Poll: I accept the premise that we are born believers because of evolution.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 09:46 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  His basic claim was apparently that the fossil gaps were too large to show human ancestry. I'm sure that was an arguable case, in 1925. Why a Creationist would mention it, today, I'm not really sure. Consider

Anyone who denies Evolution in 2016 simply exposes them-self as an ignorant fool. Every single major university in the entire world teaches it, their medical schools assume it, and use it in research every day. No educated biologist or scientist questions it. IF there were any other legitimate explanation for the observed data, the person who wrote that paper would get a Nobel.

Why would they do this ?
They need their holy book to be literally true, or they lose their minds.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-09-2016, 10:17 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 09:46 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow... I can see why it's taking you so long. I tried to look up one of the guys he mentions, "L.T. More of the University of Chicago", and kept finding nothing but Creationist references to him. I finally managed to figure out his name was Louis Trenchard More, born in 1870, and finally turned up a hit on him and his book The Dogma of Evolution, copyright 1925. He was with Princeton, or at least they are the ones who published his book.

Except it wasn't really a book, it was a published series of lectures.

His basic claim was apparently that the fossil gaps were too large to show human ancestry. I'm sure that was an arguable case, in 1925. Why a Creationist would mention it, today, I'm not really sure. Consider

Keep in mind that the "Modern Synthesis" of evolution wasn't until the 1930s. Prior to that, most of what was going on in scientific circles was individual study of separate fields, with less cross-information than post-synthesis, and it led to quite a bit of erroneous conclusions based on fragmentary data. That's why what Theodosius Dobzhansky did, in putting together the evidence from geology, genetics (which had mostly been ignored until then), paleontology, etc., in his seminal work Genetics and the Origin of Species, c. 1937, was arguably more important than Darwin's breakthrough in the discovery of Natural Selection.

I'm working my way through the free sample of Randy's book ftom Amazon.

He says in there that sceptics, will complain about the yue of, er, old sources and claims (for his purpose in the book) this is valid because it shows the time period over which scientists have expressed concern. The counter argument that, perhaps, those concerns have been answered by later research or discovery has not, of course, been explored - as would be done in any proper book on such a subject.

RS, if you are gnashing at the bit, have Kindle and want to download the free sample and compose a critique it could be interesting. Otherwise I will have a go.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
17-09-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 09:46 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow... I can see why it's taking you so long. I tried to look up one of the guys he mentions, "L.T. More of the University of Chicago", and kept finding nothing but Creationist references to him. I finally managed to figure out his name was Louis Trenchard More, born in 1870, and finally turned up a hit on him and his book The Dogma of Evolution, copyright 1925. He was with Princeton, or at least they are the ones who published his book.

Except it wasn't really a book, it was a published series of lectures.

His basic claim was apparently that the fossil gaps were too large to show human ancestry. I'm sure that was an arguable case, in 1925. Why a Creationist would mention it, today, I'm not really sure. Consider

Keep in mind that the "Modern Synthesis" of evolution wasn't until the 1930s. Prior to that, most of what was going on in scientific circles was individual study of separate fields, with less cross-information than post-synthesis, and it led to quite a bit of erroneous conclusions based on fragmentary data. That's why what Theodosius Dobzhansky did, in putting together the evidence from geology, genetics (which had mostly been ignored until then), paleontology, etc., in his seminal work Genetics and the Origin of Species, c. 1937, was arguably more important than Darwin's breakthrough in the discovery of Natural Selection.

Thanks, I had trouble tracking anything down myself.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:25 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Okay, massive post incoming. Will still need to check formatting a bit, but it's almost there.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2016, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 01:07 PM by kim.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I read a bit of RR's "Darwinism" book last night.

The stupid hurt my head. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
17-09-2016, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 10:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Original source, in all it’s credulous and ignoble glory.


Fact or Fiction?
Copyright 1997 James L. Melton
Published by Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN

Oh boy, 1997 and published by a Baptist Church? This must be some really cutting edge shit! For reference, the Nintendo 64 was released in September of 1996 in North America.

[Image: system_specific_nintendo64.gif]

Quote:"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23)

Right off the bat, credibility drops into the negatives with a Bible passage about how everyone who doesn't agree with the Bible are fools, because our book of fairy tales says so. This gives us a great baseline for the level of intellectual rigor (or lack thereof) you should expect going forward.

Quote:These inspired words of God should be posted over the door to every science and biology lab in every state university in America.

Not in the United States. The protections granted under the First Amendment are there to protect all citizens from religious authoritarianism, including yours. You don’t get to place Bible quotes just wherever you like, and in exchange for that, you don’t have to put up with spiffy atheist bumper stickers over the door of every church. I mean, if you really want to trade, I’m sure I can provide some examples for you to work with and try them on for size.

Quote: Every person born into the world is born with enough conscience to tell him that God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Uh, what? You conscience has nothing to do with your ability to validate truth claims. Plus, there’s that whole fact that almost half the world disagrees with you and doesn't adhere to your particular god myth and creation fable. If it really is so apparent, then how come the whole world isn’t already filled with Baptists in perfect agreement?

Quote:If you do not believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because you've allowed someone to educate you out of your faith in God's word.

You know, things that are factually accurate, don’t need to be worried about people learning more about them. Do you know who does fear the spread of information? Scammers, huckster, frauds, and charlatans. Guess which ones you sound more like with that kind of intellectual fear mongering? If your religion is true, why are you so afraid that it cannot stand up to closer scrutiny?

Quote:You have been tricked into forsaking the Bible by placing your faith in a man-made religion called "Evolution."

-The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.

Who do followers of the religion of evolution worship? What are our high holy days? What are our religious practices? Where are our places of worship? What do our religious services look like? How much tax revenue does the religion of evolution get exempted from paying? Whose children does the religion of evolution get to molest?

Quote:Someone says, "Evolution is not a religion."

Oh, so this is all a rhetorical exercise for you then?

Quote:Evolution IS a religion, because it lacks scientific evidence, thus requiring it's adherents to follow Darwin's theory by FAITH.

[Image: zxl58Pv.jpg?1]

No. Evolution doesn't match any reasonable and widely accepted definition for a religion. Also, even assuming your accusating was true (and it emphatically is not), your tactic is to undermine evolution by claiming it’s faith based? Because being based on faith, like all other actual religions, is knocking evolution down a peg? That is, in and of itself, a tacit admission on your own part that a faith based position is a less desirable position than one based on facts. I’m sure this will be made evidently clear and will totally bite you in the ass repeatedly as we proceed.

Quote:Evolution is a RELIGIOUS CREED based upon blind faith.

No, the Nicene Creed is a religious creed. Evolutionary theory has no need for an agreed upon affirmation of faith, because evolution has facts. When you have facts, you don’t need faith. So you cannot deflect your own shortcoming by trying to make it stick on others. This isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, it’s the pot trying to call the silverware black; and it isn’t going to stick. Putting it in capital letters doesn't make your assertion any more true, it just makes you come across as a bellend.

[Image: caps_on_2444.png]

(ProTip: Before you Google ‘bellend’, turn ‘safe search’ off!)

Quote:There is not in existence one single piece of scientific evidence which proves that man has evolved upward from animals.


All life on Earth is carbon based, and we all have DNA. That DNA is made up of the same four base pairs of chemical in every single piece of life on this planet. Everything alive, from the smallest single celled microorganism, to the largest animals to ever walk, fly, or swim; all have had their genetic information stored in DNA and encoded by the same four base pairs, without exception.

Ever heard of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)? It’s all really quite fascinating, if you know enough to understand what’s going on. I cannot write it any more succinctly than this.

Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294;Todaro et al. 1975).

Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cows, platypi, etc.), had these same retrogenes in the exact same chromosomal locations. For instance, it would be incredibly unlikely for dogs to also carry the three HERV-K insertions that are unique to humans, as shown in the upper right of Figure 4.4.1, since none of the other primates have these retroviral sequences.


[Image: retrovirus.gif]

So either everything has the same genetic basis because we all share a common ancestor, the supposed creator lacks creativity to do things differently among organisms, or is being purposely deceitful in attempting to make it appear like all life on Earth shares a common ancestor. The most likely answer is, as always, the one that doesn't make unnecessary presuppositions. You’d know this too, if you’d ever studied logic and statistics.

Quote:It is impossible to prove any theory of origins "scientifically," because the very essence of the scientific method is based upon OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION, and no scientist has ever observed or experimented with the origin of the universe.

If a supposed lack of direct observation and experimentation disqualifies science, let me remind you that you are also disqualifying all religions ever. Yes, including your own.

This does, of course, ignore the fact that evolution has been directly observed and recorded, both in the lab and out in the wild. You’d know this already if you were really interested in actually finding the truth, instead of propping up a comforting lie.

Quote:All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, "". . .Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact.

Seriously bro, do you even science? No, but you can quote mine like a dishonest sonofabitch.


TalkOrigins.org Quote Mining Project #4.7

You opinion comes from a selective and dishonest quote mining of the introduction. Matthews was making a distinction between the fact of evolution, and the theory to explain it. Much like the distinction between the fact of gravity, and a theory (first Newton, then Einstein) to explain that fact.

Selectively quoting one person doesn’t make that mountain of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory disappear.

Quote:Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory.

Their professional reputation relies upon the merit of their work. Sloppy work that cannot stand up to peer review is derided as a matter of course. Anyone who could provide a better explanation for biodiversity that explained all of the evidence better than evolution already does, would become a scientific legend in their own time.

Science is not a secretive cabal hiding the truth from the masses, that’s what we have seminaries for. Honestly, they’re not really that secretive, but how many graduates tell their congregations about the polytheistic pagan origins of jewish monotheism? I’m sorry, was that news to you too? I rest my case.

Quote:They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators.

Nope. If a scientist can bring new evidence to the table, he’s lauded for helping us further refine our attempt to quantify and understand the natural world. But to do that, you need actual evidence. Voices in your head, fuzzy feelings, and centuries old hearsay are not compelling evidence.

Quote:He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing.

If someone chooses to forsake the scientific method in favor of magical thinking, then yes, they are rightly condoned off from the rest of legitimate science. They have the right to do so, but the scientific community at large doesn't own them or their religious beliefs anything. This is, of course, because religious beliefs cannot stand up to rigors of scientific scrutiny. This is why Francis Collins had his work with genetics peer reviewed and he earned a Nobel Prize in science for his effort. But when the time came to present evidence for his faith, he published a mainstream book for a lay audience, instead of presenting his ‘evidence’ to his fellow scientists; because he knew it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and pretending like it did you lose him all professional credibility.

So if religious claims cannot stand up to close inspection and testing, is that the fault of science or religion?

Quote:Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account.

Actually this is sad and funny at the same time, because while this doesn't apply to scientists, it does apply to clergy. A scientist who wants to forsake doing hard work in favor of pandering to religious ideologues can find employment at any number of different and disreputable creationist ‘think tanks’, who would be more than happy to have someone there with a legitimate PhD, instead of making due with dentists and physicists pretending to do biology.

But what happens if a member of the clergy, in studying their religion, comes out the other side no longer able to believe? They’re a member of the clergy, they rarely have any other salable skill outside of preaching. Not only that, but often their entire livelihood (salary and housing) are tied up in the faith, and abandoning it in favor of intellectual honesty would be financially devastating. The world is filled with those in positions of religious authority who regularly lie to their congregations and their loved ones; to keep their jobs, to keep their homes, to keep their insurance, and sometimes simply because it’s all they know how to do.


Quote:He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:
"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."(Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)

Complete fabrication you dishonest sonofabitch.

Here is the original piece from the article in Scientific America, September 1958.

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.


TalkOrigin.org Quote Mining Project #57

Kiss. My. Ass.

Quote:So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.

No, this is simply the lie you’re attempting to spread, because the only way you know how to counter an idea is to treat it like another religion. But no matter how many times you tell this lie, it won’t change the fact you try so desperately to deflect and ignore; repetition does not change the truth.


[Image: everybody-knows-that-caps-lock-is-cruise...789-24.jpg]

No shit, you’re point? They still make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Plus, not all scientists are biologist. Stephen Hawking’s opinions on evolutionary biology are about equal to Richard Dawkin’s opinions on astrophysics. Which is to say, their comments on scientific fields outside their area of expertise are irrelevant. You don’t go to a lawyer to get your car repaired, nor should you seek legal counsel from an auto mechanic.

Quote:The average evolutionist would have us believe that all TRUE scientists accept Darwin's theory as fact.

No, we expect people to follow the evidence. Evolutionary theory is one of the most closely scrutinized theories in science, and it has withstood over 150 years of scientists attempting to falsify it. Archeology could have invalidated evolution, instead it corroborated it. Genetics could have invalidated evolution, instead it too corroborated evolution. So given the available evidence, we’re sure beyond a reasonable doubt as to the fact of evolution and the theory we have to explain it.

Quote:Sir John Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, wrote the following in 1959:
"The point to make about Darwin's theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun." (Tax, Sol, Ed. "Evolution After Darwin," Issues in Evolution, Chicago University Press, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 41.)

Your inability to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and the theory used to explain it, is both unsurprising and tiresome. Evolution has occurred, that is a fact, and denying it would require a zealous level of willful ignorance.

Quote:See how the system works? A scientist cannot be recognized as a SERIOUS scientist unless he REJECTS THE BIBLE and RECEIVES EVOLUTION.

Hey, remember that Francis Collins guy I mentioned earlier? Human genome project, Nobel Prize winning scientist? Yeah, he’s a Christian, and the founder of the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian advocacy group.

What about Kenneth Miller? Biologist, dedicated advocate for science education in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, respected biology textbook author, and devoted Catholic.

Quit being a lying cunt.

Quote: Well, there have been, and still are, MANY serious scientists who do not believe in evolution. For example, Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, "The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."

Fleischman was a creationist, big whoop. He also died in 1942. You’re not very good at keeping up with the times, are you?

Quote:Professor L.T. More, of the University of Chicago, says, "Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, everyone of his arguments is contradicted by fact."

Are you even trying? Louis T. More was a physicist and dean at the University of Cincinnati, and lived from 1870-1944. Once again, you’re need to go to a physicist over 70 years dead to find anything, and even then all you have to show for your effort is a meaningless quote.

Quote:Professor A.C. Steward, from the Cambridge University, says, "A student who takes an impartial retrospect soon discovers that the fossil record raises more problems than it solves."

I cannot even find a Professor A.C. Steward of Cambridge. Whether that’s because the name is misspelled (hardly the first such error I’ve come across), or because the name is itself entirely fictitious, I cannot say.

This is why you cite your sources. You cannot even manage this lowest level of professionalism. This would have you fail your assignment in a elementary level English class.

Quote:Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, "The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning."

I’m assuming you mean Dr. Austin H. Clark (cite your sources dipshit), former vice president of the American Geophysical Union, and a biologist who lived between 1880 and 1954. That quote is not him disagreeing with evolution, but rather him trying to put forward his own evolutionary theory called Zoogenesis. He disagreed with the tree of life model of shared ancestry, believing instead that the major groups evolved separately and independently of one another. The evidence did not agree with him, and his theory was discarded in favor of models that better explained the evidence we had; namely the aforementioned tree of life model indicative of shared ancestry.

Quote:So the Bible believer must understand that he is not alone in his stand against Darwin's foolish theory.

Indeed, they can share their uneducated incredulity with a few long dead doctors who didn’t have degrees in relevant fields of study. Whoop-de-fuckin’-do.

Have at it hoss.

Quote:There have always been a few scientists around who were honest and open-minded enough to consider all the facts and take an unpopular stand for the TRUTH, rather than IGNORE the facts and take a POPULAR stand for evolution. We should thank God for them.

Yeah, too bad the truth isn’t on your side. Which is why you need to resort to dishonest quote mining of people three quarters of a century past dead to support your feeble attempts are refutation.

Color me not impressed.


[Image: 4a3ll7kuxltz3bvkierathqyrxsywg6a.jpeg]

Quote:Some have begun to compromise by professing to believe in the Biblical account of creation AND in Darwin's theory. These people call themselves "Theistic Evolutionists." They belong in the same category as "sober alcoholics" and "liberal conservatives." In the Bible, God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1).

Oh, so you want to go biblical literalist.

Quick question, is your shirt a poly-cotton blend? If so…

[Image: killyourselves.png]

Deuteronomy 22:11

Quote:In evolution, natural chance can account for the existence of all things.

Natural selection is not just random chance. Hence why it’s called natural selection, and not natural chance, you ignoramus. Genetic mutations are random, but which ones get passed on are subject to selective pressures in the organism's environment. Thus mutations that grant a favorable advantage are more likely to be passed on to future generations.

Quote:In the Bible, all life forms are created in six literal days (Gen. 1). In evolution, life forms evolve over millions of years.

Which is supported by the available evidence and the academic consensus of both geologists and biblical scholars (the majority opinion of biblical scholars reject literal interpretation).

Quote:In the Bible, creation has been completed (Gen. 2:3). In evolution, a natural creative process continues. In the Bible, oceans appear before land (Gen. 1:9). In evolution, land appears first. In the Bible, life begins on land (Gen. 1:11). In evolution, life began in water. In the Bible, the earth is made before the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-19). In evolution, the earth comes later. In the Bible, all stars are made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16). In evolution, the stars evolve at various times. In the Bible, birds and fishes are created on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20, 21). In evolution, fishes evolve hundreds of millions of years before birds. In the Bible, man appears before rain (Gen. 2:5). In evolution, rain appears before man. In the Bible, man is created before woman (Gen. 2:21-22). In evolution, woman genetically appears before man. In the Bible, light appears before the sun (Gen. 1:3-19; Psa. 74:16). In evolution, the sun appears before any light. In the Bible, plants appear before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19). In evolution, the sun appears first. In the Bible, the human body comes from dirt (Gen. 2:7). In evolution, the human body evolves from monkeys. In the Bible, man exercises dominion over all organisms (Gen. 1:28). In evolution, most organisms become extinct before man evolves. In the Bible, man is originally a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29). In evolution, man is originally a meat eater. In the Bible, life comes in fixed and distinct "kinds" (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; I Cor. 15:38-39). In evolution, life forms are in a continual state of flux. In the Bible, man's sin is the cause of death (Rom. 5:12). In evolution, struggle and death exist long before man evolves.

The bible also says that pi is a round number, even though Greek and Egyptian scholars had calculated it out to at least three decimal places centuries before the bible was written. It also claims the world is flat and upheld by four pillars, and there exists a solid firmament between earth and heaven, where a god with a physical body resides up in the clouds. It also claims that donkeys and snakes can talk, and that the later eats lives off of dirt.

[Image: slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif]

Congrats, you’ve discovered that the bible is a book of prescientific fairy tales that cannot withstand the rigors of modern scientific scrutiny, and collapse under even the slightest challenge.

Quote:Evolution is the intellectual basis for two of the biggest devils of the 20th century: Hitler's Naziism and Mark's communism.

[Image: 137081GodwinsLawSTRIKESAGAIN.jpg]

Took you long enough...

No and no.

Hitler was a Christian, as were the overwhelming majority of members in the both the Nazi Party and the rank-and-file Wehrmacht. Karl Marx had a generally ambivalent and complex relationship with religion. Still, his personal religion belief (or lack thereof) probably aren’t what you’re looking for. The real ‘big bad’ of Russian communist was Joseph Stalin, who killed millions in his purges. He was a pragmatist, and pushed an atheistic agenda solely as a means to strip power from the traditionally powerful Russian Orthodox Church. Once the church came around and was willing to operate on Stalin’s terms, he lifted his restrictions, and the Orthodoxy saw a huge expansion under Stalin’s leadership. He opposed the church when they wouldn’t play ball, and advanced their agenda when it was in his best interest. Also, Stalin had been studying for the clergy before his bloody political career. The problem with Stalin (and Mao and Pol Pot) wasn’t their supposed atheism, is was their own political dogmatism; which emphasized loyalty to the state, the communist party, and fanatical devotion to the leader themselves. Taken to it’s most logical extreme, you get the Ill family of North Korea.

Quote:Secular humanism, atheism, and liberalism are all the evil fruits of Darwin's hellish theory.

Political ideologies and secular philosophies are not akin to scientific theories dumbass.

Quote:The Lord Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20),

And you’re a dishonest sonofabitch.

Funny thing that.

Quote:...and the fruit of evolution clearly assures us that Darwin's theory is as far away from Biblical truth as Hell is from Heaven. "Theistic evolution" is too funny for words.

Your idiocy would be laughable, it it wasn't so frighteningly tragic.


[Image: Caps_Lock.jpg]

Quote:Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.

Proofs are the purview of mathematics. Did I expect you to know that? Of course not.

For being so hard pressed for real evidence, you’ve done an admirable job side stepping and ignoring literally all of it. If it was all really just so full of shit, you’d think you could make a better case than dishonest quote mining of long dead experts in fields outside of biology.

Quote:VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.

Vestigial does not mean useless you twit. We already have a word for that, it’s called ‘useless’. The term ‘vestigial’ in biology means that the structure has lost all or most of it’s original function. While the tail bone is vestigial in that it no longer serves as an anchor for an actual tail, is is still an important part of our anatomy; serving as an anchor for many important muscles that are essential to moving our legs.

Yeah, too bad that getting to your supposed ‘truth’ requires you lying at every available opportunity.

Quote:Naturally, the facts are ignored.

Indeed. By you.

Quote:Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.

As demonstrated above, you misrepresented what vestigial means when biologist use the term. That makes you a liar. You might want to be a little more careful with your Jesus fruits there dipshit.

Quote:Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.

No. Biochemistry is the branch of science concerned with the chemical and physicochemical processes that occur within living organisms. It is a far larger, broader, and more well studied field than you present it to be.

Quote:Is there any conclusive evidence?

Yes. Does that stop you from lying about it for Jesus? No.

Quote:No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904.

Once again, can you not even find anything within the last century? Whatever this was, it took place before modern chemistry, genetics, computers, electron microscopes, and dozens of other scientific advances that have taken chemistry as a whole (not just biochemistry) massive strides forward.

Quote:Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys!

Well, we all share a common ancestor, so trace any linage back far enough and it will converge with any other. Baboons and hoofed animals are all mammals, as are whales. Actually, modern cows are fairly closely related to whales, and this has been confirmed by both genetic examination and study of comparative morphology of the fossilized ancestors of whales and bovines (although Hippopotami are more closely related yet, cows are more closely to whales than we are).

[Image: Figure_1.png]

Quote:There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.

Repeating it a bunch of times doesn't make it true. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.

From the University of Berkley.

By studying the basic biochemistry shared by many organisms, we can begin to piece together how biochemical systems evolved near the root of the tree of life. However, up until the early 1980s, biologists were stumped by a "chicken and egg" problem: in all modern organisms, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are necessary to build proteins, and proteins are necessary to build nucleic acids - so which came first, the nucleic acid or the protein? This problem was solved when a new property of RNA was discovered: some kinds of RNA can catalyze chemical reactions — and that means that RNA can both store genetic information and cause the chemical reactions necessary to copy itself. This breakthrough tentatively solved the chicken and egg problem: nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) came first — and later on, life switched to DNA-based inheritance.

Another important line of biochemical evidence comes in the form of surprisingly common molecules. As you might expect, many of the chemical reactions occurring in your own cells, in the cells of a fungus, and in a bacterial cell are quite different from one another; however, many of them (such as those that release energy to power cellular work) are exactly the same and rely on the exact same molecules. Because these molecules are widespread and are critically important to all life, they are thought to have arisen very early in the history of life and have been nicknamed "molecular fossils." ATP, adenosine triphosphate (shown below), is one such molecule; it is essential for powering cellular processes and is used by all modern life. Studying ATP and other molecular fossils, has revealed a surprising commonality: many molecular fossils are closely related to nucleic acids, as shown below.

[Image: atp.gif]

The discoveries of catalytic RNA and of molecular fossils closely related to nucleic acids suggest that nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) were crucial to Earth's first life. These observations support the RNA world hypothesis, that early life used RNA for basic cellular processes (instead of the mix of proteins, RNA, and DNA used by modern organisms).


Quote:EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.
Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."

Haeckel’s specific assertion that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was disproven by other biologist. The modern field has long moved past that, which you would know, if you actually gave a shit about discovering the truth instead of promoting your lies. Once again you’re about a century out of relevance, and your point was made mute by the scientific method working and less than satisfactory explanation being replaced by better ones. You fundamentally do not understand how science even works, and I’d wager good money that you don’t care to either.

Quote:Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution.

Nope. Taxonomy is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups. You’re quite literally picking a beef with a field of study whose primary goal is intelligent organization.

If you want a series of pictures that all fluff and no facts, get a Chick Tract.

Quote:This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old.

That is evidence my multiple fields of study, including geology, astrophysics, and chemistry to name a few. That would all still be true, regardless of how you display that information. Seriously, creationist charts don’t have the power to suddenly make the universe only 6000 year old either.

Quote:Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

Depending on things like comparative morphology and genetics. As more evidence is accumulated for a species, it’s place can and does change. Taxonomy is always in flux and new information need to be assimilated in the model every day. That’s why there is an entire field of study dedicated to just accurately sorting all this shit out. It takes a lot of work, unless the lies you pull out of your ass.

Quote:This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART!

Entirely irrelevant, but you’re too ignorant to know and too much of a dishonest shill to care.

Quote:It's nothing more than blind guesswork.

Hardly, see above you feckless twit.

Quote:No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific.

What chart, when, and where? Or right, doesn't matter.

Plus nobody is advocating that life originated on earth with the formation of the planet 4.543 billion years age.

Quote:In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!

Replace the word “many” with “a select few religious fundamentalists” and that statement is almost true.

Quote:Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

That’s funny coming from a person who takes ‘divine revelation’ (aka making shit up and pretending your god said it for faux legitimacy) as a serious source of credible information.

Quote:Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

That is a gross oversimplification, but par for the course with you.

Quote:Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED!

That statement is so bereft of any amount of understanding of the things involved, it’s not even wrong. It would be like claiming that rocks plus orange equals dingo.

Quote:In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

The same god who also created all of the evidence that points to the one and only conclusion of shared ancestry, because he’s a deceitful assholes who enjoys hiding his work?

Do you mean that god?

Quote:The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Evolution is a many branching path from a common ancestor, not a singular path, you moron. Primates did not evolve from birds, as they are our very, very distant cousins. Plus the biochemical origins of life is a study entirely outside the purview of biology, and is knowns as abiogenesis, and is the study of chemistry more so than anything else. Life is, after all, the result of very complex chemistry. So life at it’s simplest form is a complex chemical reaction, no souls required.

Quote:Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS?

Oh for fuck’s sake…

You’ve fallen down the Fallacy Tree and are intent on hitting every fukcing brach on the way down, aren’t you? Of course you are...

Quote: If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today?

There are no ‘higher’ lifeforms. There are more varying levels of complexity, but ‘height’ is a meaningless measurement without context.

Quote: Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird?

You won’t, that’s not how evolution works. Reptiles and bird are cousins, not descendants of one another.

Quote:How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Sure, the fossil record could have contradicted the theory of evolution. Instead, it complemented it and aligned with it. Genetics could have done the same thing, but it too strengthened evolutionary theory instead of overturning it. Once again, you’re out of context by over a century you quote mining hack.

Quote:Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).

[Image: 1410535379224screencapture-e1410535482487.png]

This is not what evolution predicts, in fact such a thing as a Crocoduck is impossible within evolutionary theory. This is nothing more than a creationist canard, you ignorant fuck.

Quote:The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always.


Quote: He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment.

Nope. Here’s a list of just the five largest worldwide extinction level events we are aware of.

Ordovician–Silurian extinction
Late Devonian extinction
Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction
Triassic–Jurassic extinction
Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction


Quote:The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

Evolution doesn't simply ignore it, because geology and plate tectonics already explains it. They also disagree with a worldwide flood. As does thermodynamics and physics, as well as history and cultural anthropology. Both the Egyptians and the Chinese kept consistent records across that time, and both of their civilizations failed to record being wiped out by a global flood. Funny, isn’t it? You’re getting your ass handed to you by ancient Egyptians.

Quote:Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.

“Its humor” not “it’s humor”. Could you at least get your grammar correct? Is that too much of a fucking ask at this point?

Quote:In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

He published his finding in a popular magazine, not a scientific journal. His supposed discovery was universally panned by the scientific community at large. It now only remains relevant because creationist keep trying to turn an example of the scientific method doing it’s fucking job into some sort of anti-evolution silver bullet; because they fundamentally do not understand how science works, nor do they care to. Understanding your opponent's position is not a worthwhile goal when you’re only interested in pushing an agenda.

Quote:Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being?

It is not necessary for the bones to be from the same single individual. Physical anthropology is far more advanced than that.

Once again, there were issues with the initial find, and those issues were voiced by the vast majority of scientists in the relevant field at the time of the discovery.

Java Man is the popular name given to early human fossils discovered on the island of Java (Indonesia) in 1891 and 1892. Led byEugène Dubois, the excavation team uncovered a tooth, a skullcap, and a thighbone at Trinil on the banks of the Solo River in East Java. Arguing that the fossils represented the "missing link" between apes and humans, Dubois gave the species the scientific name Anthropopithecus erectus, then later renamed it Pithecanthropus erectus.

The fossil aroused much controversy. Less than ten years after 1891, almost eighty books or articles had been published on Dubois's finds. Despite Dubois' argument, few accepted that Java Man was a transitional formbetween apes and humans.[1] Some dismissed the fossils as apes and others as modern humans, whereas many scientists considered Java Man as a primitive side branch of evolution not related to modern humans at all. In the 1930s Dubois made the claim that Pithecanthropus was built like a "giant gibbon", a much misinterpreted attempt by Dubois to prove that it was the "missing link".

Eventually, similarities between Pithecanthropus erectus (Java Man) and Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) led Ernst Mayr to rename both Homo erectus in 1950, placing them directly in the human evolutionary tree. To distinguish Java Man from other Homo erectus populations, some scientists began to regard it as a subspecies, Homo erectus erectus, in the 1970s. Other fossils found in the first half of the twentieth century in Java at Sangiran and Mojokerto, all older than those found by Dubois, are also considered part of the species Homo erectus. Estimated to be between 700,000 and 1,000,000 years old, at the time of their discovery the fossils of Java Man were the oldest hominin fossils ever found. The fossils of Java Man have been housed at the Naturalis in the Netherlands since 1900.


Quote:Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?

Radiometric dating bitch.

*mic drop*


Quote:Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man had long been relegated to irrelevance by other discovering, as more and more hominin finds aligned with each other and increasingly made the Piltdown find an outlier. Fluorine dating (a form of the aforementioned radiometric dating) was proposed in 1943, and tests were performed in 1949 and establish the find’s far more recent origins. It was eventually exposed as a hoax by a trio of scientists (Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley) in 1953, predating the Reader’s Digest ‘report’ by three years.

Once again, science did it job, and weeded out a hoax. The Piltdown find was not at all critical to establishing our understanding of human evolution. Indeed it own inability to fit in among all of the other evidence is what caused the greater scrutiny, and with the advent of better technology like radiometric dating, allowed for the eventual removal of a hoax.

Science did its job, while you continue to be a lying piece of shit.

Quote:The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human).

Neanderthals are our cousins, and were most likely driven extinct by the encroachment of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern humans). They had the capability to interbreed with us, and humans of northern european descent have varying degrees of Neanderthal DNA in their genome that is not present in African, Asian, or American lineages.

Quote:The "missing link" is still missing.

We’ve found dozens of them. But ever one we find, you simple point your finger at the gap to either side of it and shreel about there being no missing link. You’ve been doing it for decades.

Quote:Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.
Now this is the kind of "evidence" which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as "scientific fact." This is what the Bible labels as "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20).

Another ape? Humans are apes you credulious fuktard. You are an ape right now.


[Image: cruise-control-for-cool.jpg]

For the record, the age of the universe is the realm of cosmology, not evolution. Do I expect you to understand this? No, I do not. I gave up hope 30 pages ago.

Quote:Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment.


Geologist you ignorant hack.

Quote:Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.

That’s a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of radiometric dating. I can only imagine it was done on purpose to help you push your bullshit agenda. Because lying is okay os long as you do it for Jesus, right?


Fucking hack.

Quote:The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:


Quote:The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.

That is not radiometric dating, and has nothing to do with radioactive half-lives. That’s a canard built off an very old thermodynamic calculations dating back to Darwin’s time. The calculations were made using assumptions about how the sun then thought to have operated, and was built upon the known rate of burning coal. This was a century before the understanding of radioactivity, or the discovery that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, you fucking moron.

Quote:Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.

Cite your sources. Given your demonstrable track record for dishonest quote mining, I can only assume everything you write is complete bullshit.

Quote:Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

Based on what? Your assumption is based around the Earth having been changeless over teh last 4.5 billion years. It most certainly has not.

Also, naturally occurring Uranium (in addition to all elements heavier than iron) are produced by exploding stars, known as supernovae. So for there to have been elements as heavy as Uranium in the dust clouds that formed our solar system, that dust was the remnants of between two or three previous generations of stars.

Quote:The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years.

The magnetic field is not radioactive, and does not posses a half-life to measure. Once again, you’re so fucking off the reservation, you’re well into ‘not even wrong’ territory. You’re asking about football punting strategies in a game of Solitaire.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2016, 10:35 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 10:39 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post was too Epic! Got cut off for being too long! So here's the rest, picking right up where it left off.

[Image: epic-blog-post.jpg]

Good thing I had it all on a Google doc.

Quote:The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years.

The magnetic field is not radioactive, and does not posses a half-life to measure. Once again, you’re so fucking off the reservation, you’re well into ‘not even wrong’ territory. You’re asking about football punting strategies in a game of Solitaire.

Quote:That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?

People far more educated than you can easily answer that.

Not that you care.

Quote:You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists."

No, they're selectively ignored by the ignorant and credulous.

Quote:The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying.

Ironic, considering that's all you’ve done for this entire sad and pathetic attempt at legitimacy.

Quote:It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation.

You wouldn't know a scientific law if it bent you over and fucked you in the ass bareback and without lube.

Quote:Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God.

No, but your tirade is an excellent example of credulity, ignorance, and dishonesty run rampant.

Quote:The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.
Friend, if you've never received the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, please contact us for a free copy of Understanding God's Salvation Plan.

Remember kids, lying is bad. Unless you’re lying for Jesus, then it’s A-OK!

[Image: jesus-facepalm.jpg]

Now I'm going to binge on some Skyrim, because I fucking earned it!

[Image: header.jpg?t=1467150175]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2016, 11:05 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Ok, to summarise:


More explicitly:

Utter crap

Have I got the gist of it?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
17-09-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You wouldn't know a scientific law if it bent you over and fucked you in the ass bareback and without lube.

A bit harsh. Dodgy

Otherwise ...

Bowing Astounding! Bowing

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
17-09-2016, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 11:42 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Minor quibble... the birds are the descendants of reptiles, specifically the theropod dinosaurs (such as Velociraptor). In fact, with more modern fossil scanning techniques/equipment, we've discovered that the original depictions in Jurassic Park are wrong: the theropods were not lizard-like and scaly, but covered with feathers... we've even managed to figure out what pigments were in those feathers and have put together imagery of what dinos more likely looked like.

This is Anchiornis, from the late Jurassic, circa 160 million years ago. They have been found in large numbers in the fossil beds of northeastern China, along with a great many other (later) transitional fossils on the line that led from theropods to birds (such as the famous, and original find, Archaeopteryx), though Anchi predates the evolution of birds.

[Image: anchiornis-illustration_opt.jpg]


Yes, when you eat a chicken sandwich, you're eating dinosaur. Smile

[Edit: removed link to another dinosaur; I meant to link to the one about Anchi.]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: