Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Not the smartest person and I do not have an a master degree or anything but I cannot stand the madness of evolution being blindly followed.So much crap with this subject and brainwashing and hoaxes and control over it with education and power that never is exposed by mainstream and honest science.
Some people won't even teach evolution as a theory anymore that is how dishonest and ridiculous it has become.

I suggest you watch some videos here re evolution and creationism you wont need a masters degree!!!

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by edmc^2


Do you usually let other people decide your opinions for you? I'm guessing that's what just happened, seeing as how you didn't provide any reasons for agreeing with the OP, or really anything besides, "Yeah, you go man!" Oh, and I don't know if you are aware, but the standard for posting on ATS forums is that you need to CONTRIBUTE, not just scratch someone's back.

Please keep that in mind.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Also with regards to fraud there is a long list of CREATIONISTS that have committed fraud with fake fossils artifacts etc.

So, when will we see this list? Surely you have links and evidence to prove that assertion? I keep seeing that claim, and have yet to see the list.

Watch any of the Golden Crocoduck videos on this site

www.youtube.com...

An example of lies and methods used by creationists

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Sorry but by the time you realise the laser is on how far has it's first photons traveled

How deep is your mind? Can you measure that?

Makes NO sense but I kind of expected a reply like that!

reply to post by instigatah


you shouldn't read rhetoric literally, i'm sure they teach people that in school. Besides i addressed the issue of dishonesty etc in a later post and i admit i should have added the obvious in a post script so as not to annoy those with Aspergers.

As for the prophecies that didn't happen, you could have googled them, but here you are, i got them from google but i read all this ages ago so this will make it quicker. This snippet is from rationalwiki. There must be about 20 or so and i welcome you to attempt to refute them, or you could put me on your ignore list just like every good piece of evidence for evolution is by the creationists.

3.1 Virgin birth
3.2 The messiah will be born in Bethlehem
3.3 Jesus will be a Nazarene
3.4 Jesus will be called out of Egypt
3.5 Jesus will be pierced
3.6 The suffering servant
3.7 The great disappointment

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Do you usually let other people decide your opinions for you? I'm guessing that's what just happened, seeing as how you didn't provide any reasons for agreeing with the OP, or really anything besides, "Yeah, you go man!" Oh, and I don't know if you are aware, but the standard for posting on ATS forums is that you need to CONTRIBUTE, not just scratch someone's back.

Please keep that in mind.

edit on 13-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Of course I have my opinion. The reply that I just posted was to congratulate the OP for a well deserved JOB well done.

And yes his/her facts are accurate and well documented.

But do you know that at one point in time those HOAXES were accepted and hailed as FACTS and truth?

Now do you think there are NO more HOAXES in the evolution community?

I doubt it.

reply to post by robin22391

Besides i addressed the issue of dishonesty etc in a later post and i admit i should have added the obvious in a post script so as not to annoy those with Aspergers.

I have aspergers...you trying to say something?

reply to post by edmc^2


Does that mean that everything to do with evolution is a hoax?
No, not in the least.
What the OP hasn't done is cited all of the evidence which has been proven and reproduced over and over again and that far outweighs the hoaxes.

reply to post by edmc^2

But do you know that at one point in time those HOAXES were accepted and hailed as FACTS and truth?

Now do you think there are NO more HOAXES in the evolution community?

I doubt it.

It amuses me how you act as though there's a better answer. There isn't. We've had 200 years to come up with the theory of evolution, and we have more evidence than 2,000 years of your dogma. Just wait and see what happens in the next 300 years. The least you can do is give it a chance...unless you're afraid?

Originally posted by edmc^2
Now do you think there are NO more HOAXES in the evolution community?

Seems likely, as is the case with basically any field of science. Would you expect otherwise? In the end, science is made by humans. However, it's in no way an argument against the established fact of evolution (the phenomenon) nor the falsifiable theory that describes its working mechanisms.

reply to post by randyvs


Thanks and I appreciate that.

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That is all fine except there is no evidence of humans evolving, just bang blink of an eye we are here whereas before we were not, according to the fossil records. Incidentally this is the same with all other species, no birds then bang blink of an eye birds were everywhere fully developed as birds. Fish? No fish then bang oceans of fully developed species of fish appear in the fossil records. If evolution were the cause there would be one tiny fish then another type of fish then a few fish then a few more fish on and on, but there would be a definite long period where there were only a few types of fish. This is nowhere observed in the fossil record. If you go back far enough there are no fish, go forward to find fish and there are oodles of species of fish everywhere.

Evolution does not fit the evidence.

There isn't evidence in your small perception of the world. We have archaeopteryx, one fossil that shows the transition between dinossaurs and birds. Evolution doesn't have like you perceive it, it's a gradual process that takes millions of years. Hell, humans have been pretty much the same, bar some small characteristics, since more than 100 000 years ago.

And you are also expecting us to have fossils from 1 billion years ago. It has already been said in this thread that the condition in which a fossil happens are very particular and rare.

PS: The human species can be traced back about 7 million years to the past. We didn't just pop up into existence.

On the scale of time as pertains to the earth's age, yes 100,000 years is a pop in time compared to billions. Lol at the 7 million year old human.
Where is the evidence of this gradual process? archaeopteryx was an avian that was misidentified as a dinosaur until they found a fossil with feathers, even then they couldn't come to terms that they were wrong, they tried to make it into some sort of missing link. Did dinosaurs just sprout feathers one day? I fail to see that as a missing link, there should be a whole transition of fossil records to show the evolution.

When I say modern humans I say like you and me, but a 150 000 year human will look almost the same, if not equal. A 200 000 year one will be very similar. You'll probably need to go back 300/500 000 years to find key physical and intelectual differences.

And you not that scale are the evolutionary antecessor of feathers, right? You know that archaeopteryx was a dinosaur with feathers, right? Do you also know that Velociraptors, for example, had feathers, correct? There won't be evidence of gradual process because you cant have infinite fossil records.

You always need to place the fossil in historical and time perception. Example:

300 million years ago: Dinosaur X fossil
280 million years ago: Dinosaur X + short tail fossil
250 million years ago: Dinosaur X + feathers

You don't have the fossils inbetween, but you can correlate those dinosaurs with the same characteristics + differences while time goes by. You should be able to understand this.

One day the most famous flying dinosaur – Archaeopteryx – is a direct ancestor of all modern birds; the next day it belongs to a different dinosaur group, suggesting that feathered flight evolved twice. Practically every new fossil and study forces a rethink.

Source

The so called experts are exhibiting "bird brained" behavior.

-------------------

What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms.

Source

The other side of the coin, which imo is more coherent.

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Well how about the fact that most religious people keep making quotes that Darwin said man is descended from Monkeys he never said that man and the great apes had a common ancestor

… adaptive characters, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance; but such resemblances will not reveal – will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of descent.

The fact that human beings and monkeys have tailbones is evidence for common ancestry precisely because tailbones are useless in humans. Contrast this with the torpedo shape that sharks and dolphins share; this similarity is useful in both groups. One might expect natural selection to cause the torpedo shape to evolve in large aquatic predators whether or not they have a common ancestor. This is why the adaptive similarity is almost valueless to the systematist who is trying to reconstruct patterns of common ancestry.

SOURCE

Hmmm, looks like he did. What about his phylogenic tree?

Darwin's 'Tree of Life' Expounding on his theory of natural selection, Darwin further hypothesized that all organisms have a shared ancestor and, through natural selection, have branched off from one another into different species. Darwin believed that phylogeny, the ascent of all species through time, was expressible through a metaphor he termed the "Tree of Life."

The modern development of this idea is called the phylogenetic tree, a branching diagram showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities. That phylogenetic trees based on different types of information agree with each other is strong evidence of a real underlying common descent. In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms have common descent if they have a common ancestor (Figure 1). Darwin referred to evolution as "descent with modification."

SOURCE





You are seriously going to say that Darwin did not put forth this common ancestry idea? He did not create the thought, but he certainly believed in it.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Incorrect. Tailbones are very useful...ever had to go to the bathroom and had to hold it? Thank your tailbone for that particular talent. The muscles required to clench up are attached to that "vestigial" chunk of calcium.

reply to post by rhinoceros


thanks for chiming in Rhinoceros...but actually i asked Robin to cite some specific examples.

be that as it may, i wont attempt to refute every example on that page...and as many of those examples cherry pick in some cases single verses rather than take on the context.

however, let me try my hand at a couple.

take for example the first on the list of the site you linked to about the high priest Caiphas. First of all the author of the page miscontrues very badly the words of Jesus to the high priest. Jesus does not say that he will live to see the second coming. Read the words for yourself, i prefer the king james version:

63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Notice Jesus says 'hereafter". Well what does 'hereafter' mean? It means after this moment or time. I would think if you wanted to hold Jesus down to the exact meaning of what he said all you could do is interpret what hes saying as some indefinite point AFTER the meeting which is currently in progress between the two of them....when the NEXT meeting of importance happens...which will be on the judgement day. You see this was an important meeting...it was Jesus being condemned by the religious leadership of Israel....and Jesus is telling Caiphas that on the NEXT important meeting the roles are going to be reversed. Do you see how easy that is to figure out? And i didnt even need to dig into countless volumes of bible commentary by all the important theologians to figure it out.

So you want another one? How about number 5. Jesus declaring that people would not die until they see 'the kingdom of God', as quoted by the website.

First wouldnt you want to know what is meant by 'kingdom of God' before you go on a rampage of dismissiveness? In order to avoid looking like a fool who doesnt know how to read or chooses NOT to read and understand what is very plain and clear? Would you not want to first know that there are MANY instances in the new testament where Jesus says that the kingdom of God IS come (matthew 12:28, Luke 10:9) or how about when Jesus says the 'kingdom of God' is in our hearts?


20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)


I could go on all day long and pick apart any apparent contradiction you throw at me....why? because im some expert that studied at seminary for 8 years? no...because i simply read the context and compare the bible to itself on the whole to find the unity that is throughout.

You know Paul and the apostles were quite of aware of people in their time that misused 'the word of God' as well....and there were warnings against it

16As also in all his epistles (Paul) , speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (2 peter 3:16)

Notice Peter says 'they that are unlearned and unstable wrest (that means to jerk or pull away from its place) as they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their OWN destruction"


So listen....if you want to trust your eternity to a website and some guy whos got a bone to pick with religion thats your prerogative.....but i know would only trust MY future to a very careful personal examination of everything thats pertinent.....thats the only intellectually honest way...the only safe way.


good luck

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by AFallingFeather
@wmd_2008 We weren't talking about God tard.
We were talking about the theory of evolution being a hoax.

Why is it considered a HOAX

because RELIGIOUS people think GOD created man!!!!

Actually, the OP says the scientists back up the theory of evolution with hoaxes. There is a difference. I believe Darwin believed his theory. I believe he took an excellent observation of natural selection to produce a stronger stock and then got mixed up into believing all creatures come from common ancestry.

Thus the theory is not a hoax, it is a theory. Scientists are desperate to prove it and when they could not find it in the fossil records, they made them and lied.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Really???

and

www.nbcnews.com...


Evolutionary divergence for you.

That's adaptation, not evolution. They even state clearly that the DNA shows these to be the same lizard species. Adaptation within a species is a far cry from evolution to a new and different species.

So you are trying to argue that natural selection and adaptation resulting in traits being passed down from one generation to another is not part of evolution?

The fact that you are saying they are from the same species originally means you either didn’t understand or didn’t watch the video or read the link because that was the experiment. To take a species from one island transplant it to another and see if it evolved to its environment. So what was your point in bringing up that they diverged from the same species?

Look up the definition of evolution and you will find in the very first part it says.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

See the part that says inherited characteristic well that is exactly what happened.
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a link to explain what evolution is please read up on it because you do not seem to understand it.

At least read the very first sentence.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Thus the theory is not a hoax, it is a theory. Scientists are desperate to prove it and when they could not find it in the fossil records, they made them and lied.

So you're using a few example of fossil hoaxes to prove that fossils in general are all hoaxes? Should we look at the lies and deceptions pulled by theists to try and prove the existence of a deity? How many times as the Catholic church lied? How many times has a theist been revealed to be a fraud? How many times has a theist pushed and pushed, only to be discovered as a hypocrite of the grossest degree when they are caught violating the edicts of their own agenda?

Perhaps I'm taking this in the wrong direction. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, other than evolution is apparently a very poor theory and...something else should be exalted in its place. What are you suggesting is a fitting alternative, huh? What should we tell our children instead of evolution? Be careful now...in exchange for your critical observations, we'll repay the favor and comb your proposed solution for any flaws or discrepancies. One good turn deserves another.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Nice way to take the subject way from fraud and hoaxes in evolution to say something about Christianity. Why not stick to the thread's subject. Everytime I post a topic you all don't like you create straw men, change the topic and derail my thread. Last time it was over 16 pages of non topic arguments.

You have proven that evolution, as a theory, is flawed. What you have not proven, however, is how your god theory is more credible than evolution theory. Before you start pointing fingers - again - you might want to get on that. That's your point, right? Evolution is garbage, so God must be the ultimate solution to all of our questions. You've barely begun to prove the first point, let alone the second. Don't count your chickens until you've hatched them all.

edit on 13-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I have no problem with my beliefs. I wrote a thread on the hoaxes science has used and people have in their minds to back up the theory of evolution and they never find out they were lied to! You want to thread on the Theory of God and the lies about that, go right ahead skippy.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Check out my post directly above yours.