After watching the statements you have made on here about science you are completely unqualified in that department. Hell you can't even distinguish the difference in a scientific theory and a layman's definition of theory. BTW if you care there is a link in my signature.

Here I am sure you will ignore this link as it would challenge your religious beliefs about the story but just in case you want to leave your ignorance behind I will post it.

ncse.com...

And since you are so interested here is the video we were talking about. There are two parts. I doubt you will watch it same reason I doubt you will read the info in the link.

You are right, I am not going to watch them.
I am not interested in your petty little arguments.
I just wanted to point out your attitude is no different to the fundy Christians you clearly hate
Thats really sad

Your understanding of science, is best described as stunted.

As for the word theory, you use it as you see fit

Thanks but no thanks