Evolution?

[Devolution]

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,15:30)

You plagiarised, by posting without acknowledging the author.  What are we to assume? Had I not determined that you didn't write the screeds of bollocks you have rudely Gish-Galloped all over the forum, I might have mistaken you for a lying cretin creationist, one who knows he is lying, instead of getting your classification right as a moron creationist, one who at least has ignorance as some kind of mitigation. Stuart

Stu,

Your insults reveal a lot about you.
The true source of your behavior, of which you would be blind to, dictates your ability to absorb information on a non biased level.

When a mans eyes are wide shut,  the only information he is able to process is always dictated by that which is within him…and that within him never stomachs challenges to his preferred equilibrium…hence your outbursts of wrath…this truth you can not grasp.

But when a mans eyes are open, he sees things which are not only within him, but those things outside of him also…and from this level ground, he can check said outside information against his already acknowledged information, and from there make educated comparisons and adjustments of the information as a whole, and if need be, abandon previous beliefs with no remorse if fatal contradictions are present.

It is called honest assessment.
After all, an honest truth seeker is not after defending a certain belief or construct, no matter the cost, for in truth seeking, “personal truth” is not the driving force, but truth itself is…and this truth is only attained by impersonal unbiased processes that eventually lead to that very truth.

And in this method, he can be at peace both within himself, and towards others, knowing within himself that the true cause for his beliefs are based in honest non prejudice observations/experiences.

Here is something you have not yet achieved:
I have reworded something i once read from David Icke, words i found to be true, though disagreeing with some of his truths, for i clearly saw by his information on certain subjects…unfounded bias within incomplete investigations. He himself then, did not truly abide by this code, his own so called code of operation…but the statement below, nevertheless, is very true:

To truly wanting to know what is going on, one has to be not interested in confirming personal beliefs,or preconceived ideas.
just to know what is going on..
And to do that…
you have to suspend preconceived ideas…
because if you don't…
that will edit and censor the information being received…
so many people, with preconceived ideas or ideals…
go “to far” in absorbing unedited or uncensored information…
they will inevitably reach a certain point…
and this point will will reveal something very personal..
that is, if one continues down this uncensored path…
then everything they know and are comfortable with…
begins to be challenged…
and in this challenge a road is being revealed…
and it will become aware to that person…
that if they continue on down this road…
then everything they thought they knew…
and everything they are comfortable with…
in their preconceived state…
will turn around to become everything they thought they knew as being wrong…
and everything they were comfortable with now being uncomfortable…
and their preconceived state now plainfully challenged…
leaving the question…
how far are you willing to go down this road of truth…
as opposed to staying in your comfort zone of preconceived ideas?
this is the challenge…
how honest can you be to yourself and the truth?

How honest are you Stu?
Your outbursts and mockings are classically indicative of one who holds biased and ignorant misconceptions which are intolerable for the holder should anyone dare challenge.

[Devolution]

The False God of Freemasonry

To understand the forces behind the strange science of evolution, one needs to realize that, while Freemasonry pretends to be ‘Christian’ or at least sympathetic to the ideals and traditions of Christianity, it is in fact an ancient religious system which despises Christianity. Its gods are those of Egypt and Babylon, Greece and Rome – the pagan pantheons that embody the energies and personalities of the fallen angels. Freemasonry strives by every means possible to focus man’s attention on himself.

It is a humanistic, Luciferian doctrine which denies Christ, the need for salvation, and the truths of the Bible. It works in secret because it would never dare approach the light and reveal its true nature. Freemasons call their god the Great Architect . Why? Because he can devise plans and schemes and strategies of great sophistication. On the other hand his high-sounding name reveals a much less flattering fact about him, namely that he can create nothing. Absolutely nothing.
This is why Freemasonry is so keen to promote ‘evolution’ as a creative force. How did the universe come into being? The answer: It evolved out of nothing. And where did the amazing panorama of life come from? The answer: It evolved out of inanimate matter, which in turn evolved out of nothing. QED. This allows them to reject utterly any need for a Creator and elevates their own god –the so-called Great Architect – to the apex of the Cosmic Pantheon.

It even allows them to believe that man himself will continue to evolve and one day become a god.

[Stu]

Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,17:09)

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,15:30) You plagiarised, by posting without acknowledging the author.  What are we to assume? Had I not determined that you didn't write the screeds of bollocks you have rudely Gish-Galloped all over the forum, I might have mistaken you for a lying cretin creationist, one who knows he is lying, instead of getting your classification right as a moron creationist, one who at least has ignorance as some kind of mitigation. Stuart Stu, Your insults reveal a lot about you. The true source of your behavior, of which you would be blind to, dictates your ability to absorb information on a non biased level.

No, it is that I have read creationist material for many years, and I can pretty easily explain why it is wrong, and I also am quite familiar with the creationist mentality. There are two kinds, as I have described. You are welcome to feel insulted by me. Normally I do not intend to insult but in the case of creationism I make an exception because I am confident that either you are lying and you know it, or you are lying but you don’t. I think you don’t realise that you are lying, because you don’t really know anything about biology, or probably much about science and how it works.

Quote

When a mans eyes are wide shut, the only information he is able to process is always dictated by that which is within him…and that within him never stomachs challenges to his preferred equilibrium…hence your outbursts of wrath…this truth you can not grasp. But when a mans eyes are open, he sees things which are not only within him, but those things outside of him also…and from this level ground, he can check said outside information against his already acknowledged information, and from there make educated comparisons and adjustments of the information as a whole, and if need be, abandon previous beliefs with no remorse if fatal contradictions are present. It is called honest assessment.

As I said already, it does look like you are full of it, and these paragraphs do nothing to dissuade me from that analysis.

Quote

After all, an honest truth seeker is not after defending a certain belief or construct, no matter the cost, for in truth seeking, “personal truth” is not the driving force, but truth itself is…and this truth is only attained by impersonal unbiased processes that eventually lead to that very truth. And in this method, he can be at peace both within himself, and towards others, knowing within himself that the true cause for his beliefs are based in honest non prejudice observations/experiences.

So you are a hypocrite as well…

Quote

Here is something you have not yet achieved: I have reworded something i once read from David Icke, words i found to be true, though disagreeing with some of his truths, for i clearly saw by his information on certain subjects…unfounded bias within incomplete investigations. He himself then, did not truly abide by this code, his own so called code of operation…but the statement below, nevertheless, is very true: To truly wanting to know what is going on, one has to be not interested in confirming personal beliefs,or preconceived ideas. just to know what is going on.. And to do that… you have to suspend preconceived ideas… because if you don't… that will edit and censor the information being received… so many people, with preconceived ideas or ideals… go “to far” in absorbing unedited or uncensored information… they will inevitably reach a certain point… and this point will will reveal something very personal.. that is, if one continues down this uncensored path… then everything they know and are comfortable with… begins to be challenged… and in this challenge a road is being revealed… and it will become aware to that person… that if they continue on down this road… then everything they thought they knew… and everything they are comfortable with… in their preconceived state… will turn around to become everything they thought they knew as being wrong… and everything they were comfortable with now being uncomfortable… and their preconceived state now plainfully challenged… leaving the question… how far are you willing to go down this road of truth… as opposed to staying in your comfort zone of preconceived ideas? this is the challenge… how honest can you be to yourself and the truth? How honest are you Stu? Your outbursts and mockings are classically indicative of one who holds biased and ignorant misconceptions which are intolerable for the holder should anyone dare challenge.

…as being gutwrenchingly dull.

You can’t discuss the stuff you stole from elsewhere, that you don’t understand , so you give me the fatuous conspiracy bunkum of David Icke instead.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,17:34)

The False God of Freemasonry To understand the forces behind the strange science of evolution, one needs to realize that, while Freemasonry pretends to be ‘Christian’ or at least sympathetic to the ideals and traditions of Christianity, it is in fact an ancient religious system which despises Christianity. Its gods are those of Egypt and Babylon, Greece and Rome – the pagan pantheons that embody the energies and personalities of the fallen angels. Freemasonry strives by every means possible to focus man’s attention on himself. It is a humanistic, Luciferian doctrine which denies Christ, the need for salvation, and the truths of the Bible. It works in secret because it would never dare approach the light and reveal its true nature. Freemasons call their god the Great Architect . Why? Because he can devise plans and schemes and strategies of great sophistication. On the other hand his high-sounding name reveals a much less flattering fact about him, namely that he can create nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is why Freemasonry is so keen to promote ‘evolution’ as a creative force. How did the universe come into being? The answer: It evolved out of nothing. And where did the amazing panorama of life come from? The answer: It evolved out of inanimate matter, which in turn evolved out of nothing. QED. This allows them to reject utterly any need for a Creator and elevates their own god –the so-called Great Architect – to the apex of the Cosmic Pantheon. It even allows them to believe that man himself will continue to evolve and one day become a god.

OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science. Freemasonry.

You really are quite deluded, aren't you.

Stuart

[Devolution]

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,21:24)

Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,17:34) The False God of Freemasonry To understand the forces behind the strange science of evolution, one needs to realize that, while Freemasonry pretends to be ‘Christian’ or at least sympathetic to the ideals and traditions of Christianity, it is in fact an ancient religious system which despises Christianity. Its gods are those of Egypt and Babylon, Greece and Rome – the pagan pantheons that embody the energies and personalities of the fallen angels. Freemasonry strives by every means possible to focus man’s attention on himself. It is a humanistic, Luciferian doctrine which denies Christ, the need for salvation, and the truths of the Bible. It works in secret because it would never dare approach the light and reveal its true nature. Freemasons call their god the Great Architect . Why? Because he can devise plans and schemes and strategies of great sophistication. On the other hand his high-sounding name reveals a much less flattering fact about him, namely that he can create nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is why Freemasonry is so keen to promote ‘evolution’ as a creative force. How did the universe come into being? The answer: It evolved out of nothing. And where did the amazing panorama of life come from? The answer: It evolved out of inanimate matter, which in turn evolved out of nothing. QED. This allows them to reject utterly any need for a Creator and elevates their own god –the so-called Great Architect – to the apex of the Cosmic Pantheon. It even allows them to believe that man himself will continue to evolve and one day become a god. OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science.  Freemasonry. You really are quite deluded, aren't you. Stuart

Quote

OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science.  Freemasonry.

There are many many scientists who are not Christian who oppose the theory of evolution.
These scientists too can see an agenda behind the true cause of evolution…and it is very unscientific indeed.
IF Christian scientists are so deluded as you disrespectfully claim, how do you account for the non believing scientists?
Let me get this straight…any one who opposes evolution is a crackpot…
And all who are for it are totally credible?
What? Credible like these few examples of the many:

Quote

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History: “ “Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution… Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology… Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts…. [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”[1] ” Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: “I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically”.[2] Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.[11] It was found that he falsified dates on many “stone age” fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.[12] The scientific fraud only came to light when he was caught attempting to sell his department's complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.[13] An investigation later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as genuine ones.[14] The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the evolutionary view was the case of Piltdown man.[15] More recently, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic.[16][17] The Nebraska man (also called Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was a case of speculation. Nebraska man was promoted based on the find of a single peccary-like tooth (wild pig-like tooth). Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following in the press concerning Williams Jennings Bryan: Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, gave the name “Flipperpithecus” to a supposed “humanoid species” arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of a dolphin's rib. “ “The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear… This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape.”[18][19] ” Nebraska Man was debated vigorously among evolutionary paleoanthropologists for five years until Dr. Gregory King Williams published a refutation of the find in the journal Science which ended the debate[20] Nebraska man never gained wide acceptance by evolutionary scientists although it enjoyed coverage in the Illustrated London News.[21][22] In addition, the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed “flipperpithecus”: “ “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” – Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]

What about this TRUTH?

Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of “transitional forms.” Darwin wrote: “So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.”[72] However, Darwin wrote: “Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”

[73] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care…”.[74] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, ““When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[75]

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
“ “It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[76] ”

Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[77] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”[78]

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…”.[79]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ “[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would …. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. … [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” – David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25. ”

Notice that Stu?

Quote

[W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”

And WHY less  examples today?
Because the first “factual” examples were NOT examples at all!
Oh, but the changing sands of facts….

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:
“ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.[80] ”

The conservative writer Ann Coulter sarcastically quipped concerning Gould's admission about the fossil record, “Lots of real scientific theories have 'secrets.'”[81]

In a 1977 paper titled “The Return of Hopeful Monsters”, Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change….All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”[82][83]

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
“ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils….I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[84] ”

According to Dr. Don Batten, Stephen Gould in 1970s made some admissions that there was a “lack of evidence for phylogeny in the fossils” and that Gould had also claimed a number of that were no indisputable intermediate forms. Dr. Batten states that Gould made these statements when Gould was less concerned about creationists.[82] Dr. Batten also states that “claimed examples of transitional series and intermediate forms received an incisive critique from Gould in the 1970s….”[82] However, Gould's admissions were subsequently widely quoted by creationists.[82]

According to Dr. Batton, in 1981 Gould started making intemperate language towards creationists.[85] After having been incessantly quoted by creationist regarding the fossil record, Gould altered his public stance regarding the fossil record and without stating specific examples from the fossil record and using the ambiguous term “larger groups” Gould stated the following in 1981:
“ Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”[86] ”
Ernst Mayr

In 1980, David Woodruff wrote in the journal Science the following: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”[87] The late Ernst Mayr was a prominent Harvard biologist who also served as the director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Mayr was a staunch evolutionist and atheist[88] who maintained that evolution was a fact, yet in 1982 Mayr was compelled to make the following admission regarding the fossil record in relation to the theory of evolution: “Even the fossil record fails to substantiate any continuity and all novelties appear in the fossil record quite suddenly.”[89]

In 1985, Gould was more specific regarding his claim that there were intermediate forms and asserted that Archaeopteryx was a intermediate form.[90] Also, according to Dr. Batten, in 1994 the following occurred in regard to Gould's stance on the fossil record:
“ “[Gould] abandoned his earlier position that there are no indisputable examples of transitional fossil series, either inter-specific or between major designs, and has embraced the ‘walking whale’ story as evidence for transformation of one s
pecies into another. The evidence for this transition is scant, but Gould uncritically accepts the fanciful description of how Ambulocetus natans walked and swam, as given by Thewissen et al.”[82] ”

In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following:
“ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[91] ”

As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is Archaeopteryx. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:
“ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.[92]

On and on and on it goes Stu….
The only evolution that ever takes place is the ability to spin new lies to cover the old lies.
And that my hairless monkey-man, is FACT.

[Stu]

Quote (Devolution @ April 22 2012,18:19)

Quote (david @ April 22 2012,16:33) Thanks for showing me the words Gish Gallop. The brilliance of Gish Gallop, is that even if you, Stu, attack a couple of his points, in the mind of the reader, they can dismiss these, since there are so many other points.  It really is a clever method of persuasion. You are welcome David. It's great isn't it!! I had trouble finding the name of the author to that brilliant informative post….besides Stu's typical angry response and accusations, i thought it obvious that it was a cut & paste job! Obvious enough that even Stu spotted it! LOL. You see i copied and pasted it a few weeks back but didn't record the author…my mistake…nor bookmark the page, (taken care of now) http://www.zephaniah.eu (The shameless fraud known as Darwinian evolution..by Jeremy James)… It is a huge paper he has written, and that was just part of it…if that particular information was taken from Gish Gallop…i commend his work. I intend to post the rest of James' paper bit by bit….it's quite a good read! Cheers.

You are so lazy that you didn't even bother to look up what a Gish Gallop is.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Devolution @ April 28 2012,18:16)

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,21:24) Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,17:34) The False God of Freemasonry To understand the forces behind the strange science of evolution, one needs to realize that, while Freemasonry pretends to be ‘Christian’ or at least sympathetic to the ideals and traditions of Christianity, it is in fact an ancient religious system which despises Christianity. Its gods are those of Egypt and Babylon, Greece and Rome – the pagan pantheons that embody the energies and personalities of the fallen angels. Freemasonry strives by every means possible to focus man’s attention on himself. It is a humanistic, Luciferian doctrine which denies Christ, the need for salvation, and the truths of the Bible. It works in secret because it would never dare approach the light and reveal its true nature. Freemasons call their god the Great Architect . Why? Because he can devise plans and schemes and strategies of great sophistication. On the other hand his high-sounding name reveals a much less flattering fact about him, namely that he can create nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is why Freemasonry is so keen to promote ‘evolution’ as a creative force. How did the universe come into being? The answer: It evolved out of nothing. And where did the amazing panorama of life come from? The answer: It evolved out of inanimate matter, which in turn evolved out of nothing. QED. This allows them to reject utterly any need for a Creator and elevates their own god –the so-called Great Architect – to the apex of the Cosmic Pantheon. It even allows them to believe that man himself will continue to evolve and one day become a god. OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science.  Freemasonry. You really are quite deluded, aren't you. Stuart Quote OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science.  Freemasonry. There are many many scientists who are not Christian who oppose the theory of evolution. These scientists too can see an agenda behind the true cause of evolution…and it is very unscientific indeed. IF Christian scientists are so deluded as you disrespectfully claim, how do you account for the non believing scientists? Let me get this straight…any one who opposes evolution is a crackpot… And all who are for it are totally credible? What? Credible like these few examples of the many: Quote A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History: “ “Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution… Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology… Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts…. [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”[1] ” Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: “I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically”.[2] Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign.[11] It was found that he falsified dates on many “stone age” fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals.[12] The scientific fraud only came to light when he was caught attempting to sell his department's complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.[13] An investigation later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as genuine ones.[14] The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the evolutionary view was the case of Piltdown man.[15] More recently, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic.[16][17] The Nebraska man (also called Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was a case of speculation. Nebraska man was promoted based on the find of a single peccary-like tooth (wild pig-like tooth). Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following in the press concerning Williams Jennings Bryan: Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, gave the name “Flipperpithecus” to a supposed “humanoid species” arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of a dolphin's rib. “ “The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear… This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape.”[18][19] ” Nebraska Man was debated vigorously among evolutionary paleoanthropologists for five years until Dr. Gregory King Williams published a refutation of the find in the journal Science which ended the debate[20] Nebraska man never gained wide acceptance by evolutionary scientists although it enjoyed coverage in the Illustrated London News.[21][22] In addition, the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed “flipperpithecus”: “ “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” – Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23] What about this TRUTH? Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of “transitional forms.” Darwin wrote: “So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.”[72] However, Darwin wrote: “Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.” [73] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because “only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care…”.[74] As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, ““When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”[75] Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: “ “It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[76] ” Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.[77] Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”[78] David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote that “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…”.[79] David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed: “ “[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would …. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. … [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” – David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25. ” Notice that Stu? Quote [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” And WHY less  examples today? Because the first “factual” examples were NOT examples at all! Oh, but the changing sands of facts…. One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following: “ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils…We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.[80] ” The conservative writer Ann Coulter sarcastically quipped concerning Gould's admission about the fossil record, “Lots of real scientific theories have 'secrets.'”[81] In a 1977 paper titled “The Return of Hopeful Monsters”, Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change….All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”[82][83] The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: “ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils….I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[84] ” According to Dr. Don Batten, Stephen Gould in 1970s made some admissions that there was a “lack of evidence for phylogeny in the fossils” and that Gould had also claimed a number of that were no indisputable intermediate forms. Dr. Batten states that Gould made these statements when Gould was less concerned about creationists.[82] Dr. Batten also states that “claimed examples of transitional series and intermediate forms received an incisive critique from Gould in the 1970s….”[82] However, Gould's admissions were subsequently widely quoted by creationists.[82] According to Dr. Batton, in 1981 Gould started making intemperate language towards creationists.[85] After having been incessantly quoted by creationist regarding the fossil record, Gould altered his public stance regarding the fossil record and without stating specific examples from the fossil record and using the ambiguous term “larger groups” Gould stated the following in 1981: “ Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”[86] ” Ernst Mayr In 1980, David Woodruff wrote in the journal Science the following: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”[87] The late Ernst Mayr was a prominent Harvard biologist who also served as the director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Mayr was a staunch evolutionist and atheist[88] who maintained that evolution was a fact, yet in 1982 Mayr was compelled to make the following admission regarding the fossil record in relation to the theory of evolution: “Even the fossil record fails to substantiate any continuity and all novelties appear in the fossil record quite suddenly.”[89] In 1985, Gould was more specific regarding his claim that there were intermediate forms and asserted that Archaeopteryx was a intermediate form.[90] Also, according to Dr. Batten, in 1994 the following occurred in regard to Gould's stance on the fossil record: “ “[Gould] abandone d his earlier position that there are no indisputable examples of transitional fossil series, either inter-specific or between major designs, and has embraced the ‘walking whale’ story as evidence for transformation of one species into another. The evidence for this transition is scant, but Gould uncritically accepts the fanciful description of how Ambulocetus natans walked and swam, as given by Thewissen et al.”[82] ” In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following: “ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[91] ” As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is Archaeopteryx. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx: “ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.[92] On and on and on it goes Stu…. The only evolution that ever takes place is the ability to spin new lies to cover the old lies. And that my hairless monkey-man, is FACT.

Quote

There are many many scientists who are not Christian who oppose the theory of evolution.

Yes, they are muslims.

Quote

These scientists too can see an agenda behind the true cause of evolution…and it is very unscientific indeed.

Huh? An agenda behind natural selection?? What the hell are you on about?

Quote

IF Christian scientists are so deluded as you disrespectfully claim, how do you account for the non believing scientists?

What needs to be accounted for?

Quote

Let me get this straight…any one who opposes evolution is a crackpot…

Well if you mean that they deny evolution as a process occurring throughout natural history, then yes, that is crackpottery.

Quote

And all who are for it are totally credible?

It’s not about credibility, its about evidence.

Quote

What? Credible like these few examples of the many:

Did you write this, or steal it? Although there is no acknowledgement of the author, you are now extending your plagiarism by inserting your own comments throughout that which you have stolen (in this case from " target="_blank">http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_….rl] and )." target="_blank">http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution[/url]).

But this is not about credibility, its about evidence. All you have really done with your first boxful is demonstrate that science has a correction mechanism, which is based on evidence. The Piltdown example is a particularly good demonstration of Darwin’s theory, because when the Piltdown “discovery” was made the experimental technique was not available to show it to be a forgery. By 1915 there were many claiming it as a forgery, but it took until the 1950s to demonstrate the fact when the required analytical technique became available. So, crackpots are found out, even if it takes some time.

Haeckel fits that category too, he did not believe in natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.

Since you are so abusive of this forum, I shall do the same to you, with apologies to the forum in advance, although I will be acknowledging my sources, specifically " target="_blank">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki….rl]

Here goes:

Quote

It's fitting that Conservapedia has an entire article dedicated to guilt by association regarding evolution, as they use the same tactic to attack pretty much everything else they dislike (beware: Haeckel was an atheist!!!). The idea here is that because people have published false findings and others mistook those findings for fact, the entire case for evolution must be based on lies (see Piltdown Man). Note how creationists also try to blow up these incidents as “the best-known evidences for Darwin's theory,” repeatedly commenting about how “high-profile” and “famous” they were. The assertion that Haeckel's drawings were ever the best-known piece of evidence is never backed up, and even if it were, it wouldn't at all change the fact that the drawings were never important to the scientific case for evolution. The Conservapedia article goes on to attempt to state that Stephen Jay Gould was “irritated” by the fraud of the Haeckel drawings because it made the case for evolution (or, pejoratively, “the evolutionary community,”) look bad. This presumption begs the question by starting out with the assumption that the revelation of the Haeckel fraud was damaging to Gould or any other proponent of evolution. If the cited creation scientists who wrote this actually understood anything about science, they would quickly realize the real reason for Gould's frustration (as is evident even from the creationist website put forth as a source) is that the Haeckel drawings were utterly unscientific, representing inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning, and that so many credulous publishers did not take notice of how cartoonishly fake they looked. Here begins another argument from incredulity, that because there are so many fossils, there must be some transitional forms lying around if transitional forms indeed exist. In fact, they do. One of the major problems with this article is a startlingly obvious denial of chronology: most of the quotes about the lack of transitional forms were taken from before a lot of the key transitional fossils were discovered. Darwin did indeed worry that transitional fossils were few, but he died while paleontology was in its infancy. Since then, discoveries have reveal ed transitional forms across all of the major classes of vertebrate life: from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, diapsid reptile to dinosaur, synapsid reptile to mammal, and dinosaur to bird. Although the fossil record will never likely reveal all of the steps along the way, each of these transitions, as well as other major physiological transitions such as the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals, have been supported by at least several different fossil finds. Scientist Michael Denton was one of the founders of the “Intelligent Design” movement, but he has since departed from the movement, writing in favor of the likelihood of evolution. David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote a lot more: Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. [Quite a bit of intermediate material removed] The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.[62]

Stuart – although most of it was copied (with acknowledgement) – sorry about that

[Wakeup]

Quote (Stu @ April 25 2012,21:24)

Quote (Devolution @ April 25 2012,17:34) The False God of Freemasonry To understand the forces behind the strange science of evolution, one needs to realize that, while Freemasonry pretends to be ‘Christian’ or at least sympathetic to the ideals and traditions of Christianity, it is in fact an ancient religious system which despises Christianity. Its gods are those of Egypt and Babylon, Greece and Rome – the pagan pantheons that embody the energies and personalities of the fallen angels. Freemasonry strives by every means possible to focus man’s attention on himself. It is a humanistic, Luciferian doctrine which denies Christ, the need for salvation, and the truths of the Bible. It works in secret because it would never dare approach the light and reveal its true nature. Freemasons call their god the Great Architect . Why? Because he can devise plans and schemes and strategies of great sophistication. On the other hand his high-sounding name reveals a much less flattering fact about him, namely that he can create nothing. Absolutely nothing. This is why Freemasonry is so keen to promote ‘evolution’ as a creative force. How did the universe come into being? The answer: It evolved out of nothing. And where did the amazing panorama of life come from? The answer: It evolved out of inanimate matter, which in turn evolved out of nothing. QED. This allows them to reject utterly any need for a Creator and elevates their own god –the so-called Great Architect – to the apex of the Cosmic Pantheon. It even allows them to believe that man himself will continue to evolve and one day become a god. OK, I'll give you some credit for showing me a new angle on the absurdity of conspiracy theory anti-science.  Freemasonry. You really are quite deluded, aren't you. Stuart

Stu.

[Author]

Posts