Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well then, why don't you enlighten everyone else here on that agenda? I'm real curious to hear your indoctrinated view on my agenda, maybe you could add to the discussion instead of trying to interject your opinion on how we are all wrong and you are right!

Well, you're the one who used the word 'libtard'. It's not a very nice word as it combines 'liberal' with 'retard'. So you automatically seem to assume that anyone who believes that evolution is scientifically viable is a liberal and therefore a moron. Am I close? This makes you not just a creationist but also a conservative.
I could write some more but I suspect that I'd be wasting my time.

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

US you presented a gorgious, very readable OP

- i understand very well your point,
they attempting to present an impersonal history of mankind
and i agree with you that was their goal

however,
would it make sense to you,
that there were móre civilizations before our time -
and that Adam and Eve were created within this Hostile fallen world, to RE-conquer it..?

[ which' project suffered a temporary [!] setback, by the Fall ] ..?

regards,

Thank you Lone for your comments and questions about earlier civilizations. The whole young earth posts I made yesterday was something I had never given much credence to, but being true to my word, I have to investigate their evidence and look at the con side as well. I was already on the con side, but many pertinent things were brought to my attention especially the problems with the geologic tables and ice age dating tables.

There are some very interesting artifacts found by people that one can search in "hidden archeology". The very fact these things are hidden makes me wonder why. Why did the Smithsonian take all the giant skeletons. What about the strange glass found that points to an ancient nuclear war? The Veda's are very interesting and reading about the ancient war that is talked about makes me think it goes back to the first age.

The bible talks about a first age. Was this Lucifer's rebellion? Was it a more developed society? Did many go underground? Is there a hollow earth? What about the ancient artifacts that show the sun with a black triangle and vehicles coming through it? Nassim Haramein did a very interesting talk about it.

Did knowledge get handed down from that time and is that why so many sacred or energy points are along the golden ratio? I find it a fascinating topic, though not really part of this thread. There are a ton of them on ATS. So, I do believe there is room to believe this age is not that old no matter how desperately the evolutionists want to prove their theory which must point to a very old world which gives their theory time to work. Does that make Earth not old? Not necessarily. So, it's a multifaceted subject for me.

Edit to add: I am watching this now

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well then, why don't you enlighten everyone else here on that agenda? I'm real curious to hear your indoctrinated view on my agenda, maybe you could add to the discussion instead of trying to interject your opinion on how we are all wrong and you are right!

Well, you're the one who used the word 'libtard'. It's not a very nice word as it combines 'liberal' with 'retard'. So you automatically seem to assume that anyone who believes that evolution is scientifically viable is a liberal and therefore a moron. Am I close? This makes you not just a creationist but also a conservative.
I could write some more but I suspect that I'd be wasting my time.

edit on 16-8-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

I frequent many political forums and have only been met with hostility and ignorance from liberals towards me so please excuse my bitterness towards them! I admit it was a rude thing to say and I apologize!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


- thank you.

yes, as you say - within christian areas, its often made into a breaking point: for, or against evolution
.... but the truth [ and a most interesting one, if i may add ?] of "existing civilizations befóre us [ read: Adam and Eve] makes the context even móre interesting..?

my female, who i respect deeply, all dreams etc she gets from Him,
several times dreamed about " being at a place in a swamp... where she saw artefacts from civilizations before us, laying on the ground... as if the people from those civilizations had been Unable to travel further [ deeper] on the road to get Freed"

so.... it s up to us

- well: up to Him ofcourse
- but "with óur Generation"
you and me

..didnt He say something about " - verily: this generation will not pass...." ?

kind regards

Originally posted by Lone12
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

- thank you.

yes, as you say - within christian areas, its often made into a breaking point: for, or against evolution
.... but the truth [ and a most interesting one, if i may add ?] of "existing civilizations befóre us [ read: Adam and Eve] makes the context even móre interesting..?

my female, who i respect deeply, all dreams etc she gets from Him,
several times dreamed about " being at a place in a swamp... where she saw artefacts from civilizations before us, laying on the ground... as if the people from those civilizations had been Unable to travel further [ deeper] on the road to get Freed"

so.... it s up to us

- well: up to Him ofcourse
- but "with óur Generation"
you and me

..didnt He say something about " - verily: this generation will not pass...." ?

kind regards

I have no doubt there were civilizations before us, maybe I will just try to discuss some intelligent stuff with you, some of these others seem to have a hard time thinking outside the box and is getting very frustrating when they keep coming back at me and throw god in my face for the hundredth time!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

There are some very interesting artifacts found by people that one can search in "hidden archeology". The very fact these things are hidden makes me wonder why. Why did the Smithsonian take all the giant skeletons. What about the strange glass found that points to an ancient nuclear war? The Veda's are very interesting and reading about the ancient war that is talked about makes me think it goes back to the first age.

The audience earlier saw a lot being said on the topic of hoaxes and those who spread them, the origination of forged fossils and how they were discovered by science to be fakes.

Yet here you are coming full circle citing KNOWN hoaxes and forgeries as if they are a source of controversy.

Typical and disgusting.

Here I fixed the title of your thread "Evolution critics employing Hoaxes and Desperate Lies"

Originally posted by Wertdagf


Typical and disgusting.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Is this your twisted idea of having a discussion? To insult and send private messages to let that person know how dishonest and disgusting they are, are you winning yet?

And yes this poster PM'd me simply to tell me how dishonest I was, way ta go champ!

Originally posted by 1nf1del


I have no doubt there were civilizations before us, maybe I will just try to discuss some intelligent stuff with you, some of these others seem to have a hard time thinking outside the box and is getting very frustrating when they keep coming back at me and throw god in my face for the hundredth time!

That might be a most fruitful discussion, feel free to pm me.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by 1nf1del


I have no doubt there were civilizations before us, maybe I will just try to discuss some intelligent stuff with you, some of these others seem to have a hard time thinking outside the box and is getting very frustrating when they keep coming back at me and throw god in my face for the hundredth time!

That might be a most fruitful discussion, feel free to pm me.

Ha ha Sorry I wasn't leaving you out, maybe we should start another thread about that subject?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well then, why don't you enlighten everyone else here on that agenda? I'm real curious to hear your indoctrinated view on my agenda, maybe you could add to the discussion instead of trying to interject your opinion on how we are all wrong and you are right!

Well, you're the one who used the word 'libtard'. It's not a very nice word as it combines 'liberal' with 'retard'. So you automatically seem to assume that anyone who believes that evolution is scientifically viable is a liberal and therefore a moron. Am I close? This makes you not just a creationist but also a conservative.
I could write some more but I suspect that I'd be wasting my time.

edit on 16-8-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

I frequent many political forums and have only been met with hostility and ignorance from liberals towards me so please excuse my bitterness towards them! I admit it was a rude thing to say and I apologize!

Sorry, but that's no excuse. An insult is an insult.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Well then, why don't you enlighten everyone else here on that agenda? I'm real curious to hear your indoctrinated view on my agenda, maybe you could add to the discussion instead of trying to interject your opinion on how we are all wrong and you are right!

Well, you're the one who used the word 'libtard'. It's not a very nice word as it combines 'liberal' with 'retard'. So you automatically seem to assume that anyone who believes that evolution is scientifically viable is a liberal and therefore a moron. Am I close? This makes you not just a creationist but also a conservative.
I could write some more but I suspect that I'd be wasting my time.

edit on 16-8-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

I frequent many political forums and have only been met with hostility and ignorance from liberals towards me so please excuse my bitterness towards them! I admit it was a rude thing to say and I apologize!

Sorry, but that's no excuse. An insult is an insult.

And I apologized for it, should I just off myself so I don't upset you any further?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Darwin knew this was a problem and so do others who are NOT in the creationist camp:

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species p323 says, "Intermediate links? Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]" If Darwin were alive today he would see that the fossil record still refuses to offer any evidence of an intermediate or transitional form to support his theory of evolution from one kind of animal into another (macro-evolution).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages ... has been a persistent and nagging problem for ... evolution" Stephen Gould, Marxist Professor at Harvard, Evolution Now. In reply to a question regarding evolutionary transitions, Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum replied "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.

If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." No ancestors are found for complex invertebrates (such as clams, snails, jellyfish, worms, found in Cambrian rocks). They, in turn are said to have evolved into vertebrates such as fish, but there are no transitional fossils.

So, please stop saying these intermediate examples exist. Your own lauded scientists admit they do not exist.

link

No, sometimes they are just misquoted
Paterson

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

The whole thing is too long to post here, but you should really read it. Shows how Patterson's words got twisted several times.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

 

And yet these scientists still support evolution. Gould is particularly famous for his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. That's the great thing about science. It's a discussion that allows for a number of different views to be presented as long as those views have empirical evidence to back them up. Creationism on the other hand is a static idea that never changes regardless of evidence presented.

Punctuated Equilibrium

Thank you for mentioning Gould. Let me remind you that Gould took scientist to task for using illustrations that they knew were inaccurate, which is exactly the point. Scientist knowingly use inaccurate information.

www.discovery.org...

"Some Darwinists continue to deny that there has been any misuse of Haeckel in recent times. If that is the case, why did Stephen Jay Gould attack how textbooks use Haeckel in 2000? Gould wrote: “We should... not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” Similarly, in 1997, the leading embryologist Michael K. Richardson lamented in the journal Anatomy and Embyology that "Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field."

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Imagine if some modern men were mistaken as the missing link. I posted earlier about having a college professor who looked like the Geico caveman with his amazing brow ridge. Here are some other examples and the one for rickets looks a lot like the skull they try to say is half alien and half human.

Geico caveman actor

Let's take a look at some people with rickets and x-rays:

Medicis Had Rickets? X-Rays Reveal Signs Of Bone Disorder In Famed Renaissance Family

The bones of Filippo de' Medici, known as don Filippino, and other young members of his family revealed vitamin D deficiency, which caused rickets and a swelling of Filippino's skull. (At his death in 1582, before he turned five, his skull was cut open in an autopsy, which explains the line cutting across the forehead.)

link

And here is the famed star child

Here is a group of skulls and could it be these that look different had some disease and are not the missing link or proof of aliens?

Then there is paget's disease

These two actors have very interesting skulls. I am sure they would be offended of you thought they were less than human

Hawthorne James

Clancy Brown

Are aboriginals sub-human or just different? Hitler I am sure would have said they are sub-human and holding us back.

edit on 16-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

You are a very poor reader. Rickets causes bones to become softer and deformed. Homo Neanderthalesis had stronger bones than the average human being. You fail once more at your "simple logic" text. Continue spreading lies and nonsense, I'll continue laughing.

PS: Continue ignoring every valid and supported post on this thread, it gives you an huge amount of credibility. Show me, please, a bone disorder that gives you neanderthal body, with all it's key differences from human body.

reply to post by JameSimon


Sadly creationists don't believe in science. Or facts.

I don't know why I am compelled to post in this nonsensical thread again, but here plain an simple creationists refute crocs/gators as living proof of evolution.
dinosaurs.about.com...
wrong link

It honestly scares me how much religion and proponents of creationism are out of touch with reality. But then i always think religion and belief in anything magical is for those that cant handle reality.

It has been mentioned that evolution cant be witnessed, well it actually can. For example evolution is the result of slight variation through mutation. Granted we cant physically witness such small mutations occurring in one instance but we can certainly witness massive deleterious mutations. To deny evolution is to deny mutation driving variation in a particular niche.

And Darwin provided evidence of this when discussing the various types of domesticated pigeons that revert back to the rock dove if left to breed without artificial selection from man.

And while we're at it, it's absolutely absurd to call evolution or science a religion. There are countries in the world today where if you challenge their particular religion you would executed in front of a frenzied mob.

And here's something that tickles me about religious denial of evolution. The irony of an evolving religion to fit in with modern day societies. Religion will embrace anything to fit in at the time. Anything except the totally obvious slap in the face truth.

And also, kids aren't brainwashed by science as some have stated. Religion only survives by brainwashing the weak and those most easily influenced.

...unreal, door just chapped...guess who it was?!! Kid you not Jehovah's trying to shove the Watchtower down my throat.

As Bob Bakker delightfully illustrated in Raptor Red, evolution was operating long before we showed up and that religion, the greatest, most powerful and influencial predator ever known, would eventually spring into existence with laughable ease.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I will agree that willful ignorance is a part of the creationist thought process, but most creationists are passive creationists. They accept what they're told.

Then you have the proactive apologetic creationist like the OP and his star buddy 1nfent1le, who's foundation rests on a lack of self awareness.
I think they truly believe that scientists are interpreting data so that it matches their assumed conclusions, just like they do.
Therefore, their interpretations are on par with the conclusions that real scientists reach.
In reality these creationist are reflecting themselves...
In order to hold on to the illusion that is creationism they need to believe that everyone else is just as deluded. By projecting their flaws onto real scientists they can convince themselves that they are on equal footing.

Originally posted by helldiver
It honestly scares me how much religion and proponents of creationism are out of touch with reality. But then i always think religion and belief in anything magical is for those that cant handle reality.

It has been mentioned that evolution cant be witnessed, well it actually can. For example evolution is the result of slight variation through mutation. Granted we cant physically witness such small mutations occurring in one instance but we can certainly witness massive deleterious mutations. To deny evolution is to deny mutation driving variation in a particular niche.

You all keep insisting adaptation proves evolution from one species to another, but offer no proofs of changing from one species to another. You act as though mutation is a good thing when nearly all the time it is not, and to imagine that all the different species just got lucky enough to mutate the right thing to go from a non-flying animal to a flying one is faith beyond belief.

Now explain why the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio is throughout DNA, nature, the universe and explain how matter which is 99% empty space being held together by incredible forces created this random world by chance yet repeats the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio constantly. Explain consciousness, quarks, unusual abilities which cannot be wished away by nature and evolution. Explain dreaming the future, healing through placebo effect and other things when nothing was actually done to take away the disease.

The ancients knew a lot more about energy and the unseen world than we currently do, and evolutionists want us to believe everything is pure chance.

Please explain to me how no life begets life. It sounds like Orwell's double speak of War for Peace.

It also reminds me of a scripture in Isaiah:

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by Wertdagf


Typical and disgusting.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Is this your twisted idea of having a discussion? To insult and send private messages to let that person know how dishonest and disgusting they are, are you winning yet?

And yes this poster PM'd me simply to tell me how dishonest I was, way ta go champ!

What you are experiencing is the gnashing of teeth for those who desperately want to believe in evolution despite the facts presented. This is nothing more than noise thrown in a thread of evidence. I would really like to hear an honest discussion of the videos I just posted.

We have yet to have the "opposition" dealing with the issues I and others have raised, and we have witnessed the most hostile behavior which as my mother used to tell me,'When people turn to insult and ridicule in a debate, it simply means they have lost it."