[Con X-Poser]

<< The fact that creationists must rely on such dishonest tactics speaks of the weakness of their claims. >>

You mean like the fact that you show us artist renditions of extinct creatures and CLAIM they are transitions? Or the fact that you have never seen the process you profess to believe?

Or maybe the fact that even evolutionists recognize how ridiculous abiogenesis is (formerly called spontaneous generation), and do cartwheels to attempt to divorce the ORIGIN from their theories on (ahem!) origins?

Or maybe the fact that you use changes resulting from the rearranging or loss of genetic information as proof that evolutionary changes requiring new information could happen?

Of course we know how honest Piltdown man was for 40 years, and how honest Haeckel's embryo drawings were for 140 years, and how honest gluing peppered moths to trees was, and how honest archaeoraptor was. One wonders how many others we don't know about?

[VadeRetro]

Watching you read up a thread is exactly like watching gore3000 doing the same thing. I keep thinking I see your lips moving.

[balrog666]

Can you tell the difference? Come on, speak up where BP couldn't, can you tell the difference?

What's the matter, X-Con? Devil got your tongue? What, again?

[Dataman]

Of course we know how honest Piltdown man was for 40 years, and how honest Haeckel's embryo drawings were for 140 years, and how honest gluing peppered moths to trees was, and how honest archaeoraptor was. One wonders how many others we don't know about?

Don't forget to mention the discredited evolution of the horse.

They make it up as they go along and keep printing the lies in the textbooks after being proven lies. Then when the make a new "discovery" they wonder why people are skeptical.

Btw, the lies in the textbooks are one of the easiest ways to show an evolutionist how he's been lied to all along.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Piltdown man was considered questionable at least as far back as the fall of 1912 (except for the English who wanted their own fossil to keep up with the French and the Germans.) The parts of the Piltdown skull didn't fit according to evolutionary theory. The Creationists did nothing to expose the fraud. American and German paleontologists were skeptical from the first; they didn't believe that the jaw and skull were from the same species. In the 1950s, C₁₄ dating indicated differing dates for both the jaw and skull.

This brings up the question of why do the Creationists believe that the Piltdown skull is a fake? The two biological indications of fakery are the failure to fit with evolutionary theory (1912) and the C₁₄ dating (1950s) data. Both of these types of analysis have claimed by Creationists to be invalid.