Viceroy63 wrote: AAFitz wrote:Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.
Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago.
Because that date is a fiction, originally figured by some folks who decided to ignore millenia of church tradition and history and decided that they suddenly understood better than anyone the Bible timeline.
Viceroy63 wrote:Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today.
You keep saying this, but have yet to provide even one really true example. A few errors, fully acknowledged does not constitute 'all of evolutionary science".
Viceroy63 wrote:There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.
What do you think a transition fossil is?
Viceroy63 wrote:PILTDOWN FORGERY
This fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.
This one was advanced in 1912 and...
Dismissed in 1953
Like we have said, errors.... but you ignore the other fossil evidence. And, also that humans have less fossil evidence than many other species for some specific reasons, not the least of which is that humans are a pretty recent species AND because early humanoid lifestyles meant fewer remains would be preserved (fewer land species, in general, are preserved than ocean species).
Viceroy63 wrote:NEBRASKA MAN
This was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.
Yeah, and some creationist wanna-be's are STILL claiming they have evidence of foot prints of modern humans in the same rock as dinosaurs, despite the fact that this has been disproven over and over...
And the strange part is that Dr Morris has NOT refuted that, unlike the many "examples" you bring up which were refuted by scientists, not religious investigators claiming to practice science.
Viceroy63 wrote:NEANDERTHAAL MAN
This one was advanced as evidence in 1856.
Dismissed in 1960.
Uh? come again? Where do you get the idea that Neaderthal man was dismissed?
Neaderthals existed. The evidence for them has expanded, not shrunk. As more evidence is accumulated, many ideas about who they were have changed. For example, there is at least one anthropologist who suggests, because the fractures in their bones are very similar to injuries seen in rodeo riders, that the Neaderthal hunted by basically jumping on their prey, as well as the more typically envisioned idea of groups surrounding prey with big spears. Whether they are ancestors to modern humans is another question.. but it is still a question. Ironically, as someone else pointed out earlier, it looks like while they may not have been an ancestor, they were actually another type of human, capable perhaps of breeding with Cro Magnum
Viceroy63 wrote:ZINJANTROPHUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1959.
Dismissed in 1960.
RAMAPITHECUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1964.
Dismissed in 1979
And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not,
Show your references. They are just plain wrong.
Viceroy63 wrote:So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.
I see, so you refuse to accept challenged and verified data put forward by not just thousands, but millions of scientists and graduate students, even amateurs in some cases, but you believe every word put forward by Dr Morris and his cronies, even though they have been utterly refuted by any credible scientist that investigates their claims.... MANY Of which don't even really require science to refute, just a basic understanding of how you actually prove something. I mean, to claim that a 4 year study of Echnidea "finding nothing" is conclusive that evolutionists are wrong about its descent just requires knowing that its taken decades, even hundred of years to prove some basic concepts in science.. and that many questions have been investigated without answers and yet, scientists still feel the answers might someday be found.