True Science Debunks Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
I suggest you try convincing the members of the Religion of Atheism of that. They insist the fictitious "common ancestor" created itself, after which every creature that has ever existed on this planet evolved from this common ancestor. So while they get on the forum insisting that modern people of the 21st century have no right believing an intelligent designer/God is responsible for the various life forms on this planet, they have no logical alternative explanation. The science they claim is more credible than the Genesis creation account continues to admit there is no evidence in the fossils for macroevolution (change above the species level, which means the creature evolved into something entirely different from what it started off as).


Charles Darwin insisted future generations would find evidence in the fossils of a whale on its way to a bear and a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution). More than 150 years after he wrote Origin of Species, not one single bone has been found connecting different species of animals. The lamentations of pro-evolution scientists tell us how idiotic is the argument by atheists that "rational people of the 21st century should follow scientific evidence instead of belief in a 'skygod'."

Below are two more scientists lamenting the missing link aka the fossils not showing where one creature evolved into something entirely different from what it started off as (macroevolution).

6. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


7. "Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)


Notice the dates of the above admissions. Nothing has changed since those admissions were made more than 40 years ago. Paleontologists still can't find the "missing link" aka the bones that connect one species of creatures to something entirely different (macroevolution). Perhaps now you will see why I titled this thread: "True Science Debunks Darwin's Macroevolution Myth."

 

No they don't! It's only Christians like you that suggest that something came from nothing.

If you mean that we don't 'make up' answers for what we don't know then yes...you are correct!

Science says no such thing.

No he didn't...and what Charles Darwin thought 150 years ago has no relevance today. Evolution is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt and all those that deny it will just get left behind in 'the dark ages'.

More quote mining.

Wrong! Science is not looking for it because it doesn't exist and never has existed. The 'Missing Link' was something invented by journalists looking for sensational newspaper headlines not scientists. Fossils of half a fish and half a duck only exist in the minds of people that are scientifically illiterate...like you.

Is this what you are expecting to find....

..but it doesn't. For more than 150 years, the ToE has withstood everything that has been thrown against it to try and disprove it. Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams that scientifically illiterate, 'liars for Jesus' like you, who can't even spell 'palaeontology' never mind understand what it says, can do what some of the greatest scientific brains of our age have failed to do?? Dream on!

 

Well let's see what lies A2E and the liars for Jesus are coming out with today.

What Neville ACTUALLY says on the subject is over 30 pages long.

Predictably, the liars for Jesus leave out many important things that George says on the subject because to include them would prove them liars. One important part omitted from the text is....

"Together, the discovery of new fossil forms, the filling out of the details of bioserial change, the interpretation of biofacies, the adoption of new techniques both in fossil morphology and in fossil manipulation, and the establishment of a progressively refined timescale contribute to a present-day palaeontology offering the strongest support, the demonstrative "proof," of the fact and the process of evolution in terms wholly concordant with the essence of Darwinian theory."

Full debunk of A2E's quote mining of George Neville can be seen in quote #43 here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

Debunked in quote #54 here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote54

 

Wow, you've got your definition of macroevolution half right, it does mean change above the species level, unfortunately this part is simply nonsense (which means the creature evolved into something entirely different from what it started off as) . . . the term macroevolution was defined 45 years after Darwin's death so it can't really be referred to as Darwin's macroeveolution.

There is no point in going on, you have so many errors in your posts that it quickly becomes a joke.

But I do have one question: you have implied that scientists use tricks to make us believe evolution . . . what are their motives?

 

Because they are into science and evolution is much more exciting to get people to believe to them.

 

The safeguards of the scientific process and the state of the current global scientific community make it virtually impenetrable as a breeding ground for any type of conspiracy. Relentless peer revue would stop a conspiracy dead in its tracks. As a matter of fact, the only success an individual claiming to be a scientist could possibly have in establishing a scientific conspiracy is by presenting their notions to a non scientific audience.

The less educated in science that audience is . . . the better. . . . Consensus and popularity take over at that point.

 

Are you aware that the average IQ of a Negro is 70 ? I wonder how much of it do you need to copypaste BS like this

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
That's like expecting the police to police themselves, which as everybody knows, does not work. Pro-evolution scientists have been known to stoop to outright dishonesty in order to validate the macroevolution myth. A case in point is the now debunked claim regarding a so-called australopithecus humanoid dubbed "lucy," which was later exposed as a hoax, false.

Below is all that was found of the so-called "lucy" which pro-evolution scientists insisted was the remains of the first human. Now, explain to me how anyone—except those with vivid imaginations—could decide something like that resembles a human?

​

Below is another view of "lucy" on display in the Ethiopian museum. BTW: To enlarge any of the images, just click on each of them.

​

Notice what one of the fraud reports said about "lucy".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts]Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud


ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
To translate, more complete skeletons were found of apes that matched up with the partial skeleton of "lucy." But the pro-evolution scientists refused to face reality. So they dreamed up an image of what "lucy" must have looked like from just the few bones I posted above. Below is the depiction of "lucy" that these dishonest scientists dreamed up from the partial skeleton—which started off with no feet.

as an adult, only 3.5 feet tall
​

Now, let's hear your little speech again where you said: "The safeguards of the scientific process and the state of the current global scientific community make it virtually impenetrable as a breeding ground for any type of conspiracy."

 

When I read a post such as this, I don't know who to be more embarrassed for, the author of such drivel or myself for being named in it. There is an obvious wide disparity in our educations, as in you seem to have very little. So little in fact that you do not recognize an obvious internet meme when you see it.

The first clue should have been a glaring grammatical error in the first sentence. It is always a safe bet to assume that if a contention does in fact contain a glaring grammatical error, that it did not come from a credible source but that is the least surprising element of the quote you so feebly used as a foundation for your argument. I could waste a few lines of dialog explaining it but it is much easier to simply demonstrate:

For anyone interested, copy and paste the following words into a Google search: - - - Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet - - - the search results tell you all you need to know about the willing audience for these types of arguments and as you sort through the dozens of search results it becomes apparent that lack of formal education is widespread amongst them. The same glaring grammatical error will appear more often in its original state than it will appear corrected. It has been copied and pasted so many times and posted to so many self publishing platforms online that it is the epitome of an internet meme.

And that is the basis of your argument?

Scientific peer revue is not even remotely analogous to self policing, the dynamic is completely different. For you to suggest as much indicates that you have never once set foot in any form of a real science class.

 

You claimed there is no conspiracy in the pro-evolution community, and I presented one: the "lucy" hoax. I will present another pro-evolution hoax at another time (another conspiracy). For now I will leave you to eat crow.

 

Don't bother, you are obviously too limited in comprehension to understand that you are simply copying and pasting consistently unreliable cyber trash as evidence for your claims. You obviously do not know what a reliable source is. You may even be gullible enough to believe what you write but eventually the utter ridiculousness of attempting to refute science without ever being exposed to science must hit home.

I would pity anyone engaged in this practice who does not eventually come to this realization . . . but as you have never been capable of any form of intelligent dialog, I would appreciate if you leave me out of your one sided discussions. Please do not address any further posts to me . . . . if I wanted to read the nonsense creationists have concocted in their attempts to reconcile their ancient beliefs with reality, I know where to find it thank you.

 

The pleasure is all mine. Especially since I was getting tired of debunking you anyway. Now, let's hope you follow suit and not address anything else to me. To make sure of that, I will immediately put you back on my "Ignore" list.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- THE SICK EARTH:
Obviously, there isn't much I can do about your issues, which you demonstrated by making the above statement. But while we're on the topic of IQ, I wonder how much IQ it takes to believe in macroevolution myth for which there is no evidence?

By rejecting Jehovah and opting for macroevolution myth, atheists are at the mercy of every slickster who comes along. All the slickster needs to do is show up with a Ph.D. If the slickster is affiliated with some university or the other, the gullible will be all the more willing to believe the "evidence" for macroevolution presented by the slickster.

A classic example of macroevolution fraud was the case with the Piltdown Man that was promoted as the missing link between humans and apes. The skull was found in Sussex England in 1912. The remains had what were clearly ape-like jaw bones, but the teeth and the skull looked like those of a man. Someone with "high IQ" made the determination that the skull dated back five hundred thousand (500,000) years, despite the fact Bible chronology and secular history says humans have only existed 6,000 years. But these people with "high IQ" were not interested in reality. They insisted that Piltdown Man was proof positive for the evolution of humans. So convinced were these educated men with their "high IQ," that they displayed Pildown Man in several museums. To pull off the hoax, no one was permitted to examine the skull for decades. Then in 1953, the entire fraud was revealed. It turned out the skull was of modern age and had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down.

The fraud began unraveling in 1949 when Kenneth Oakley from British Museum's paleontology decided to use a new dating method on Piltdown Man known as the "fluorine test." The test revealed that the jaw bone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluor, which said only one thing: the chin bone had only been under the ground a few years, not 500,000 years. When all was said and done, it turned out that the skull was that of a man who had been dead 500 years (rather than 500,000 years) and the jaw was that of an ape that only recently died. To make the finished product look aged, all of the pieces were stained with potasiumdichromat.

Even the "ancient" tools supposedly found next to Piltdown Man's skull had been manufactured to look old. It turned out the tools were imitations that had been sharpened by steel devices. An image of Piltdown Man's skull is attached to this post. To read the entire article, click the weblink below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/