Evolution refuting catholicism?

[vern_humphrey]

RSiscoe:

Interesting. Galileo was tried for heresy for claiming that a historical fact from the Bible was in error? I find that very interesting, and informative as to the Churches understanding of the infallibility of the Bible, don’t you?

Wrong again – the heresy was in attacking the FAITH and using things like the sun standing still as a weapon.

In fact, letters from Cardinal Belarmino exist where he AGREES wtih Galilieo on the science – but rebukes him for using it to attack the faith.

 

[RSiscoe]

vern humphrey:

Wrong again – the heresy was in attacking the FAITH and using things like the sun standing still as a weapon.

In fact, letters from Cardinal Belarmino exist where he AGREES wtih Galilieo on the science – but rebukes him for using it to attack the faith.

Yes that is true, but how did he attack the faith? By claiming, as you wrote above, that the Bible contained errors. As you said, he was tried for heresy for claiming that a historical fact was wrong. Since the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is without error, Galileo was attacking the faith by claiming it had errors.

 

[rossum]

dcdurel:

Evidently you even didn’t know that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.
It was even on television a few months ago in which National Geographic admitted they were fooled, and they showed the X-Rays proving the fossil was a hoax.
This is one article on the hoax. There are many more.

apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0105a.htm

Archaeopteryx is not a hoax, the hoax mistakenly published by National Geographic was Archaeoraptor, which was quickly identified as such. Please get your facts right.

dcdurel:

ornithologist Allan Feduccia

Who does not think that birds descended from dinosaurs but instead thinks that they descended from non-dinosaurian Archosaurs (crocodiles etc.) I too can quote Alan Feduccia, from Discover magazine:

Question: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?

Feduccia’s answer: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.
discover.com/feb_03/breakdialogue.html (at the bottom of the page)

dcdurel:

Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

Look up “RNA World” and “rybozyme”. In short neither came first. RNA can act both as DNA and as Proteins. DNA is better at being DNA, but rubbish at being a protein. Proteins are good at being a protein but cannot act as DNA. RNA can do both, albeit a bit less efficiently than the specialists, jack of all trades and master of none.

dcdurel:

How could sexual reproduction evolve?

Because it has advantages over asexual reproduction. See here.

dcdurel:

How could immune systems evolve?

Try here or here.

rossum

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

RSiscoe:

Actually, that is not right. The problem was not that he believed and taught that the earth revolved around the sun, but that the Bible contained errors. Others much earlier than Galileo had discussed this possibility. One of them was St. Thomas Aquinas who is known as one of the Churches greatest theologians.

Again, Galileo was not condemned for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun, but for claiming that the Bible had errors. If anyone tells you otherwise they are not being honest.

It is true than many people disagreed with Galileo’s science, and thought he was wrong, but that is not why he was condemned.

Not correct. Galileo was tried right after the pope read his book on the heliocentric and geocentric thoerys. He compaired them and basically stated that the heliocentric is correct. The pope, who was attempting to explain science threw a fit after someone dared to disagree with him, so he send Galileo to the inquesition. Is there really any arguement to this?

He’s what Galileo said in his repentace in front of Reverend Father Vincenzo Maculano:

“With sincere heart and unpretended faith I [reject] …, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies [of Copernicus] and also every other error … contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert… anything that might cause a similar suspicion toward me.”

–Galileo

Could it be any clearer that he was repenting only for the heresy of believeing the heliocentric thoery? Also see:

freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html

 

[hecd2]

clmowry:

Is this an assumption, or are you saying that there is data that “proves” that there are different evolutionary ancestors for various people. i.e. They can’t possibly converge at a single point? Or that we cannot find a “MRCA” for the entire population without testing the entire population?

Dear Chuck,

Actually, it’s none of these things. The evidence precludes the possibility that modern humans descend from two ancestors in the time since the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages. The evidence suggests that humans probably have common ancestors in the last 100,000 years (common ancestors are individuals who stand in the ancestry of every human alive today) but in the same generation as the common ancestors, there must have been other individuals who are ancestors of at least part of the human population. 'Convergence to a single point ’ is known in the jargon of biology as coalescence. The molecular evidence excludes the possibility that human ancestry coalesced in the last 6 million years at least.

In a post above somewhere you indicae that there must be at least 29 ancestors (or something to that effect) but the arguement seems to be dependent upon a multitiude of staticical assumptions. No? i.e. Is this a probability or certainty?

The reason why 29 ancestors is the logical minimum (but the actual minmum is much higher) is because there are 58 alleles of the polymorphic locus DRB-1 in the HLA complex that do not coalesce before 500,000 years BP. It is impossible for a population of less than 29 individuals to sustain 58 alleles in principle (and in practice it requires a much larger population - about 10,000 individuals - to sustain 58 alleles). Other sites in the Major Histocompatibility Complex are even more polymorphic.

Is there a further point/assumption her that even if a comon ancestor of the Earth’s current population was statistically possible, then that still wouldn’t point to a sole ancestor for mankind because some humans not currently alive would not have the same ancestor?

That is so, but it is not an argument I’m making. I don’t need to make that argument because the evidence we have is sufficient to show that even if we have common ancestors (which we have), they are not sole ancestors.

Assuming for a second that a Sole “Human” Ancestor for the Human race was a fact, and that you were actually trying to prove there was a Sole Ancestor, rather than eliminate the posiblity, then how would go about proving such a thing? Is it even possible, given that we cannot possibly test the genentic makeup of every person that has ever lived?

Chuck

It is much easier to demonstrate multiple ancestry (which we have done and which is the case) than a bottleneck of one or two individuals. If we were to find a population with extremely low polymorphism then we would suspect a tight recent bottleneck, but I know of no way of being certain that the bottleneck was one or two individuals. Similarly, a more diverse species that shares very few ancestral alleles with the species that is its nearest relative would indicate tight, more distant bottleneck, but again it is impossible to say just how tight. There are other markers for very narrow bottlenecks, such a increased homozygosity, but again, this cannot prove a bottleneck of one or two individuals. None of these characteristics apply to humans who are polymorphic and who share many ancestral alleles with other great apes.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

Not correct. Galileo was tried right after the pope read his book on the heliocentric and geocentric thoerys. He compaired them and basically stated that the heliocentric is correct. The pope, who was attempting to explain science threw a fit after someone dared to disagree with him, so he send Galileo to the inquesition. Is there really any arguement to this?

He’s what Galileo said in his repentace in front of Reverend Father Vincenzo Maculano:

“With sincere heart and unpretended faith I [reject] …, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies [of Copernicus] and also every other error … contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert… anything that might cause a similar suspicion toward me.”

–Galileo

Could it be any clearer that he was repenting only for the heresy of believeing the heliocentric thoery? Also see:

freethought.mbdojo.com/galileo.html

Not quite. The controversy was a long one – it occupied several years, and his chief opponent, Cardinl Belarmino agreed with his science.

He was tried for heresy because that was the only charge they could bring against him. His abjuration was formulaic.

Let’s face it – when they want to get someone, they frequently use what they can get. Al Capone was responsible for muders, bootlegging and many other crimes – but never convicted of them. So they finally got him on income tax evasion.

Someone reading the record of Al Capone’s trial – and not familiar with the whole story – could come up with some wierd ideas about justice in America.

 

[hecd2]

**Nature **published an online article on December 1, 2004 that was very interesting :

Ancient mammal genes reconstructed

Roxanne Khamsi http://www.nature.com/images/spacer.gifSequenced genomes provide key for tracing ancestral DNA. http://www.nature.com/images/spacer.gif
[snip]

"The researchers attribute the success of their technique to the fact that mammalian genomes are generally very diverse. This makes any regions of DNA they share in common stand out more clearly. “It’s a pleasant surprise that mammals diversified so rapidly into different lineages that have surviving members today,” says Haussler. “It gives us this opportunity to uncover the past.”

Back to the future

"Once they had determined that the technique was accurate, the researchers used the algorithm on DNA sequences from real mammals.

"The team took 19 modern mammals, including the pig,** human** and rat, and used the algorithm to work out the genome of their common ancestor, thought to be a shrew-like animal that lived more than 70 million years ago. They focused on a small region of the genome that codes for ten genes.

"One surprising result was that, compared with the ancestral sequence, the human sequence has lost only 11% of the genetic units called bases, whereas in rodents around 39% have been deleted. The researchers think this is probably because rats and similar animals go through generations more quickly, so they accumulate mutations faster.

“The comparison with the recreated ancestral DNA should give other researchers clues about how and when the various descendants branched off. “You can see what special twists made each species different,” says Haussler.”

nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/041129-5.html

Mary~

Dear Mary,

Thank for this - fascinating - reconstructing ancestral genomens and karyotypes is a new science. Not long ago in Nature we had this, that I posted once before:

Jaillon et al,‘Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype, Nature 431; 946 -957’

The paper is too detailed and involved to summarise in any detail here, but the two major conclusions are that sometime in the ancestry of teleost fish about 230 million years ago there occured a complete genome duplication (if you are interested I can post a summary of the evidence for this); and that the common ancestor of humans and puffer fish (which lived about 400 million years ago) had 12 pairs of chromosomes (puffer fish have 21 pairs and humans 23 pairs) - they even determine on which of the 12 chromosomes of our common ancestor (which was an unknown primitive fish) particular genes reside. They also determine the major chromosomal events that occurred in the puffer fish lineage to convert from the 12 ancestral to the extant 21 chromosomes: a whole genome duplication, two ancient fusions, three recent fusions, one ancient and one recent fission and three major translocations). A similar analysis in the human lineage shows a more complicated pattern of chromosomal rearrangements but correctly predicts the well known recent fusion of two primate chromosomes to form human chromosome 2, the different origins of the two arms of the human X-chromosome, and the fission of a single ancestral chromosome to form chromosome 12 and 22 in the primates.

However fascinating, neither of these are particularly strong evidence for evolution - they both use evolutionary theory to arrive at their conclusions.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

clmowry:

Yeah I was being a wise guy. But then again, so were you!

But the Church taught neither Ptolemaic or Copernican astronomy. The “Church” doesn’t teach science. It teaches theologhy. i.e. It can’t be accused of teach anything wrong on either theory of astronomy.

Now I would concur that the chruch overreacted to Galileo’s breaking his promise not to puplicly proclaim Copernican astronomy as true.

This is probably the most overblown conflict in Church history.

Chuck

The Church teaches monogeny. That’s dabbling in science and it’s wrong.

For those of you who think that the Church did not condemn Galileo on ‘scientific’ grounds, read the papal condemnation at his trial:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:…

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

As for it being an overblown, reflect that one of the greatest thinkers of all time was suppressed by men who were not fit to tie the laces of his shoes. It is a shameful episode in the history of the Church - at least the current Pope recognised that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[clmowry]

hecd2:

The evidence suggests that humans probably have common ancestors in the last 100,000 years (common ancestors are individuals who stand in the ancestry of every human alive today) but in the same generation as the common ancestors, there must have been other individuals who are ancestors of at least part of the human population. 'Convergence to a single point ’ is known in the jargon of biology as coalescence. The molecular evidence excludes the possibility that human ancestry coalesced in the last 6 million years at least.

Perhaps with a couple hundred more posts I can get to the correct question. But I think this is coming closer.

Donesn’t the 100,000 years for a common ancestor and the 6 million years for coalescence come from and “assumed” rate of evolution?

i.e. If for whatever reason the rate of evolution in a species was substantially different at some point in time wouldn’t it change all the dates?

Also I thought there was a very “humanish” homind foscil that was dated at 4 million years or so? Isn’t that sufficiently close to the 6 million year mark as “not” to preclude coalescence?

Chuck

 

[Newman60]

Led Zeppelin75:

Okay guys, here’s what we must do to have an intelligant debate on creationism and evolution:

1. No more quoteing popes, Catechicm, bible, ect…
2. No more assuming you’re right just because the Church or bible favors your position (lack of open-mindedness).
3. No more holding sceintists to a higher accountablity just because they are theists.
4. Last but not least, be open-minded. If you never look at anything past the Church you’ll never discover anything past the Church.
   There we go, now who wants to start an INTELLIGANT debate. :tsktsk:

Let’s see now. One side should just give up everything while the other side doesn’t even have to admit how much theirs is a faith system. And that will supposedly lead to an INTELLIGENT debate. Please get serious.
Newman60

 

[hecd2]

clmowry:

Perhaps with a couple hundred more posts I can get to the correct question. But I think this is coming closer.

Donesn’t the 100,000 years for a common ancestor and the 6 million years for coalescence come from and “assumed” rate of evolution?

i.e. If for whatever reason the rate of evolution in a species was substantially different at some point in time wouldn’t it change all the dates?

Also I thought there was a very “humanish” homind foscil that was dated at 4 million years or so? Isn’t that sufficiently close to the 6 million year mark as “not” to preclude coalescence?

Chuck

Dear Chuck,

It’s OK - this stuff is not easy if you’re not reading and working with it all the time

The 100,000 years and 6 million years are not ‘assumed’ but a conclusion from the palaeontological evidence that indicates a divergence date of human and chimpanzee lineages of 6 to 7 million years BP.

There is no reason to think that the rate of neutral evolution is wildly variable over time - it depends primarily on the population size and the generation period of the species. The identical degree of divergence between human and mouse genomes in non-coding sites and at four fold degenerate sites in coding sequences is stunning evidence for this.

Actually the dates or rates of evolution don’t matter that much for this argument. Just let’s suppose that something about the molecular clocks was hugely out of kilter (it’s not - but let’s just suppose it was). Well the molecular evidence says that 21 ancestral alleles at DRB-1 are shared between chimp and human. That gives a logical minimum population in the human lineage of 12 individuals since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees, *whenever that divergence occurred. *And there are loci that are ten times as polymorphic as DRB-1
Look, it’s not just DRB-1 that supports the 10,000 minimum ancestral population for humans - it’s also beta-globin, apolipoprotein C II, mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA and other autosomal DNA sites.

As for the human-like hominid fossil at 4My BP (Australopithecus anamensis, A afarensis and Kenyanthropus platyops are at this period, none of which are very close to modern humans), I don’t know what you are referring to, but palaeontological evidence does not affect the molecular evidence.

Alec
.evolutionpages.com

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

vern humphrey:

Not quite. The controversy was a long one – it occupied several years, and his chief opponent, Cardinl Belarmino agreed with his science.

He was tried for heresy because that was the only charge they could bring against him. His abjuration was formulaic.

Let’s face it – when they want to get someone, they frequently use what they can get. Al Capone was responsible for muders, bootlegging and many other crimes – but never convicted of them. So they finally got him on income tax evasion.

Someone reading the record of Al Capone’s trial – and not familiar with the whole story – could come up with some wierd ideas about justice in America.

Yes, I’m sure that’s taught in textbooks all over America. But when we’re discussing reality here that plays no relevance.

Outrageous statement=compairing Al Capone to Galileo

 

[clmowry]

hecd2:

The 100,000 years and 6 million years are not ‘assumed’ but a conclusion from the palaeontological evidence that indicates a divergence date of human and chimpanzee lineages of 6 to 7 million years BP.

I didn’t mean that 100,000 years for a comon ancestor and the 6 million years coalesnce were dependent upon and assumed rate of evolution. Perhaps assumed is a bad term. Perhaps based on “currently observable rates of genetic evolution for primates” would be a better way to say it.

i.e. I remember reading somewhere that at a rate of change of “400 Darwins” or something like that, that a mouse could become an elephant in 10,000 years. I also remember reading somewhere that the observed rates of evolution varied from like 0.6-10,000 Darwins. (Maybe Darwins refered to physical characteristics rather than genetic characteristics?)

The question was “if” at some point the rate was 400…instead of 0.6 (or whatever is in the “assumption”) would the time for common ancestory and humans and coallescence change dramatically.

hecd2:

Well the molecular evidence says that 21 ancestral alleles at DRB-1 are shared between chimp and human. That gives a logical minimum population in the human lineage of 12 individuals since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees, *whenever that divergence occurred. *And there are loci that are ten times as polymorphic as DRB-1
Look, it’s not just DRB-1 that supports the 10,000 minimum ancestral population for humans - it’s also beta-globin, apolipoprotein C II, mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA and other autosomal DNA sites.

This is where evolution and I have our disagrement (if I understand what you are saying).

Why would we expect “12” or “10,000” individuals “evolve” at the same time to form this minimum ancestral population?

If I understand you then different some number of chimp/human parents would have to give birth to 12 (10,000) different human ancestors?

Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?

Chuck

 

[dcdurel]

Led Zeppelin75:

Are you serious? Einstein rejected it through first observation.

That is incorrect. Einsteins own theory called for an expanding universe. He simply did not want to believe it. So he came up with a factor to make his calculations come up with a steady state universe.
It was the same for Hawkings. He too tried everyway to come up with theories that could justify a universe that always existed, thus one that did not need God. He finally gave up because of all the evidence for an expanding universe, which is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating.

 

[dcdurel]

hecd2:

The Church teaches monogeny. That’s dabbling in science and it’s wrong.

For those of you who think that the Church did not condemn Galileo on ‘scientific’ grounds, read the papal condemnation at his trial:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:…

That was only theologians who wrote that. Theologians have absolutely no authority to teach for the Church.
In fact, the Popes spend most of their efforts trying to protect Church teachings from the crazy theories of Catholic theologians. Almost every teaching encyclical they write is to
correct the errors introduced or promoted by Catholic theologians and scripture scholars.

I repeat what I told you before, ONLY the POPE and those few bishops in union with the Pope can teach for the Church. This is not my opinion, but it has always been the teaching of the Church.

And despite encyclical after encyclical, papal bull after papal bull, the Popes have NEVER taught error when teaching for all Christians on any matter pertaining to faith or morals. Even on evolution or any science that has to do with faith or morals.

 

[dcdurel]

PhilVaz:

durel << Face facts. Evolution is so stupid that only man’s sinful pride could account for it. And man’s sinful pride is not a theory, but a constant everyday fact. >>

Evolution is only so stupid when you are so dense. The links I provided demonstrate the reptile and avian (bird) features of these creatures. They are transitional fossils by any meaningful definition. Archaeopteryx is not a hoax, there are 8 specimens with very well defined reptile and bird characteristics both. Again transitional fossils.

You are correct, Archaeopteryx was not a hoax. It was Archaoraptor that was the hoax.
Archaeopteryx was one of the species that you claimed was an intermediate. I said there are NO intermediate species between birds and reptiles. I said that because evolutionists themselves admit this fact, and because the few who don’t admit this fact cannot point to a single valid fossil. That is why National Geographic was so easily fooled. Evolutionists will do anything to try to find a valid transitional fossil.
Now to prove a point I made earlier. If you look at the separate arguments by themselves, evolution appears plausible. But it is mostly plausible because evolutionists are not the most honest, objective people in the world. Archaeopteryx is a perfect example. You were certain that it was one of the many intermediate species, because some evolutionist said so in his writings. Now when we let an expert look at the fossil, and an evolutionist at that we get a different picture.
Dr. Alan Feduccia, is a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself. As one article said:
“What Feduccia has discovered the past couple of years contradicts some long-held ideas about bird evolution. His recent paper in the journal Science shows that the toothy, reptile-like Archaeopteryx wasn’t the ancestor of all birds as most scientists had long believed. Instead, it seems, Archaeopteryx was just one of nature’s many experiments.”
Yet for years all these evolutionists were saying that *Archaeopteryx * was definitly the missing link.How can I believe these evolutionists?
Obviously evolution isn’t based on science, but on wishful thinking.

 

[dcdurel]

I used to believe in evolution. But again, it is the deceptive NON-OBJECTIVE evolutionists themselves that turned me away from the crazy theory.
Here are a few examples:
**Piltdown man – **When subjected to a test developed in 1950 that dated fossils, Piltdown turned out to be 1,000 years old rather than 500,000 years old as claimed by evolutionists. The bones had been treated with iron salts to make them look older and the teeth appeared to have been filed to enhance the “authenticity.” Even thought proved to be a fraud, Piltdown is still included in the lore or evolution.
Nebraska man – A myth was concocted when someone fond a tooth in Nebraska in 1922. Examinations later proved the tooth came from an extinct pig.

Peking man – Based on the discovery of 30 skull fragments, four lower jaws and 147 teeth in a cave near Peking during the early 1900’s, Peking man was conjured up. Somehow, all the “evidence” mysteriously disappeared, yet Peking man is included in evolutionary “history.”

Neanderthal man – Once touted as the missing link after being discovered in the Neander Valley, Germany, Neanderthal man has now been reclassified as a Homo Sapien (modern man). X-rays proved that arthritis caused him to walk in a stooped position. Many encyclopedias still refer to him as prehuman.

**Ramapithecus – **Based on the discovery of a jaw and a couple of teeth in 1932, Ramapithecus was established and presented as the missing link. Many highly-respected experts now say Ramapithecus is an orangutan.

**Australopithecus – **Current number one contender for missing link, Australopithecus, constructed from a few bone fragments and someone’s huge imagination, also is regarded by many experts as most likely being an orangutan.

Several years ago, all these were discussed with such seriousness and certainty, that anyone who disagreed was labeled as ignorant and backwards. They were in all the textbooks.

I was taught "ontogeny recaptulates philogeny"
in college, in which human embryos are said to have “gill slits” and other features which show the evolutionary history. But this was the a fraud promoted for more than 100 years. It was based on the drawings of Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist whose artwork has been used in high school and college science textbooks for more than a hundred years, which have been demonstrated to be fake. According to the magazine article, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London has proven that the drawings “were purposely faked to bolster the evolutionary argument.” Michael Richardson said that “not only did Haeckel add or omit critical features to increase the appearance of similarity between species, he also obscured differences in scale to enhance the effect he wished to create.”

Where are the retractions for all these frauds and hoaxes?
How can you trust these people when half are dishonest, the other half are blinded by a theory, and none are purely objective.

These are only **SOME **of the frauds and errors.

 

[dcdurel]

Now, does anyone want to discuss the evolutionists theory on how life originated? They go hand and hand. Life originated without God and it developed without God. Can’t have half and half. One or the other. Right?
The theory on the origin of life is so stupid that it makes evolutionists look like mental cases. They actually claim that amino acids somehow joined hands and came together and magically formed the correct proteins to form cell walls, cell proteins, DNA, RNA , and the necessary enzymes. And these cell walls were perfect, with no errors, the DNA, RNA, and other proteins were perfect. And not only that, but somehow, somehow, this dead structure actually was given life!!!
Or perhaps it simply started up on its own.
Just think, evolutionists think that the dead structure can come alive! They believe in miracles! Talk about faith in man.
And guess what? That is not all.
Somehow all these chemicals also knew how to reproduce and make more live things just like them. Miracle of miracles! That dang thang can even multiply and make more of itself ! Smartest glob of amino acids I ever saw.
And think of those poor stupid creationists, who actually believe they need a God to perform miracles. Evolutionists can make miracles without God!

And some wonder why people think evolutionists just a little off.

 

[PhilVaz]

durel << You are correct, Archaeopteryx was not a hoax. It was Archaoraptor that was the hoax. >>

Well okay, now we’re getting somewhere. -opteryx (8 specimens dating back to the 19th century) vs. -raptor (1 specimen and very soon realized it was a conflation of two species). Big difference. Thanks for your grudging admission that creationists make occasional mistakes as well.

Now on to Dr. Feduccia (you were already answered above on him however)

durel << Dr. Alan Feduccia, is a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself. >>

Yeah I get it. He has a different view on the dinosaur to bird evolutionary path. Does he deny birds evolved? No. Does he claim its impossible to evolve a feather as you did earlier? No. Does he deny that Archaeopteryx is indeed half-reptile and half-bird? No. Does he conclude evolution is “wishful thinking” as you have? No. Here is what he said on these questions (already quoted above, please read all the replies you get)

Question: “Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. How do you feel about that?”

Feduccia’s answer: “Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.”

In summary, according to Feduccia:

(1) Creationists are distorting his arguments
(2) Archaeopteryx is definitely half-reptile and half-bird
(3) Therefore, (2) is a Rosetta stone for evolution
(4) Evolution is an indisputable fact

How those points assist your creationist arguments and tell against my evolutionist arguments I do not know.

END OF PART 1 “For the birds…”

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

durel << Yet for years all these evolutionists were saying that Archaeopteryx was definitly the missing link.How can I believe these evolutionists? >>

Feduccia is definitely saying Archaeopteryx is half-bird and half-reptile and therefore a transitional fossil = missing link so I don’t see the problem here. He has a different view on precisely how birds evolved, but that also is not a problem. He is saying Archaeopteryx may not be directly related to the dinosaurs. Fine. We don’t know everything about the mechanisms of evolution, but no reputable scientist today working in the field denies it happened (except cranks at ICR, AiG, or the Kolbe Center).

Here is more Feduccia’s view you can look up and try to understand better:

A Big-Bang View of Birds

EXCERPT: Feduccia has broken more new ground with his “big-bang” theory. He thinks that the ancestors of all today’s birds evolved explosively in only about 5 to 10 million years. In traditional theory, all modern bird orders appeared by 80 to 90 million years ago and “oozed” into the present. That makes no sense, Feduccia says, because the cataclysmic event that killed the dinosaurs would have extinguished most birds too.

SUMMARY: Feduccia believes birds evolved much faster than most evolutionists do, and that they were not directly related to the dinosaurs.

EXCERPT: He agrees with the theory that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. After this “protoavis” started climbing, it began leaping from tree to tree.

SUMMARY: Common descent and evolution is a fact, and the birds are definitely related to the reptiles and evolved from them.

His 1996 book The Origin and Evolution of Birds challenges the bird from dinosaur theory, but he accepts bird evolution as a fact, and their relation to reptiles, also as a fact.

OK, your turn to continue to distort Feduccia or accept bird evolution as a indisputable fact like he does. I expect you to run to your local university library, get Feduccia’s book, read it, take copious notes, and write a full report in the morning. Don’t forget class, final exams are next week.

Phil P