[_ Old Earth _] Evolution's Propaganda Campaign Continues.

[John]

[youtube:2mh7v36x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRKKguDYYwM&feature=channel_page[/youtube:2mh7v36x]

 

[Barbarian]

Took nearly 15 seconds to get to the first major goof. Ida is just the transitional between primitive and more advanced primates. It isn't touted as "PROVING EVOLUTION"as the guy in the sparse mustache claimed.

Let's go on... the skinny one claimed that Attenborough said it "directly" connects humans to mammals.

Major misconception about transitionals. It would be astonishingly unlikely that any particular fossil would be the one that led to the next population. They seem to dimly understand this, but they garbled the idea. Ida just comes from a population very close to the species that gave rise to higher primates. These organisms had some lemur-like features, and some found only in higher primates.

It's not a lemur, it's not an anthropoid. It's something transitional between the two.

There was no retraction in the literature, because the paper made no false claims.

And it was entertaining that they trotted out the old "science so-called" story. That one is so obviously false, it actually made the AIG list of "Arguments we think creationists should not use."

These guys are dim, even by YE creationist standards.

Incidentally, anyone who doubts that there are many transitionals is welcome to take my transitional challenge.

 

[lordkalvan]

I was puzzled by the title of this thread as none of the individuals in the featured video appears to be leading a propaganda campaign in support of evolution. Am I missing something?

 

[Heidi]

Matthew 11:25-27, "I praise you good Father, Lord of heaven and earth for having hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealing them to little children. For that was your good pleasure."

And nothing proves that true better than the story of evolution. Those who claim to be "wise and learned' have no clue why animals can't breed human descendants. 2

But to play God, they make up impossible stories in their heads, tribes of people who've never been mentioned in history then pass those stories along as facts. 2 All they have to understand is why humans can't breed; zebras, elephants, skunks, monkeys, lions, tigers or bears as descendants and they'll know why apes or monkeys can't breed; zebras, skunks, elephants or people as descendants whether over a gazillion years or 9 months! But in the imagination, anything's possible.

 

[lordkalvan]

Matthew 11:25-27, "I praise you good Father, Lord of heaven and earth for having hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealing them to little children. For that was your good pleasure."

It's amazing the number of things God chose to hide from the knowledgeable and revealed instead to the ignorant. It's also amazing how easy it is to take biblical verses out of their context and use them to rationalize a belief that they relate to not at all.

And nothing proves that true better than the story of evolution.

Biological evolution isn't a story, it's a well-developed theory widely supported by multiple strands of evidence.

Those who claim to be "wise and learned' have no clue why animals can't breed human descendants.

If this represents the level of your misunderstanding of what biological evolution proposes and entails, then it is no wonder you regard it as a 'story'.

But to play God, they make up impossible stories in their heads, tribes of people who've never been mentioned in history then pass those stories along as facts.

Are you perpetrating the idea that if something isn't written down at the time it happened, then it can't have happened? What is this nonsense about 'tribes of people'?

All they have to understand is why humans can't breed; zebras, elephants, skunks, monkeys, lions, tigers or bears as descendants and they'll know why apes or monkeys can't breed; zebras, skunks, elephants or people as descendants whether over a gazillion years or 9 months!

Your misunderstanding of theory of evolution appears to be stupendous. No wonder you are so confused.

But in the imagination, anything's possible.

Especially in yours, it appears.

 

[Heidi]

So the criteria for what is "scientific" are events that no one else has witnessed or don't happen in reality. Is that correct? Obviously so.

The story of evolution is as complex and convoluted as "Lord of the Rings." The only differences between them is that Tolken at least knew who his main characters were! He also dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" unlike Darwin who couldn't even describe his main characters so of course, he couldn't finish his story because no one still knows the origin of man..except Christians of course. ;) Darwin couldn't even describe the setting!

Sorry friend, but a delusion is an event or events that no one else has witnessed so it comes from the imaginations of those who conjure them up. And no one in history passed along accounts of creatures that allegedly lived for much longer than "modern-day" humans nor has anyone seen an ape or monkey or better yet (imaginary animals since no one knows who the common ancestors are) turn into humans ever.

So the story of evolution fits the definition of a delusion. That means that the only reason that it's been accepted is because scientists have brainwashed the public simply because they have letters after their names. That's all.

And since you have to make up a history of your imagination to deny the bible, then you're living in your imagination. But i've always known that unbelievers live in their imaginations because they have no clue what the difference is between the imagination and reality. Absolutely none.

 

[lordkalvan]

So the criteria for what is "scientific" are events that no one else has witnessed or don't happen in reality. Is that correct? Obviously so.

As you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word 'scientific', perhaps you should go and look it up and then reconsider this quite absurd statement.

The story of evolution is as complex and convoluted as "Lord of the Rings."

No, the theory of evolution is, in fact, quite elegantly simple. The evidence that supports the theory can be difficult to understand in some cases - molecular biology is not the easiest of subjects to come to terms with, but it is extensive and persuasive.

The only differences between them is that Tolken at least knew who his main characters were! He also dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" unlike Darwin who couldn't even describe his main characters so of course, he couldn't finish his story because no one still knows the origin of man..except Christians of course. Darwin couldn't even describe the setting!

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species no further research has been done on the subject of biological evolution, nor that the understanding and shape of the theory has changed at all. I am afraid that you are mistaken in this impression. If you think that the origins of humanity are shrouded in mystery, I suggest you do some serious reading around the subject of palaeoanthropology and reconsider your statements in the light of that reading.

Sorry friend, but a delusion is an event or events that no one else has witnessed so it comes from the imaginations of those who conjure them up.

First of all, I am not your friend as I do not believe we have been introduced, nor has either of us done anything that entitles either of us to call the other 'friend'. You seem to have as mistaken an understanding of the meaning of the word 'delusion' as you do of the word 'scientific'. Briefly, a delusion is something that is falsely believed despite indisputable evidence to the contrary (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Quite clearly, there is a great deal of evidence that attests to the validity of the theory of evolution; therefore, it cannot be a delusion.

And no one in history passed along accounts of creatures that allegedly lived for much longer than "modern-day" humans...

If you believe that evolutionary theory hangs on the existence 'of creatures that allegedly lived for much longer than "modern-day" humans', then i am not surprised that you have such a confused understanding of what it entails.

...nor has anyone seen an ape or monkey or better yet (imaginary animals since no one knows who the common ancestors are) turn into humans ever.

First of all, if you believe that the theory of evolution states that at some point Creature A will give birth to quite different Creature B, this again only points up your confusion about the theory. There is a great deal of evidence about what the common ancestors of Homo sapiens and the various other great apes most likely looked like. Again, I suggest you do some serious reading around the subject of the current state of palaeoanthropological research. You might also want to consider the additional evidence offered by studies in molecular biology.

So the story of evolution fits the definition of a delusion.

Sorry, no. This is the one thing it quite clearly does not fit.

That means that the only reason that it's been accepted is because scientists have brainwashed the public simply because they have letters after their names. That's all.

Sorry again, no. The theory of evolution is widely accepted because more than 150 years of research in biology and palaeontology has provided a great deal of persuasive evidence that supports the robustness of the theory. I am sorry that you are so contemptuous of learning and knowledge. Perhaps you would prefer the 'possession by demons' theory of disease as opposed to the 'germ theory'?

And since you have to make up a history of your imagination to deny the bible, then you're living in your imagination.

I make up nothing; I only consider the weight of evidence to the best of my ability. You are aware, of course, that it is only a small minority of Christians who believe that their faith and the Bible are incompatible with a approach to knowledge and understanding that is not rooted firmly in the Middle Ages?

But i've always known that unbelievers live in their imaginations because they have no clue what the difference is between the imagination and reality. Absolutely none.

I rather think you should be looking in the mirror when making statements like this and consider who is most confused about the difference between imagined fantasies and reality.

 

[Heidi]

First of all, I am not your friend as I do not believe we have been introduced, nor has either of us done anything that entitles either of us to call the other 'friend'. You seem to have as mistaken an understanding of the meaning of the word 'delusion' as you do of the word 'scientific'. Briefly, a delusion is something that is falsely believed despite indisputable evidence to the contrary (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Quite clearly, there is a great deal of evidence that attests to the validity of the theory of evolution; therefore, it cannot be a delusion.

Sorry, but since there's no way to know if the skulls and bones they found all came from the same body, then piecing skulls and bones together isn't evidence; it's called artwork. ;)

And since animal DNA doesn't turn into human DNA like a quick or slow change artist then evolution isn't verified bioloically either. Only in the imagination can animals evolve into humans. ;) And we all know that it's not verified historically since there are exactly zero accounts from anyone in history of the tribes that scientists have made up. Put all those together and that's the definition of a fairy tale. sorry. ;)

 

[lordkalvan]

Sorry, but since there's no way to know if the skulls and bones they found all came from the same body, then piecing skulls and bones together isn't evidence; it's called artwork.

What? You think that all the fossil bones that attest to the immediate ancestry of humanity come from a single body? This is desperately ill-informed.

And since animal DNA doesn't turn into human DNA like a quick or slow change artist then evolution isn't verified bioloically either. Only in the imagination can animals evolve into humans.

More confusion, I'm afraid. Put crudely, most of our DNA is pretty much exactly the same as most of the DNA in the other great apes.

And we all know that it's not verified historically since there are exactly zero accounts from anyone in history of the tribes that scientists have made up. Put all those together and that's the definition of a fairy tale. sorry.

Are you perhaps confusing Jean Auel's Earth Children series with palaeoanthropological research?

I'm afraid that your unfounded and confused assertions only emphasize the depth of your unfamiliarity with and ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually proposes and the great extent of the evidence that sustains the theory and makes it convincingly persuasive. If you can bring a specific, informed, reasoned argument to the discussion - as opposed to these hand-waving caricatures of knowledge - perhaps we could look at it in some detail.