Replies

I have researched quite a bit of science and so have many scientists that see the falsity of TOE...here's some interesting facts about the confused state of the proponents of evolution. Not out of my league at all. It's not hard to understand; doesn't take a genius. Anyways, I do hope that info will open your mind a little because the facts are there for us regardless of what agenda is trying to work through us. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=813053.

I took a look at your link. The section titled "Evidence 4" deals with fossils (a field with which I am familiar). It recycles the same tired old creationist nonsense: it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, wishful thinking trying to pass as evidence, and mistakes. Most of its claims have been long-since rebutted. (Here is an extensive list of creationist claims, and detailed rebuttals.)

One easy example? Piltdown Man. Your link claims "The 'discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years" and they "wrote some 500 books on it." Both are flat out lies. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). It was the South African finds that led to Piltdown being largely ignored after the mid-1920s. And the 500 books? That is often claimed to be 500 Ph.D. dissertations rather than just books. Neither is true. There have been a number of books since the final proof that Piltdown was a hoax, but those have concentrated on the hoax itself. I doubt the author of your link could find five books on Piltdown from before it was shown to be a hoax.

Another example? Your link claims "The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after." Here are some examples of the brow ridges that "don't exist":

KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)

TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumaï", Sahelanthropus tchadensis

OK, one more example: Your link states "Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, 'Lucy - when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.'" The actual facts are given here. This claim is typical creationist wishful thinking nonsense. The source I just provided did a complete analysis, including contacting creationists who made this claim. Here is a summary:

At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

OK, one more example. Your link notes, "In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever."

So? If you note in the chart below, Paranthropus boisei is a side branch (on the right side, abbreviated as P. boisei. The fact that it has a crest is of no importance to human evolution, as this fellow in not on the human line. So this supposed "proof" against evolution means nothing.

(Well, it might mean that the author of your link didn't actually know where P. boisei fits and made a whopper of a mistake.)

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

I have now shown a bunch of the claims made in your link are nonsense. What say you?

It is to bad this thread was hijacked by the Darwiniacs. I had high hopes for this thread. Neanderthal is one of the most fascinating creatures which ever lived . I hope he gets a second chance.

that site has some good information and because you offer rebuttals doesn't necessarily make them true. I could offer you so much more evidence for the falsity of evolution but the simple big one always remains regardless of the details; true transitional fossils showing the transformation of one life form into another over the millions of years are absent. If it were not so the debate would have been over. The many scientists who believe in creationism and see through TOE would have admitted they were wrong because most of them are very bright and honest people.