This is for SlyPokerDog "Archeoraptor ((photo)). Archeoraptor was heavily promoted by National Geographic Society and Nature magazine as a “feathered dinosaur” and was claimed to be an intermediate evolutionary link between a reptile and a bird. However, it has been shown to be an intentional fraud where two fossils were placed together giving the appearance of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s head. Today most scientific organizations continue to ignore evidence of creation, placing fraudulent information in TV “documentaries” and in publications to support their evolutionistic religion, even many years after these items have been proven scientifically false. This is particularly true of National Geographic and Nature magazines whose agenda is to promote evolution and “Mother Earth.” However, their initial premise, that there is no God, is wrong. They believe there is no God, even though all evidence is to the contrary. All of the evidence in the universe, including all the laws of science, prove that there is an Almighty God who created the heavens, the earth, and humankind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil So tell me how this tree grew for 100,000,000 years? That's a freaken old ass tree!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs "more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered" you're like going off the deep end or something. for about the 8th time: evolution does not refute god, only a literal interpretation of genesis. half of christians in the USA believe in evolution. your dichotomy is false. 40% of scientists are theists. science is not an anti-god conspiracy.
Nope just pointing out that there are holes in the system. Also, that even paleontologists will falsify information. Am I wrong?
no when you say scientific organizations ignore evidence for creation and promote false evidence you are overtly claiming a conspiracy. there are a few bad apples in any profession.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say it's a conspiracy? Cool, glad you agree. Now we can move on.
If they weren't forced to learn the evolutionary lie in public schools what do you think that number would be? I think they should present both theories, flaws and all, and let the students decide for themselves what they want to believe, instead of passing off Darwinism as factual truth.
many scientific organizations ignore evidence and promote false evidence! but there's no conspiracy. covert atheist comedian. glad you agree that a few hoaxes perpetrated by a few bad apples don't reflect on the integrity of the scientific community in any way.
most people that gain a detailed understanding of evolution do so in college, not public grade or high schools. conspiracy!!!!!!
There are many religions in the world, nearly all of them have different silly theories of life's beginnings. Should we teach them all or just your personal silly religion? Evolution is not a religion, it's how we got here. It's real, not fiction. If you want to learn about religion, go to a religious school. If you want to learn about the real world, go to the library.
You calling evolution real and how we got here is calling it a religion, since there’s no actual proof or evidence that it’s true or can even happen. It takes more faith to believe in a purely naturalistic worldview than to believe any religion because of how absurdly improbable it is, and common sense says life can’t spontaneously generate from non-life. And that’s just the starting point too, there are so many insane improbabilities and flat-out impossibilities that naturalistic Darwinian evolution would have to account for in order for it to be true. And that’s only a very small part the puzzle, you then have to account for Cosmological and Teleological arguments, as well as Moral Laws among other things. Your belief is based on blind faith, not facts or evidence.
What makes it dangerous is that one of the findings was an actual finding for 30 years. You would think that modern science would be able to debunk it quickly.
if you are referring to piltdown man that was disputed almost immediately. it was never accepted as an "actual finding" within the scientific community.
The evidence is overwhelming and thoroughly conclusive. You being ignorant of the evidence or denying it exists simply to protect your fragile belief in magic god(s) doesn't help your arguement, such as it is.
Don't you see? The evidence is all part of an elaborate test by God to filter the sheep from the goats. If He made it TOO obvious that the earth is 6,000 years old, EVERYONE would be believers, and property taxes in heaven would skyrocket.
Not so sure what you're asking, nothing has to happen in sequence or simultaneously, if you acquire a bad mutation you're often less genetically fit and therefor get weeded out. And everything happens in "micro-evolution" there's no one big game changing mutation that suddenly changes your species. speciation is a process that takes thousands of years. Also an eagle eye is very similar to that of a lizard, they're much different than mammal eyes that use a whole different mechanism to focus. Birds and lizard have bones in their eyes to change the shape of the lens, which is pretty neat.
Wrong. Just because you want it badly to be true, doesn't make it so. There is no evidence for abiogenesis and any attempt to explain it or reproduce it has failed miserably. A single celled organism is more complex than anything human beings have ever created, and there is no reason to believe it can arise from random chemicals. There's no evidence that one kind of animal can "evolve" into another kind. Virtually all the links on the evolutionary tree are missing, and the ones that have been found were either frauds or proven mistaken. Darwinists presuppose their naturalistic worldview in their biased scientific studies and pile on more unprovable theories on top of their already wild assumptions to give them the illusion plausibility so people like you will think they have a clue what they are talking about, when really they don't.
Yeah I understand that but there is only a few examples of changes. You could have hundred of samples, that are put together like a cartoon to show the transformation.
