IOW, if the picture others care to regurgitate back to you does not match your pre-conceived notion of evolutionary history, then they have distorted the evidence.
Sorry, Jack. No sale. Take your philosophy to some classroom that cares. Keep it out of basic, empirical science classes. The world will be a better place, and you will be pacified with the full attention of like-minded theophobes.
IOW, if the picture others care to regurgitate back to you does not match your pre-conceived notion of evolutionary history, then they have distorted the evidence.
If you are going to presume to paraphrase me, it would be nice if you were able to do it accurately.
No, that's not at all what I said.
When I said that they don't talk about the evidence that they can't explain away, that's exactly what I mean.
And when I said that they distort/misrepresent the evidence that they can, I mean *EXACTLY* that.
THIS. IS. A. LIE.
Hovind's *own* citation which he gives in "support" of this his false claim -- which is the scientific paper which is the original report on the specimens in question -- states quite clearly that they were DIFFERENT specimens taken from DIFFERENT locations.
When challenged on this point, Hovind gave specimen ID numbers which he claimed were for the samples in question (which, again, Hovind claimed were from the same individual mammoth), and looking up those IDs in the primary literature shows that not only were they indeed NOT from the same mammoth, one of them WASN'T EVEN FROM A MAMMOTH AT ALL (it was from a rhino). Nonetheless, creationist Hovind has never retracted his false claims about the evidence itself.
Freeper Havoc (a creationist) repeated Hovind's lie here on FreeRepublic.
When I pointed out that even Hovind's own citation contradicts Hovind's version, and showed him documentation of that, Havoc mumbled a reply ("you haven't displayed a falsehood, you just make these assertions") and failed to retract the false claim he had repeated from Hovind.
HAVOC THEN REPOSTED THE SAME FALSE CLAIM SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON ANOTHER THREAD.
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- Fester, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here. Metacognative *still* shows no shame for his patently false accusation.
Fester, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?
So cut out the crap about how *I'm* the one with a reality problem, son. Have you *no* shame whatsoever?
For a further example, the astute reader need only look at the way you yourself have misrepresented what I actually wrote.
Sorry, Jack. No sale. Take your philosophy to some classroom that cares. Keep it out of basic, empirical science classes.
Your wish to have the very well-established, well-supported science of evolutionary biology yanked out of science classes because you have a knee-jerk bias against it, despite how clear you've made it on various threads that you have absolutely no understanding of it, and wish to acquire none, but are content with the faulty cartoon-version of evolution spoonfed to you by dishonest creationist sources, is duly noted.
The world will be a better place, and you will be pacified with the full attention of like-minded theophobes.
I am not a "theophobe", and you are strongly advised to either retract that slur, or attempt to support it if you're delusional to think you can. Or would you like to take the matter up with the moderators rather than behave like an honorable person?
Your bitterness in your posts is obvious, and it overrides your judgement. Work on it.
You will soon learn which of these die-hard darwinists can think about these new ideas...and which ones now form a new Inquisition.