Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creation vs. Evolution

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tyrathca View Post
    I'm still confused, some guy falsifies research to further his career. Scientists (not creationists) subsequently disprove his forgery. Therefore..... What?

    Some really old textbooks make a mention of the forgery. Therefore... What? Most textbooks have many wrong or outdated details in them (or at least they do in my specialty)

    Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
    Notice the dishonest slip. "Scientists not creationists."

    Comment


    • What is the creationist argument?
      "Since there once was a hoax, and it was accepted for a while before being exposed, therefore..."
      1. All evolutionary science is wrong, or at least suspect, irrespective of whether they are based on the specific hoax
      2. All biological science is wrong, or at least suspect
      3. All science is wrong, or at least suspect

      Which of these options is it? And what is the logic behind rejecting an entire field of science because of a single hoax?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by chair View Post
        What is the creationist argument?
        "Since there once was a hoax, and it was accepted for a while before being exposed, therefore..."
        1. All evolutionary science is wrong, or at least suspect, irrespective of whether they are based on the specific hoax
        2. All biological science is wrong, or at least suspect
        3. All science is wrong, or at least suspect

        Which of these options is it? And what is the logic behind rejecting an entire field of science because of a single hoax?
        None of the above. That is a straw man argument. I myself would answer the widespread application of the hoax shows that there is considerable energy and investment willing to back the continuing hoax called "evolution science", and also evidence of the inherent bias of those who promote the papers and textbooks. Creation and young earth evidence gets buried, hoaxes are broadcast and printed as fact.

        It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
          None of the above. That is a straw man argument. I myself would answer the widespread application of the hoax shows that there is considerable energy and investment willing to back the continuing hoax called "evolution science", and also evidence of the inherent bias of those who promote the papers and textbooks. Creation and young earth evidence gets buried, hoaxes are broadcast and printed as fact.

          It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.
          OK. None of the above- but rather a conspiracy to keep evolutionary theory alive despite massive evidence that it is wrong. Is that more accurate?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 6days View Post
            Here is another
            ECONOMICS AND CULTURAL CHANGE
            by RUSSELL A. DIXON

            1938 Pub. MCGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
            Page 34“...tradition. The earliest known human inhabitant of Europe was the Piltdown man, as he is often called after the place in England where...”

            *Page 62 “...our earliest ancestors as mighty hunters has no basis in fact. With only the coup de poing and a few other crude weapons, Piltdown and Heidelberg man relied more upon brute force of numbers than upon skillful techniques. Such large and dangerous animals...”

            Piltdown was a fraud...yet *he was a mighty hunting Englishman. Evolutionism ....stories based *on a false belief.
            So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.

            c'mon on 6d. If you're resorting to nonscience books already, then the supply must be a little short to claim 'widespread' reliance.


            Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

            Comment


            • Originally posted by chair View Post
              What is the creationist argument?
              The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.
                Stripe- who are these "Darwinists"? I presume that the Earth-Moon system is studied by astrophysicists, not biologists.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  The Earth-moon system cannot be as old as Darwinists claim.
                  Based on a guy with a formula that gives the answers you want but no evidence the formula represents reality.

                  Or based on your expert knowledge of orbital mechanics, so great you seen to understand what is and isn't relevant to calculations (eg friction) better than those who do it for a living.

                  Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence...

                  Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tyrathca View Post
                    No evidence the formula represents reality.


                    Please show us why we have to assume the truth of your plate tectonics to adjust known factors to reach an answer you would be comfortable with.

                    Or based on your expert knowledge of orbital mechanics, so great you seen to understand what is and isn't relevant to calculations (eg friction) better than those who do it for a living.


                    Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.
                    On the contrary, here it is.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                      So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.
                      You are too predictable GC. As others mentioned you attempt to move goal posts while defending fraud and trying to whitewash history. So perhaps we need to once again review your challenge.... then see how the fraud was eagerly accepted and even taught in textbooks as fact. Not only was the fraud believed, but evolutionists then invented complete histories.
                      Piltdown was taught as fact in science journals....the media.....biology textbooks and more.

                      GCTHOMAS CHALLENGE: "Please name a text book (That taught Piltdown was real)that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools"

                      How about we start with your forgetfulness... Here is an image YOU previously posted from...
                      College Zoology by George William Hunter, Francis Robert Hunter
                      1949 - W. B. Saunders Company page 704


                      Next
                      An Orientation in Science 1938 (Here we see invented ages and invented relatives)
                      By Pub. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.
                      P-355...“...500,000 B.C. Second glaciation (Kansan) 600,000 B.C. First interglacial Chellean Heidelberg Piltdown Peking Java 900,000 B.C. First glaciation (Nebraskan) Pre Chellean 1,000,000 B.C. Eolithic...”
                      And page 359“...with the bones. He is related to the Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus), next...”

                      Next
                      The Evolution of Human Behavior In this book
                      Contributors: Carl J. Warden1932 Pub. The Macmillan Company
                      Page 122
                      “...that of Pithecanthropus. The brain of Piltdown man was better developed than that of...”
                      (Sounds sciency! Man is evolving a bigger brain!! )

                      Next
                      Elementary Biology
                      by Benjamin C. Gruenberg
                      1919
                      Pub. Ginn & Company*
                      Page 494
                      [/QUOTE]

                      Next
                      Elements of Biology
                      by Ruth A. Dodge
                      1952 (revision of Smallwood’s Elements of Biology under copyright heading Biology for High Schools)
                      Pub. Allyn and Bacon
                      Page 256, 257
                      (Same images as in Elementary Biology from 33 years earlier)
                      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                        So you found a social science book that mentions piltdown man alongside others, to place them in context. You claimed that Piltdown was used as evidence for evolution, but evolution doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. And it's not even A SCIENCE textbook.

                        c'mon on 6d. If you're resorting to nonscience books already, then the supply must be a little short to claim 'widespread' reliance.
                        When [evolution of] "Piltdown man" is used in a social economics textbook, I think that itself is evidence of "widespread" reliance.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                          We undertand why you don't want it discussed.
                          ??????????? Where did you get the idea I don't want it discussed?

                          Again, we all agree it was a deliberate hoax from over 100 years ago. What else is there to discuss about it?

                          But, it does serve a purpose to examine why so many eagerly believed the fraud. It serves a purpose to expose false beliefs that lead to increased racism. It serves a purpose to examine why textbooks and journals invent history and teach it as fact.
                          None of that makes any sense. Piltdown Man = racism? And textbooks and journals didn't invent anything; they just wrote about the specimen.

                          This looks like more of your sleazy mud-slinging. Sad.

                          Notice I got involved in the discussion only after evolutionists here tried to whitewash history. You might question them why they try provide cover for frauds.
                          I haven't seen anyone cover for anything. Again, we all agree it was a deliberate fraud. Therefore.........?

                          Haha.... I mention a history of shoddy conclusions; and now you want to justify it with your belief system?

                          If life on earth is a result of the Biblical creator, we would expect to see evidence of that in genetics, geology, paleontology, biology etc... And we do see how evidence supports the Bible.
                          I figured you'd dodge the question and just post more of your self-soothing mantras. And sure enough....
                          "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
                            It's not that there's one hoax, you are swarming in them. Some are just so obvious that even the evolutionists are forced to admit them after they've done their job of forty years of brainwashing.
                            And again we see the same dishonorable behavior from you.

                            Funny how for all your rhetoric about this sea of hoaxes, you could only actually demonstrate two. But then, that's the nature of creationism.
                            "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                              And again we see the same dishonorable behavior from you.

                              Funny how for all your rhetoric about this sea of hoaxes, you could only actually demonstrate two. But then, that's the nature of creationism.
                              You want to start going through a list of all the supposed "human missing links?"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
                                You want to start going through a list of all the supposed "human missing links?"
                                Sure, if this time around you're going to actually discuss the subject. But if you're going to just do what you did last time, i.e., copy and paste from a couple of creationist websites, ignore the replies, and then bail....no thanks.

                                So it's up to you and whether you can engage honestly or not.
                                "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X