Star Children for Darwin

CEH ^ | February 28, 2009

[whattajoke]

I would love for churches to come off 501C3.

Hats off to you, sir, for this position. Our reasons are wholly different to be sure, but even you'd have to admit it would be quite interesting for some of the mega-churches and thieving churches (yes, they exist) under the guise of things like the Rainbow Coalition to have to report earnings. My mouth waters at the prospect as much as yours does to remove biology from public schools. Imagine the eyes that would be opened! (Just don't take my dear Jack and Rexella off the air!)

[Fichori]

“gee look, it’s another pretty drawing.”

I like mine better.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“I’m curious what you’d say if you held those skulls in your hand.”

(a) I’m simply not impressed by the “looks similar” argument.

(b) They clearly don’t even have the real skulls of those pictures. Probably it’s a drawing “from” a minute fragment, which is usually the case. If there are any skulls they probably don’t look remotely similar like in the picture.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

accountability would be good, because there are some churches masquerading as Christians, as you say. But I think to put a blanket on “mega churches” like that is wrong. A lot of the early churches were very large.

I don’t think churches have to pay taxes or go in 501c3 though. In fact churches are excepted in the IRS code by 508c1, but most think they have to go on 501c3

[chuck_the_tv_out]

lol! not THAT’s evolution.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Probably it’s a drawing “from” a minute fragment, which is usually the case"

like Nebraska Man, for which the "evidence" was a pig's tooth, so you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by drawings !

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

And Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of their hopes, like Piltdown Man. Both were in textbooks for many decades and taught as our ancestors! Nebraska Man was even used in the Scopes trial by the evo-cultists as an example of the missing link. And it was all a deliberate fraud.

[whattajoke]

like Nebraska Man, for which the "evidence" was a pig's tooth, so you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by drawings !

That's perfectly fair. And neither were (or are) scientists. There's much more to the Nebraska Man story than your creationist website told you. (Surprise.)

Some facts:
That infamous drawing of the supposed Nebraska Man appeared in a British weekly tabloid - never in a scientific publication.

The scientific establishment never accepted the tooth as anything more than an unidentified tooth.

Any time the tooth was referenced by scientists, even those believing it could be a human ancestor was ALWAYS tempered with caution - though not as much as there should have been.

Books and papers published at the time (1920's) never used the tooth as evidence of a human ancestor.

And, most importantly, it was SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS who ultimately discarded the whole hominid or ape-like notion through the scientific process.

Let's review: Farmer finds a tooth, scientists says maybe it's a human ancestor, British magazine makes a fanciful drawing, scientists debate the validity of the tooth, science discards the notion of the tooth belonging to a human ancestor, creationists use this minor error from 90 years ago against the whole body of evolution to this day.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

There's much more to the Nebraska Man story than your creationist website told you. (Surprise.)

Easy with the snide unbacked comments, okay?

"Nebraska Man" is just one of the worst examples. There's planty of modern examples, where they are not interested in the science, but only in the manipulation. Drawing human-like hands on things for which they have Zero evidence for that. It's all just one big lie.

[Just mythoughts]

Oh I think the chosen Daniel verse is excellent. But then Daniel gets all crazy with the end-times stuff and loses me. Like verses 11 & 12: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

Notice Daniel uses the time measurement of 'days' (sun) whereas other places the time measurement is months (lunar).

What if I give up at 1,313 days?

But Christ said 'time' for the elect's sake would be shortened. Guess that means one would need to know how much time was then allotted for Daniel's days to know if giving up at 1,313 would cause any a problem.

Daniel is probably the most interesting book of the OT, if not the bible. The Jewish version of the Apocalypse, it was written before Christ and purports to be prophetic, but forgot the part about Christ’s birth and the subsequent (much later) expansion of Christianity. Of course, perhaps this was a different end time and it DID happen in a relative sense, which is fine. Just tell Jack Van Impe.

I like Daniel and the instruction he gives the student of the WORD. Paul says was Written to give us even to this day the script of admonition as to what would be at the end of this flesh age.

Christ existed in Daniel's days as Christ was even in the Garden of Eden, it was just before He fulfilled John 3 wherein the first requirement to see the kingdom of God was to be born from above.

Solomon pens in Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See this is new?' it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

So that is why Paul says we have the 'script' to know what happened to them was/is our warning upon whom the ends of the age are come.

Mr. Impe notwithstanding.

[whattajoke]

Easy with the snide unbacked comments, okay?

Okay.

There's planty of modern examples, where they are not interested in the science, but only in the manipulation.

Such as?

[whattajoke]

And Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of their hopes

Huh? It was? Even though a scientific paper was never published on it? Even though every scientist save one doubted the claims? Even though it never appeared in a single textbook (except creationist ones) ever? (despite your wild claims.) Even though it was scientists who dispelled the tooth as a human ancestor? Where do you get this stuff?

Nebraska Man was even used in the Scopes trial by the evo-cultists as an example of the missing link.

More lies. Hesperopithecus (the tooth) was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial, although other major discoveries of fossil hominids were discussed from the stand and in written testimony. Look it up... For once.

Lying is a sin. But I won't smile at your future residence in hell for it.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Hesperopithecus (the tooth) was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial"

A brief bit of research is inconclusive whether Nebraska man was brought up. Some references say yes, some say no.

Certainly though Piltdown Man (ANOTHER FRAUD), was, by many references.

From "Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3", Chapter 30, "THE SCOPES TRIAL" (found through Google):

"Certain items of "scientific evidence of evolution" were mentioned at the trial, whether or not formally presented. This included Piltdown Man (announced to the world in December 1912, and repudiated in the 1950s when the British Museum's Kenneth Oakley devised a new method for determining whether ancient bones were of the same age), but especially Nebraska Man was proclaimed. The great Nebraska Man, discovered only three years before in Bryan's home state, was exalted at the trial as the outstanding evidence that man had evolved from an apelike creature."

You don't provide your own reference.

[whattajoke]

From "Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3", Chapter 30, "THE SCOPES TRIAL" (found through Google):

"...but especially Nebraska Man was proclaimed. The great Nebraska Man, discovered only three years before in Bryan's home state, was exalted at the trial as the outstanding evidence that man had evolved from an apelike creature."

It's unfortunate that creationist websites continue to promote lies like this. It really puts crimp in their credibility. You have two options; read the trail transcript yourself or you can Google "Nebraska Man Scopes Trial" for the direct discussions of the issue.

Or, if you'd like, refer to none other than Conservapedia where even THEY state the fact - that the pig's tooth was NOT entered into evidence or even discussed at the trial.

Now, this is but a small point in the grand scheme of things to be sure. But, and you should be getting used to this - it once again shows creationist sources to be full of lies and deceptions. It should give you pause.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“none other than Conservapedia”

lol. yeah. A1 reference.

what gives me pause is that you seem to ignore anything that’s against your mindset, which is a constant trend I am noticing. Creationists address every issue raised, while evolutionists ignore the difficult questions, in a manipulative, lib-like way. The trial certainly brought up the “Piltdown Man” FRAUD, and if the best reference you have is “none other than Conservapedia”, I have to assume they mentioned the other one too. But as you say, it’s irrelevent.

The preponderence of evidence shows that evolution is supported by fraud after fraud after fraud.

[whattajoke]

The preponderence of evidence shows that evolution is supported by fraud after fraud after fraud.

You keep saying that, but so far you've offered Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man. There are 2 other creationist favorites you can mention, and then a legitimate fraud that was quickly dispelled.

Some frauds were honest mistakes, a couple were outright hoaxes, all were corrected by science relatively quickly. So that's five. Compared to what, a few hundred thousand legitimate fossils? Evolution is not grinding to a halt over this any more than physics ceased to exist after the cold fusion bs.