Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
has in no way been proven false. What has been proven false are the antiquated ways of thinking within the discipline of anthropology which YOU continually trot out as current scholarship but in reality, have not been taken seriously for the last 20 to 30 years.
Please note that there is absolutely NOTHING linear about the evolutionary timeline as depicted above in current anthropological scholarship.
But, just between you, me, and the fence post? There is indeed a huge conspiracy from the level of the state district courts, through the appellate courts, to the federal district courts, the appeals court, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States to quash any and all evidence that shows support for creationism. You of course, don't get the newsletter because WE all know which way you lean.
Mary Leakey's conclusion on evolution would agree with mine. Quoted by the Associated Press. Leakey said "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, (THATS A LOT OF NONSENSE)." 12/9/1996
Amen Mary.
And BTW, I never supported a 6,000 year old earth. So I have no idea why you said, (MY PRECIOUS 6,000 YEAR OLD EARTH). I believe the Bible supports a 14,000 to 15,000 year old earth. Can you show me even one post where I supported a 6,000 year old earth?
There is nothing in the fossil record that supports evolutions tree of life.
As Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard states.
"All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors-we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...and it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines." Haper's, 2/84
So what believers in Evolution have been doing is making up their own stories and beliefs, and pretending it is sound science. Some use to call it the family tree. Some now call it the family bush. Yet Marys Leakey's conclusion I believe is the most accurate. When talking about the family tree, her comment was. (THATS A LOT OF NONSENSE). She stated that in an Associated Press interview, just three months before her death.
Every bible site I've seen, including your favorite apologetic quote mining sites (the source of the quotes in this post) put the age of the universe at between 4000 and 8000 years BC. All say the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago....Why do you believe differently?
Ah ha, I have found the site where you found the Mary Leaky quote, and it is most likely the site that inspired you to start this thread...Do you ever have any thoughts of your own?
Evolution: Its Collapse In View? (http://www.rae.org/collapse.html - broken link)
Ah ha, I have found the site where you found the Mary Leaky quote, and it is most likely the site that inspired you to start this thread...Do you ever have any thoughts of your own?
Evolution: Its Collapse In View? (http://www.rae.org/collapse.html - broken link)
Earlier I searched for a good 30 minutes and couldn't find that quote online anywhere but on creationist sites. Unfortunately I didn't have time to search longer.
Actually, Scopes did not lose the case, because a year later the Tennessee Supreme court reversed the decision of the Dayton court on a technicallity. So no, I am not going to retract this.
You're not?
You posted: "Four scientist were able to convince the jury that the Piltdown Man, Java man, and others showed the progression to where we are today."
No jury was convinced. It didn't happen. I'm perfectly aware of the conviction being set aside on appeal - gee, I even posted that.
Doesn't make your elaborate untruth any more true. You don't get to claim that the Scopes trial was decided against your side on a faulty scientific basis for one simple reason: It didn't happen. (There's a name for those who willfully make untrue statements, you know.)
Quote:
And most states after this case voted to allow evolution to be taught, so in that sense, he also won.
The anti-science crowd won the case and lost their cause, which I happen to think is just peachy.
Quote:
Yet today, we have the opposite problem. Evidence that would reveal that Evolutions family tree is false, has been blocked by the courts, and such evidence will not be allowed to be taught in the classroom. And even thought most Americans believe it should be, the courts have had the last word on this.
Still smarting from Kitzmiller v. Dover, huh? Good.
Earlier I searched for a good 30 minutes and couldn't find that quote online anywhere but on creationist sites. Unfortunately I didn't have time to search longer.
I just found a tidbit from the St. Petersburg Times on Mary Leakey, and it gives the impression she was simply saying that she did not believe scientists would ever be able to exactly pinpoint when primitive man became fully "modern". It takes on quite a different meaning when read in that context, and makes a lot more sense in comparison to her career.
You posted: "Four scientist were able to convince the jury that the Piltdown Man, Java man, and others showed the progression to where we are today."
No jury was convinced. It didn't happen. I'm perfectly aware of the conviction being set aside on appeal - gee, I even posted that.
Doesn't make your elaborate untruth any more true. You don't get to claim that the Scopes trial was decided against your side on a faulty scientific basis for one simple reason: It didn't happen. (There's a name for those who willfully make untrue statements, you know.)
The anti-science crowd won the case and lost their cause, which I happen to think is just peachy.
Still smarting from Kitzmiller v. Dover, huh? Good.
Dane_in_LA, if it makes you feel good, you are right, and it was my mistake. The jury was not convinced by the false evidence presented for evolution. So the non evolution crowd won. Yet their win was short lived when the verdict was over turned by a higher court.
.
Campbell34,
I think that much of the confusion regarding evolution can be attributed to the fact that a great many people don't realize that species are always branching out in different directions. When a creationist asks the question "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" this illustrates the point I'd like to make. Evolution does not proceed in a linear or straight line from point A to point B. The reason it becomes difficult to trace the lineage from an ancestral stock to a species living today is because so much branching has taken place that it's hard to figure out which ones died out and which ones evolved into species that continued to evolve into other species which are living today. In other words, the problem isn't a lack of fossil ancestors or missing links (to use your outdated term), the problem is that there are so many of them. As more fossils are discovered and analyzed that fall within a time period in which we didn't already have fossils then it makes the job alot easier to piece it al together.
There is one fact that no creationist can talk their way out of. Modern species are only found in modern strata and as dating has become far more precise scientists can place newly discovered fossils into their correct geologic timeframe. If evolution was not factual then all of the fossils would not be so neatly arranged by the age of the strata that they're found in.
If the evidence was totally false, then why was the verdict overturned?
In the interest of full disclosure and strict factuality: The verdict was set aside (I do not know enough law to know whether that means the same as overturned) because the judge set the fine and not the jury. This was incorrect procedure for a fine of that size.
Anyway, legally Scopes was guilty as sin, and that has nothing to do with scientific validity. The law was pretty clear: Teaching anything but Biblical creationism - especially evolution - was illegal in Tennessee. There could have been no other outcome. The entire purpose of the case was to check the constitutionality of the law, but having the verdict overturned blew that plan out of the water and the law stayed on the books for a few decades more, although nobody from either side wanted to test it again.
I guess the Tennessee Supreme Court knew a hot potato when they saw one and were quite relieved to locate that procedural snag.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 08-23-2009 at 06:18 PM..
Reason: Added "Biblical"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
