Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
And when did you biology teacher qualify, and when was the biology book you used written, and how much effort did your biology teacher stay up to date with the latest news? Or was your biology teacher somebody who just got their qualification and lost all interest in the topic?
I suspect the latter, since your biology teacher(s) certainly seemed to have failed to interest you in any serious way in what you are or the nature of the awe-inspiring, magnificent biological world that you inhabit.Perhaps it would be fairer to say that certain facts will be ignored by people who, though splendidly unaware of the topic in question, believe that they know better.
Do go to your doctor or your cleric when you're sick?
My bio teacher would have had a B.Sc. in order to teach High School and was required to continually upgrade. So I would say that your suspicions are wrong. The text book was more than likely written in the early 70's and also included the Miller-Uray experiment.
Also as far as the interest is concerned you are wrong there as well. My Bio teacher was quite good and I have a lot of respect for her. And I was interested in the world around me and how it worked.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say that certain facts will be ignored by people who, though splendidly unaware of the topic in question, believe that they know better. Evolutionists do this by ignoring the facts and teh fairy tales that they buy into.
And robin I expect better of you than your last comment. Pretty sad.0 -
So, do you reckon that people like me (not trained as a biologist) as well as trained biologists actually don't know anything about biology?Brian wrote:
Evolutionists do this by ignoring the facts and teh fairy tales that they buy into.me wrote:Perhaps it would be fairer to say that certain facts will be ignored by people who, though splendidly unaware of the topic in question, believe that they know better.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »Perhaps it would be fairer to say that certain facts will be ignored by people who, though splendidly unaware of the topic in question, believe that they know better.
Who are we talking about here? "Evolutionists", by which I assume you mean biologists, are not at all unaware of their topic. They're certainly entitled to assume they know better than the average person when it comes to their profession.BrianCalgary wrote: »Evolutionists do this by ignoring the facts and teh fairy tales that they buy into.
What fairy tales are you referring to? I think most non-scientists who accept evolution do so because the model makes sense to them. It neatly explains things like the fossil record and common genetics without having to follow any of the convoluted logic offered by models like creationism. Now, perhaps they may well be guilty of failing to look closely at claimed contradictory data, but biologists, chemists and geologists could certainly not be accused of that. Indeed you can find many quite detailed examinations of said data.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »Evolutionists do this by ignoring the facts and teh fairy tales that they buy into.
Am I correct in thinking that you have some scientific evidence for creation, or perhaps scientific refutation of evolution? Please say yes! Don't hold back this info like J C does. I really want to hear it! :pac:0 -
Am I correct in thinking that you have some scientific evidence for creation, or perhaps scientific refutation of evolution? Please say yes! Don't hold back this info like J C does. I really want to hear it! :pac:
My response was based solely on Robins post which insinuated that Christians ignore the facts in order to suit their preconceived beliefs.
On the reverse, scientists I'm sure are also guilty of the same pitfall, a rigid belief that there is no God and therefore will ignore any facts that may cause one to think such a thing.
The word model was used earlier: I now see that Global Warming is not the issue it once was, it is now called Climate Change.
I assume the models have been adjusted and changed, assumptions jigged?0 -
Advertisement
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »I assume the models have been adjusted and changed, assumptions jigged?
That is the very nature of science. It is a self-correcting system based on new evidence. Of course, you already know this, as it has been explained countless times before.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »On the reverse, scientists I'm sure are also guilty of the same pitfall, a rigid belief that there is no God and therefore will ignore any facts that may cause one to think such a thing.
Probably but thankfully that is irrelevant in science though.
What an individual scientist thinks about something holds little weight. What matters is what they can demonstrate independent to their own opinion.BrianCalgary wrote: »The word model was used earlier: I now see that Global Warming is not the issue it once was, it is now called Climate Change.
Global warming is a effect. Climate change is the consequence.BrianCalgary wrote: »I assume the models have been adjusted and changed, assumptions jigged?
Yes, that is the point of a model. If a model does not match observation then the model is inaccurate and you change the model, rather than the religious tendency to change the observation :pac:0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »On the reverse, scientists I'm sure are also guilty of the same pitfall, a rigid belief that there is no God and therefore will ignore any facts that may cause one to think such a thing.
There is no rigid belief of scientists that god does not exist. In fact, according to J C, 90% of scientists believe in god. :pac:
Anyway, what are these 'facts that may cause one to think such a thing?'0 -
BrianCalgary wrote: »My response was based solely on Robins post which insinuated that Christians ignore the facts in order to suit their preconceived beliefs.
On the reverse, scientists I'm sure are also guilty of the same pitfall, a rigid belief that there is no God and therefore will ignore any facts that may cause one to think such a thing.
What facts? By all means point them out. How can we detect and positively identify God? If He's observable and testable then we can and will certainly accept His existence on the basis of evidence. Science undergoes revolutions on a regular basis and the heralds of these revolutions become legends. You can rest assured that if compelling evidence for God exists, it will not be ignored.
You're also equating scientists with atheists. There are plenty of Christian scientists who have no issue with the Standard Model of cosmology or with Evolution or the abiogenesis hypotheses as they stand. They are happy to accept that the evidence available supports these models. Granted the religious are in the minority in the scientific community, but as far as I'm aware that's only partially due to a selection bias. Make of that what you will.BrianCalgary wrote: »The word model was used earlier: I now see that Global Warming is not the issue it once was, it is now called Climate Change.
The model hasn't fundamentally changed, it's still a human-driven global warming model. The name used most frequently has changed due in part I think to the confusion caused by the use of the word "warming". A lot of the denialists like to spout lines such as "if it's global warming how come it's making it rain more", which is firstly a very simplistic view of a chaotic process and secondly a confusion between climate and weather. The effect on a global scale is a climate warming trend but the effect is not homogeneous. The common name change reflects the fact that global warming results in, for example, much wetter conditions in some places.BrianCalgary wrote: »I assume the models have been adjusted and changed, assumptions jigged?
Constantly. A model that does not change in response to new data is a dogma, not a theory. Evolutionary theory has changed in many ways since the time of Darwin. Newton's theories are used only for approximations now. Einstein's general relativity is discarded in some extreme circumstances. Typically good models such as Newton's and Darwin's are not discarded but merely superceded. The evidence remains the same, but the understanding shifts.
Some people see the changeability of science as a weakness rather than as its most valuable trait.0 -
....yes the thread is pretty much over because I have WON the debate .....I think this thread might be finally over.
Even wolfsbane hardly ever comes round any more, while J C's lost the plot entirely and can barely string a coherent sentence together.
It must be just about time to award it to the evolutionists. Unless J C can stage a late (and unexpected) comeback and answer those 13 tricky questions.
I'm sure he still thinks he's 'won', but the true outcome must be pretty obvious to any sane person who gets this far.
......even Prof Dawkins has 'thrown in the towel' on Intelligent Design ... and he now accepts that ID is a definite possibilty ... have a look at the 'Dawkins Space Alien Theory' on the following link
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
..he has admitted that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemistry and molecular biology"
...he has even said that the designer of life on Earth could "well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe".....so Prof Dawkins is NOT against Intelligent Design ..... just certain types of designers.... LIKE GOD!!!!!:):eek::D:D;)
....each clip is well worth watching ... and the movie itself is even more revealing ... and rewarding!!!!!
....I think that the logical follow-on from the mathematical impossibility of producing one small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes has 'dawned' on Prof Dawkins ... and I have the strangest feeling that it is ALSO starting to 'dawn' on ALL of the contributors to this thread as well!!!
.....methinks I hear the sound of 'pennies dropping' on the ID issue ... reaching a crescendo on this thread ... and elsewhere!!!!:D
'Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed' .... must be some movie!!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
....yes the thread is pretty much over because I have WON the debate
Eh - :rolleyes:?have a look at the 'Dawkins Space Alien Theory' on the following link
G:\Stuff\EXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site.mht
Establishing remote desktop connection... -> JCcomp... -> G:\
What other 'stuff' do you keep in your G, J C?! :eek::eek::eek:0 -
....yes the thread is pretty much over because I have WON the debate .....
In a parallel world? Not this one anyway. Answer the 13 questions and you might be in with a shot. Otherwise I'm afraid it's painfully obvious to all that you've retreated.......even Prof Dawkins has 'thrown the towel in' on Intelligent Design ... and he now accepts that it is a definite possibilty ... have a look at the 'Dawkins Space Alien Theory' on the following link
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
"Expelled" as a source? That movie is terrible. I mean, the creationist lobby produce some really hilariously bad material, but Expelled is terrible even by those standards. It's pure selective propaganda and is utterly, utterly worthless in a debate against evolution. The interview with Dawkins is a joke. He states that if ID is real we should be able to find evidence of this and Stein, in a voice over, turns this into Dawkins accepting ID. The VO, of course, cannot be responded to by Dawkins and so he is not afforded the opportunity to reject or clarify. It's deeply dishonest, but so obviously so that I can only laugh at it. Stein even pulls out the old evolution = holocaust trick, despite the fact that his own precious conservative economics were also once justified by the oft-misused call of "survival of the fittest". I suppose the global economic collapse will be pinned on evolution next...he has admitted that it is possible that you might find a 'signature' of some sort of designer in the "details of biochemicals and biology"
...he has even said that the designer could "well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe".....so Prof Dawkins is NOT against Intelligent Design ..... just certain types of designers.... LIKE GOD!!!!!:):eek::D:D;)
Nobody has said that intelligent design is categorically impossible. So far you're the only person here throwing around absolute statements of probability. What we're saying is that the evidence does not support that conclusion. The evidence for ID has turned out to be a series of red herrings, all explicable within the context of the evolutionary model and all contradictory of design.0 -
-
-
-
Am I getting annoying yet? I do hope so. I'd say J C won't be back for a week, but I live in hope that he'll try to answer these again some day.
Questions 1-8 have not been answered. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed in any form.
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »You're not telling?
Is that where you're keeping the science?
And the Secret List of Creation Scientists.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Am I getting annoying yet? I do hope so. I'd say J C won't be back for a week, but I live in hope that he'll try to answer these again some day.
Questions 1-8 have not been answered. Questions 9 through 13 have not been addressed in any form.
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
13. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Unless JC or anyone can answer these questions, particularly 9-13; then we can only assume that Creation Science has no answers to offer. Nothing other than someone directly answering these questions will suffice. No claims of previous attempts to answer them. No smiley faces and multiple exclamation marks. Just answers to the questions. Anything but this is total failure.
Simple as that.0 -
-
Hey guys, sorry i havent been posting here that often anymore. I saw this and was reminded of this thread
http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Are_Rhinos_DinosThe answer was no.0 -
Advertisement
-
With Darwin Day approaching (and the anniversary of On The Origin this year also), the Evolution articles are flying. This week, New Scientist has published a nice little account of the real scientific debate about evolution, the question of whether the Tree of Life, Darwin's hypothesised model of species interrelatedness, actually exists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
Ever since the discovery of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in single celled life, the question of whether the tree might actually be a very complex thicket has been hovering on the edges of evolutionary science. In the last few years it has become quite clear that, in single celled life at least, Darwin's tree hypothesis has been falsified. That is not to say that life does not share a common ancestor species, but rather that the "trunk" rather quickly becomes a web of interconnected species shortly beyond the first branches.
The concept was quite central to the popularisation of evolutionary theory in Darwin's time, though it is not fundamental to the concept of evolution. But this goes to show that scientists will quite happily cast aside any hypothesis if the data contradicts it.
I'm certain that the Creationist/ID movement will soon start blogging and writing on this article, perhaps mistaking it for a new discovery or support for their position. For my part, I had always though of HGT as a minor contributor to evolution, but I've since been rather convinced that it's a major player in bacterial evolution. And since those guys make up the bulk of life on Earth, it is thus a major component of evolution in total.
The debate is still ongoing, but my money is on the thicket. A nice example of a small-scale scientific revolution in action.0 -
Embryology 2
Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).
b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:
“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.
“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.
M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.
Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.
“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.
“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.
“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.
“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.
c. “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.” Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp10090860 -
Embryology 2
Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).
b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:
“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.
“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.
M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.
Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.
“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.
“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.
“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.
“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.
c. “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.” Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Sorry. Where is the science?0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »That one misguided area of science once cited as evidence for evolution has been discarded does not falsify evolution. An even older set of evidence, the fossil record, is still valid. I understand that you point to that gaps in that evidence, but to falsify a theory you need contradictory data, not gaps in the data.
All the fossil record shows is the fossilized remains of life forms. There is no evidence that any of those life forms changed from one species to another. On the contrary, they all appear suddenly and complete. The Cambrian Explosion is the clearest example that supports creation and disproves evolution.
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.
Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientist’s own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists worldwide.0 -
-
....it is entitled "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life" .... and it isn't the ONLY thing that Darwin was wrong about either!!!!:eek::DAtomicHorror wrote: »With Darwin Day approaching (and the anniversary of On The Origin this year also), the Evolution articles are flying. This week, New Scientist has published a nice little account of the real scientific debate about evolution, the question of whether the Tree of Life, Darwin's hypothesised model of species interrelatedness, actually exists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
....there NEVER was an 'Evolutionary Tree' .... but there IS a 'Creation Thicket' .... made up of thousands of INDIVIDUAL KINDS...that actually branched out quickly to becomes a web of interconnected species!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Ever since the discovery of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in single celled life, the question of whether the tree might actually be a very complex thicket has been hovering on the edges of evolutionary science. In the last few years it has become quite clear that, in single celled life at least, Darwin's tree hypothesis has been falsified. That is not to say that life does not share a common ancestor species, but rather that the "trunk" rather quickly becomes a web of interconnected species shortly beyond the first branches.
....as usual the Evolutionists see the evidence against Evolution ... and in favour of Creation ... but they refuse to accept what it implies!!!!
...phew...just as well that the Evolutionsts have abandoned the Evolutionary Tree then .... thereby allowing them to continue in denial of their Creator!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote: »The concept (of an evolutionary tree) was quite central to the popularisation of evolutionary theory in Darwin's time, though it is not fundamental to the concept of evolution.
....no, not a revolution ... just a continued denial of the obvious .... that Creation occurred!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »The debate is still ongoing, but my money is on the thicket. A nice example of a small-scale scientific revolution in action.
...and here is the 'Creation Thicket'...that the Evolutionists have just discovered ... contrasted with the Darwinian 'Evolutionist Tree' ... that they have just abandoned!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/orchard-tree.gif
.....what do they say again? .... ah yes....
..."give me one Creation Scientist ... and you can keep a thousand Evolutionists!!!!":eek::eek::D0 -
...you are beginning to sound like a lovely old lady that I once knew ... who would believe nothing unless her local priest confirmed that he also accepted it ... I guess it was her version of 'peer review'!!!:pac::):DFlamed Diving wrote: »Link to peer-reviewed scientific paper, please.0 -
....of course ALL of this evidence is completely in accordance with the hypothesis of a RAPID Creation followed by rapid speciation followed by a WORLDWIDE 'extinction event' known as Noah's Flood ... but I guess that the Evolutionist need to deny their Creator ... overcomes what their eyes and brains are otherwise telling them !!!!All the fossil record shows is the fossilized remains of life forms. There is no evidence that any of those life forms changed from one species to another. On the contrary, they all appear suddenly and complete. The Cambrian Explosion is the clearest example that supports creation and disproves evolution.
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.
Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientist’s own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists worldwide.
....I love you all ... please go get Saved ... before it is too late ... and stop denying that Jesus Christ exists .... and created YOU!!!!:):D0 -
-
Advertisement
-
...you are beginning to sound like a lovely old lady that I once knew ... who would believe nothing unless her local priest confirmed that he also accepted it ... I guess it was her version of 'peer review'!!!:pac::):D
Yeah, although if my local priest had a (verifiable) track record of improving the lives of the entire human race over the past 300 years, I would probably do the same.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement