Why do evolutionist lie?

[Sender]

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

[USIncognito]

Please don't tell me you are going to say whales walked on land.

Why not? Not only do we find the evidences in the fossil and genetic record, but we can find extant species all along the continuum from fully terrestrial mammals to whales.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1232858 ... hales.html

If we find extant species exhibiting the transitional characteristics we would expect to find between a terrestrial quadraped and an aquatic Cetate today, all around us, then why wouldn't we expect to find more appropriate transitional species in the fossil record?

[Chimp]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

Common ancestor...not any of the modern apes.

You aren't providing evidence for your assertion(s). In fact, they aren't
even your assertions...and they amount to opinions or outdated FALSE
statements.

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks

How is this a lie?

[ST88]

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

Please state what you think this is so we all know what you're talking about. Wouldn't want to talk past each other.

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Hyracotherium, an ancestor of the horse, really did have four toes. The modern horse's hoof corresponds with the third toe. Some modern horses are born with multiple hoofs at the end of additional toes in the horse skeleton as a result of incomplete embryological development.

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

The most recent discovery in this area showed that dinosaurs had remarkably similar bone structure to modern birds and even had similar chemistry. All evidence points to this lineage. I assure you, this is not dogma; if valid evidence were found against this lineage, the discoverer would become very rich.

Get those lies out!

I you believe that these particular examples should be out of textbooks, then shouldn't you be out picketing to get them out of the textbooks instead of throwing out the whole theory? After all, evolution does not depend on these examples, they are merely examples.

[Sender]

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

Please state what you think this is so we all know what you're talking about. Wouldn't want to talk past each other.

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Hyracotherium, an ancestor of the horse, really did have four toes. The modern horse's hoof corresponds with the third toe. Some modern horses are born with multiple hoofs at the end of additional toes in the horse skeleton as a result of incomplete embryological development.

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

The most recent discovery in this area showed that dinosaurs had remarkably similar bone structure to modern birds and even had similar chemistry. All evidence points to this lineage. I assure you, this is not dogma; if valid evidence were found against this lineage, the discoverer would become very rich.

Get those lies out!

I you believe that these particular examples should be out of textbooks, then shouldn't you be out picketing to get them out of the textbooks instead of throwing out the whole theory? After all, evolution does not depend on these examples, they are merely examples.

I certainly will show you why I say what I say regarding the above. You have however skipped past the first two question of my last post regarding pre-big bang and life's origin. As I said previously, please address these first then I will give my summation.

[Jose]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

If Protestants evolved from Catholics, why are Catholics still here?

I guess this means that you believe that evolution works by having individual animals go "pop" and turn into something else?

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

I presume that you've bought the goofy arguments of Wells and colleagues? I agree with ST88 that you'll need to be more explicit here. You might also want to explain how it's a lie to say "moths land on tree trunks." The complete story is that "moths land on tree trunks next to branches," but the standard schtick of anti-evolutionists is to say "scientists lied because moths don't land on tree trunks."

Or are you saying it's a lie to claim that these moths demonstrate natural selection in action because selection caused the population to shift toward the dark phase, then a second round of selection caused it to shift back toward the light phase, and "therefore, no net evolution took place"? That's their logic. Let me see if I've got it right: if I drive to Chicago, then drive home again, I didn't really go to Chicago because I'm now in the same place I started.

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Well, yeah. Horses are descended from their ancestors. Sure, half a century ago, we had only a few fossils, and "connected the dots" by drawing a single line through all of them. The idea people got was that there had been a smooth progression from tiny guys to today's Big Successful Horse. If you look here, you'll see that we know more now. There were bazillions of horse-type creatures, of which the few remaining equines are but a remnant. They are the last ones, the ones that haven't yet died out.

So what's wrong with describing horse evolution in textbooks? You're upset that we've learned more in the last 50 years, so the books say things that are different than they used to? What would be "lying" would be to keep the text unchanged, and insist on believing it as Absolute Truth, even when the facts no longer support the old interpretation. There are people who treat some books this way, I hear...

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

Ah, yes. This one. Here's what you do. Go to a museum and look at the fossils. The "Chinasaurs" exhibit a few years ago was a good one. The university museum in Bozeman, MT also has a good collection. You can even buy your own plaster cast of some of the fossils. The point here is that there is no substitute for going out into the world and looking at the data. It's easy to dismiss some of this stuff as wacky if you know nothing about it.

The trouble with going out and looking, though, is that the more you learn, the more you realize that the evidence supports evolution. You may have to readjust your theology--like accepting some of the biblical stories as stories.

As for pre-big bang and the origin of life, those aren't evolution. They're pre-evolution. We don't know very much about those distant events. We do have some information, though, which allow us (ie, those who work on these questions) to "connect the dots" as well as they can. I don't think anyone imagines that we have the final answer (though I do think that anti-evolutionists think that scientists claim to have the final answer--which is simply a result of not understanding how science works).

[ST88]

I certainly will show you why I say what I say regarding the above. You have however skipped past the first two question of my last post regarding pre-big bang and life's origin. As I said previously, please address these first then I will give my summation.

Your statements regarding the pre-Big Bang condition and "life's orgin" have nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, I did not address them. If you would like to discuss either of these, I suggest doing so in different threads.

[Sender]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

If Protestants evolved from Catholics, why are Catholics still here?

I guess this means that you believe that evolution works by having individual animals go "pop" and turn into something else?

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

I presume that you've bought the goofy arguments of Wells and colleagues? I agree with ST88 that you'll need to be more explicit here. You might also want to explain how it's a lie to say "moths land on tree trunks." The complete story is that "moths land on tree trunks next to branches," but the standard schtick of anti-evolutionists is to say "scientists lied because moths don't land on tree trunks."

Or are you saying it's a lie to claim that these moths demonstrate natural selection in action because selection caused the population to shift toward the dark phase, then a second round of selection caused it to shift back toward the light phase, and "therefore, no net evolution took place"? That's their logic. Let me see if I've got it right: if I drive to Chicago, then drive home again, I didn't really go to Chicago because I'm now in the same place I started.

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Well, yeah. Horses are descended from their ancestors. Sure, half a century ago, we had only a few fossils, and "connected the dots" by drawing a single line through all of them. The idea people got was that there had been a smooth progression from tiny guys to today's Big Successful Horse. If you look here, you'll see that we know more now. There were bazillions of horse-type creatures, of which the few remaining equines are but a remnant. They are the last ones, the ones that haven't yet died out.

So what's wrong with describing horse evolution in textbooks? You're upset that we've learned more in the last 50 years, so the books say things that are different than they used to? What would be "lying" would be to keep the text unchanged, and insist on believing it as Absolute Truth, even when the facts no longer support the old interpretation. There are people who treat some books this way, I hear...

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

Ah, yes. This one. Here's what you do. Go to a museum and look at the fossils. The "Chinasaurs" exhibit a few years ago was a good one. The university museum in Bozeman, MT also has a good collection. You can even buy your own plaster cast of some of the fossils. The point here is that there is no substitute for going out into the world and looking at the data. It's easy to dismiss some of this stuff as wacky if you know nothing about it.

The trouble with going out and looking, though, is that the more you learn, the more you realize that the evidence supports evolution. You may have to readjust your theology--like accepting some of the biblical stories as stories.

As for pre-big bang and the origin of life, those aren't evolution. They're pre-evolution. We don't know very much about those distant events. We do have some information, though, which allow us (ie, those who work on these questions) to "connect the dots" as well as they can. I don't think anyone imagines that we have the final answer (though I do think that anti-evolutionists think that scientists claim to have the final answer--which is simply a result of not understanding how science works).

Jose, thank you for your response. Although vague, enlightning nontheless. Apparently you nor anyone else in here can answer those questions, otherwise we would have answered this pror to sixty plus reponseses this thread has been avoiding it. I will end this thread now, at least my participation. To not be able to explain from the beiginning, makes everything else(macro) hard imo. I do believe God created us, and is the creator of the universe. You guys don't know where you came from. Sad really. You will grasp at straws to believe anything other than the truth. In the words of one of the smartest men in the world, Sir Fred Hoyle, the great mathmatician and astronomer...<b>"...if you took all the planets in the galaxy, filled them with all blindmen, and gave them a rubics cube, and tried to have them all slove the cube at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening than energy creating itself".</b> If welcomed back, I may participate in other threads as ST88 suggested. Thanks guys.

[Sender]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

If Protestants evolved from Catholics, why are Catholics still here?

I guess this means that you believe that evolution works by having individual animals go "pop" and turn into something else?

The peppered moth: What's up with that?

I presume that you've bought the goofy arguments of Wells and colleagues? I agree with ST88 that you'll need to be more explicit here. You might also want to explain how it's a lie to say "moths land on tree trunks." The complete story is that "moths land on tree trunks next to branches," but the standard schtick of anti-evolutionists is to say "scientists lied because moths don't land on tree trunks."

Or are you saying it's a lie to claim that these moths demonstrate natural selection in action because selection caused the population to shift toward the dark phase, then a second round of selection caused it to shift back toward the light phase, and "therefore, no net evolution took place"? That's their logic. Let me see if I've got it right: if I drive to Chicago, then drive home again, I didn't really go to Chicago because I'm now in the same place I started.

The modern horse coming from an ancient four toed horse" . Still in textbooks.

Well, yeah. Horses are descended from their ancestors. Sure, half a century ago, we had only a few fossils, and "connected the dots" by drawing a single line through all of them. The idea people got was that there had been a smooth progression from tiny guys to today's Big Successful Horse. If you look here, you'll see that we know more now. There were bazillions of horse-type creatures, of which the few remaining equines are but a remnant. They are the last ones, the ones that haven't yet died out.

So what's wrong with describing horse evolution in textbooks? You're upset that we've learned more in the last 50 years, so the books say things that are different than they used to? What would be "lying" would be to keep the text unchanged, and insist on believing it as Absolute Truth, even when the facts no longer support the old interpretation. There are people who treat some books this way, I hear...

Birds coming from dinosaurs/reptiles. Still in textbooks.

Ah, yes. This one. Here's what you do. Go to a museum and look at the fossils. The "Chinasaurs" exhibit a few years ago was a good one. The university museum in Bozeman, MT also has a good collection. You can even buy your own plaster cast of some of the fossils. The point here is that there is no substitute for going out into the world and looking at the data. It's easy to dismiss some of this stuff as wacky if you know nothing about it.

The trouble with going out and looking, though, is that the more you learn, the more you realize that the evidence supports evolution. You may have to readjust your theology--like accepting some of the biblical stories as stories.

As for pre-big bang and the origin of life, those aren't evolution. They're pre-evolution. We don't know very much about those distant events. We do have some information, though, which allow us (ie, those who work on these questions) to "connect the dots" as well as they can. I don't think anyone imagines that we have the final answer (though I do think that anti-evolutionists think that scientists claim to have the final answer--which is simply a result of not understanding how science works).

Jose, thank you for your response. Although vague, enlightning nontheless. Apparently you nor anyone else in here can answer those questions, otherwise we would have answered this pror to sixty plus reponseses this thread has been avoiding it. I will end this thread now, at least my participation. To not be able to explain from the beiginning, makes everything else(macro) hard imo. I do believe God created us, and is the creator of the universe. You guys don't know where you came from. Sad really. You will grasp at straws to believe anything other than the truth. In the words of one of the smartest men in the world, Sir Fred Hoyle, the great mathmatician and astronomer...<b>"...if you took all the planets in the galaxy, filled them with all blindmen, and gave them a rubics cube, and tried to have them all slove the cube at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening than energy creating itself".</b> If welcomed back, I may participate in other threads as ST88 suggested. Thanks guys.

<b>btw Jose, you are wrong. I have other arguements, but you seem to
like to hear your owns words, and you seem to know what I am going to say(albeit wrong), I wouldn't want to get in your own way of debating yourself.

[ST88]

Jose, thank you for your response. Although vague, enlightning nontheless. Apparently you nor anyone else in here can answer those questions, otherwise we would have answered this pror to sixty plus reponseses this thread has been avoiding it. I will end this thread now, at least my participation. To not be able to explain from the beiginning, makes everything else(macro) hard imo. I do believe God created us, and is the creator of the universe. You guys don't know where you came from. Sad really. You will grasp at straws to believe anything other than the truth. In the words of one of the smartest men in the world, Sir Fred Hoyle, the great mathmatician and astronomer...<b>"...if you took all the planets in the galaxy, filled them with all blindmen, and gave them a rubics cube, and tried to have them all slove the cube at the same time, there is a far greater chance of that happening than energy creating itself".</b> If welcomed back, I may participate in other threads as ST88 suggested. Thanks guys.

I don't know why Creationists keep bringing up Sir Fred Hoyle. No doubt he was a genius at some things. And he apparently thought that life evolved through the arrival of mutating viruses from comets. He was also the source of the ridiculous analogy of the tornado in a junkyard creating a 747. Very little of this has to do with evolution.

But, upnorthfan, don't leave just because all your questions have been answered. We have this thread open for you and everything. So, any further questions you have about evolutionist lies are welcome. This is a forum dedicated to knowledge and understanding -- I, myself, am always on the lookout for knowledge, and I tend to discourage self-censorship for the sake of expediency, so I invite you to come back and finish what you started.

[Sender]

Fair enough ST88, and thank you for the re-welcome. I realize I came in here guns ablazen running you guys all over the map. Reason being, if you look from my perspective, I am coming into a forum that is anti-creation, and I certainly would be outnumbered, and I was expecting a condescending attitude, and that is what some posters gave me. So maybe a better option would of been to get to know who is who, and start from there. I enjoy a good debate, and I am always outnumbered so I am used to that. I do like the layout of your forum, it has some very nice features, although participation in numbers could stand improvement. I think overall your posters are knowledgeable, most probably more than me,and I think I can learn some things, which I am always open to doing. You are probably not going to change my mind, no more than I can change yours. And to be sure, that is not my goal. I just like to debate topics, and to learn what the other side is saying. The only other forum I belong to are sports forums. I signed up for another one like this, but haven't posted anything, and will not in the future. As for my two unanswered questions, I want to know what you guys think so we can move on to other topics in other threads. I will stay, you guys need an antagonists, otherwise you're sitting around philosophizing amongst yourselves. I don't see allot of creationist in here in other words. So the floor is whomevers, let's kick it after the two questions are answered.