Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

    Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

    Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

  1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

  2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

  3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

  1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

  2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

  1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

  2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

  3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

  1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

  2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

  3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

  1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

  2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

  3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

  4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.



TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,141-2,1602,161-2,1802,181-2,200 ... 2,461-2,474 next last
To: VadeRetro
Oh, you've got it!? Give it back! I'm 52 and can't spare any!

You can have it back, i don't fancy having a beard and neither does my love interest.

2,161 posted on 03/26/2002 4:18:36 PM PST by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2159 | View Replies]

To: Junior; VadeRetro; Patrick Henry
And the genes coding for that eye-spot (not true eye, as you keep saying) would be similar to that coding for the eye in other animals.

Okay, let's go with your statement and examine it a bit. Where did Euglena get the eye-spot (it does see light from it). How did the eye of other species descend from Euglena? (and by that I mean through what species).

Note one thing, if there is a match between the eye-spot of the Euglena AND you can find the direct lineage of that trait through other higher species, then you can say that this is proof of evolution. However, if:
1. you cannot find where the Euglena got the eye spot.

OR

2. you cannot find the direct succession of Euglena's eyes to higher species.
OR

3. you cannot show that the gene for the eye-spot in Euglena is the same as those of higher species (this was your statement remember, so you cannot back off from it).
THEN

Euglena is a strong proof against the theory of evolution.

2,162 posted on 03/26/2002 4:28:01 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1978 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Okay. I'll try to make it a bit simpler. Mammals are descended from mammal-like reptiles and birds are descended from dinosaurs, which are descended from archosaurs.

The above is the assumption of evolutionists. Assumptions are not science. Assumptions are not facts. Assumptions are not proof of anything. To prove such a thing you need evidence and you have none at all.

2,163 posted on 03/26/2002 4:32:01 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1979 | View Replies]

To: Junior
VadeRetro did show you a whole series of skulls. He even showed you non-Neanderthal skulls from the period wherein you said no hominid but Neanderthal existed.

The skulls were totally unclassified. If we knew indeed what species those skulls were from, then they would not be unclassified. More likely than not, those skulls were also not of very certain date either. Just a set of skulls from who knows where, from who knows what date, without any supporting scientific evidence are worth nothing. That is why the experts themselves do not count them in any account of the species of man. They don't have enough information to determine just what the heck they are. Vade, has even less knowledge to make such a determination. All he is doing is throwing garbage on the wall to see if it sticks. That is proof of nothing.

2,164 posted on 03/26/2002 4:37:12 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1980 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
The skulls were totally unclassified.

They have now been classified TOP SECRET "EMBRYONIC." You will be forwarded instructions on how to degauss your head.

2,165 posted on 03/26/2002 4:41:57 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2164 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
i don't fancy having a beard and neither does my love interest.

And why doesn't he want one?

2,166 posted on 03/26/2002 4:45:10 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2161 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
the TalkOrigins page already linked for you, lifted the creationist arguments . . .

Yup, only fakes lift arguments. Only fakes try to prove their point by building strawmen out of the silliest things said by opponents. Only fakes try to discredit all opponents by using the most stupid arguments from some opponents. Lastly, only fakes do not source such a blatant misrepresentation of the oppositions arguments. You may have won one point through trickery, however that was only the fourth point against Rhodesian Man being a homo sapiens. You already had 3 strikes and you and your phony skull were out.

Since you seem to be making a habit lately of not answering to the posts you respond to but to other posts so that people cannot follow the thread, here are the other 3 strikes from post#1953:

1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.

2,167 posted on 03/26/2002 4:50:31 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1987 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
And why doesn't he want one?

lol, i realized that sounded strange after i posted.

2,168 posted on 03/26/2002 4:51:54 PM PST by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2166 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Lurking ...
2,169 posted on 03/26/2002 4:58:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2168 | View Replies]

To: oldcats
So tell us, what kind of tree is this? A pear tree, a mimosa, an oak tree? We are dying to know. Is it the same tree Noah built his ark from? It seems to have enough branches to fit all creation in it! -me-

That has got to be the most stupid, inane thing I have ever seen you post...all it needs is a few hyphens in it, and it will be right up there with you know who!

No, it is not a stupid post at all. It is called sarcasm. It is called making fun of what the opponents are saying. It is called humor - something which an ideologue like yourself knows nothing of.

So answer the question. Can kind of a tree is it which is built by drawing a few lines? What kind of a tree is it that has none it ressembles in reality? What kind of a tree can fit all the millions of species which have walked the earth since life began? I will give you the answer because like the rest of the evolutionists here you are good at hurling insults but not at answering serious questions. It is a fantasy tree. It is an unreal tree. It is a tree that does not exist. A diagram, a sketch, a chart, are proof of nothing. Their validity rests only on the underlying facts they purport to represent. You and your evo friends are trying to pass off a diagram as proof of evolution. It is proof of nothing. You are just avoiding giving a serious answer to a serious question: the evolution of species, where did they descend from, what is the proof of their descent from other species? You cannot answer those questions so you put up a phony tree as proof. Lame, very lame.

2,170 posted on 03/26/2002 5:07:14 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1996 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
You now respond that Darwin "was a hypocrite" because he wrote a letter worrying that Biblical Literalists would have a problem with his book. (Another prediction of Darwin's that came true!)

Nice spin. However, he knew he was attacking religion, he said so. He tried to cover up, was asking another whether he should try to cover it up even more. So yes, he was lying about his knowingly attacking religion with his theory. So my statement that he was a hypocrite in matters of religion is proven by the facts I presented.

2,171 posted on 03/26/2002 5:11:27 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1995 | View Replies]

To: oldcats
First of all, I am not attacking Christianity...as I have stated before, I am a Christian.

No you are not. The Bible says "you shall know them by their deeds". Your deeds disprove your assertions.

2,172 posted on 03/26/2002 5:14:31 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1990 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Considering I've never mentioned Java Man that would be quite a feat. Now, I did mention (and posted articles) that Homo Erectus may have survived on Java until about 50,000 years ago, but that does not mean I've linked that with Java Man.

The bones you were trying to pass off as the ancestors of homo sapiens were indeed the re-dated, re-classified remains of some Java fossils. Given the lack of scientific professionalisms in the articles you post the actual name of the re-classied specimen was never given in the article. To call me a lier for calling an un-named specimen of a man from Java 'Java Man' is really looking for excuses to insult someone - and I will be expecting an apology.

However, if you wish me to prove the above, I will gladly do so. I kept the article for laughs and can easily repost it if you like.

2,173 posted on 03/26/2002 5:25:07 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2012 | View Replies]

To: All
Interesting article here: Dogs make us human .

There's a thread based on the article, not linked, but it's full of sob-stories about freepers who lost their dogs, and they ignore the evolution angle.

2,174 posted on 03/26/2002 5:31:05 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2173 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Please note, dear boy, that "three ear bones" goes hand-in-hand with differentiated dentiture, warm-bloodedness, and having a certain number of holes in one's skull. Each of these can be ascertained from skeletal remains. [emphasis mine]

Correct, these characteristics were determined by looking at evidence, evidence from living species. They were not determined by theory, by equations, or by some kind of mathematical proof. They were determined by observation. The phony science of paleontology is trying to replace observatioon with circular reasoning. It is trying to say that just because other mammals had those qualities all others must do so. As I pointed out many times already live bearing has a much greater necessary connection to mammary glands than ear-bones or anything else you mention above. The connections of those features to mammary glands are coincidental not necessary therefore the presence of those features in species which are supposed to be evolving proves nothing about other features which may have been present in those unknown, not living species.

2,175 posted on 03/26/2002 5:34:08 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2015 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.

The Fossil Hominids: References. TalkOrigins does no original research, of course. They compile from the publications of the original researchers.

2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.

You asked for "after 200,000 years ago." Rhodesia Man's dating range centers nicely in the interval you requested. All of the older, non-C14-dated skulls have similarly large ranges. Thus, you apparently don't ever have to accept any older fossil skull, if any uncertainty in age will do as grounds for rejection.

3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.

Yeah, they changed the name. Boy, that proves a lot! Actually, it's Homo sapiens (archaic), most would say. Recall that any erectus after 400,000 years is controversial.

2,176 posted on 03/26/2002 5:37:42 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2167 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Okay, I'll type s-l-o-w-l-y so you can understand it. There WAS NO TRANSFER OF GENES FROM EUGLENA TO MAN. Both received that particular gene from a common ancestor that lived a V-E-R-Y long time ago."

I am asking exactly what is the ancestor of both Euglena and man. Where did Euglena get the eye-spot? Where did man get it? You cannot answer it so you insult. A theory cannot prove itself and that is what you are proposing. Sorry, I am not an ideologue like you, I require facts, I require evidence. You do not have them, you do not have the vaguest idea of what the evidence is. You are just trying to brazen it out with insults and sophistry.

2,177 posted on 03/26/2002 5:38:30 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2016 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Recall that any erectus after 400,000 years is controversial.

With Viagra, all things are possible, but that would be pushing it a bit.

2,178 posted on 03/26/2002 5:41:00 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2176 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
What is the matter with the people on this thread tonight? Whew! BWAHAHAHA!
2,179 posted on 03/26/2002 5:48:12 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2178 | View Replies]

To: oldcats
Ya know, that could be concidered plagerism. Oldcats

No, it is not plagiarism when you put something in quotes. It is only plagiarism when you try to pass something off as your own. Of course, any chance at insulting or discrediting someone you disagree with is fair game eh Oldcats? Guess it shows your Christian charity?

2,180 posted on 03/26/2002 5:56:28 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2104 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,141-2,1602,161-2,1802,181-2,200 ... 2,461-2,474 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson