Why do creationists tell so many lies?

[TRiG]

The "documentary" Expelled was famously based on interviews obtained under false pretences. Now it seems that there's a new film called Darwin's Dilemma based on the same deceitful tactics.

Why are Creationists so dishonest? Any ideas?

TRiG.

[GiGi]

The "documentary" Expelled was famously based on interviews obtained under false pretences. Now it seems that there's a new film called Darwin's Dilemma based on the same deceitful tactics.

Why are Creationists so dishonest? Any ideas?

TRiG.

I don't know why some people will go to any length to appear correct.
Your OP reminds me of John Safron as he explains why I'm too stoopid to be an atheist .

[archaeologist]

The "documentary" Expelled was famously based on interviews obtained under false pretences.

Please cite some specific examples. I do not know Ben Stein but i have seen th emovie, i do not think that Ben Stein or anyone associated with him claimed to be a 'creationist', he and they claimed to support the oncept of Intelligent Design, which is far different from a Biblical Creationist.

[asdf]

Please cite some specific examples.

Here's some information about the interview tactics - the false pretenses used to interview the scientists.

I do not know Ben Stein but i have seen th emovie, i do not think that Ben Stein or anyone associated with him claimed to be a 'creationist', he and they claimed to support the oncept of Intelligent Design, which is far different from a Biblical Creationist.

It is true that "ID" proponents claim that it is different from creationism. I think it's pretty apparent that it is a barely repackaged form of creationism.

Ever heard of cdesign proponentsists?

[TRiG]

Please cite some specific examples. I do not know Ben Stein but i have seen th emovie, i do not think that Ben Stein or anyone associated with him claimed to be a 'creationist', he and they claimed to support the oncept of Intelligent Design, which is far different from a Biblical Creationist.

Intelligent Design is merely creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

Another account of the dishonesty of the makers of Expelled is given on RD Net.

TRiG.

[archaeologist]

about the interview tactics - the false pretenses used to interview the scientists.

please, all you are doing is taking hearsay evidence from the side you support. nothing in that one sided piece produced the evidence that would prove that stein and company were being dishonest. one could say that the evolutionists were trying to 'save face' and distorted what really took place.

Intelligent Design is merely creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

no andi wouldn't say that to too many other creationists. we would do what God did and come right out and say that God created. we do not need the games and intellectual exercises that the discovery ins***ute plays.

also, many in the ID crowd believe in theistic evolution not creationism so your generalization misses the mark.

as for the charges being laid against it, those are par for the course by people who would do the exact same thing (similar tactics) if they were producing a film or documentery. there is no real meat tothose charges, they were just upset that their beliefs have been exposed for the frauds that they are.

[asdf]

please, all you are doing is taking hearsay evidence from the side you support. nothing in that one sided piece produced the evidence that would prove that stein and company were being dishonest. one could say that the evolutionists were trying to 'save face' and distorted what really took place.

What would you regard as compelling evidence?

as for the charges being laid against it, those are par for the course by people who would do the exact same thing (similar tactics) if they were producing a film or documentery.

Evidence please, that evolutionary supporters would use, or have used, false pretenses to gain interviews with creationists, er, ID proponents.

there is no real meat tothose charges, they were just upset that their beliefs have been exposed for the frauds that they are.

May I ask what "beliefs" were exposed for frauds?

[archaeologist]

What would you regard as compelling evidence?

basically, all i am saying is 'consider the source'. i already know what some anti-evolutionists do and i do not support their methods but all we got in that article and in the OP's link is one side of the story and hearsay.

it is not enough for me.

Evidence please, that evolutionary supporters would use, or have used, false pretenses to gain interviews with creationists, er, ID proponents

all the secular documenteries that interview christian scholars, archaeologists and others. te naked archaeologist with jacobvici used to use bullying tactics and others simply cut an dpaste interviews to get the interviewee to say what they want him/her to say.

the Bible which has a verse that states that they do the same thing.

May I ask what "beliefs" were exposed for frauds?

it has been awhile since i have seen the film but i recall one episode which had dawkns admitting to something that he would not normally admit to. the fact that, as i well know, evolutionists have nothing to stand upon except inferrance, conjecture and hypothesis nothing factual, for everything they claim as evidence can be used to support creationism.

[asdf]

basically, all i am saying is 'consider the source'. i already know what some anti-evolutionists do and i do not support their methods but all we got in that article and in the OP's link is one side of the story and hearsay.

it is not enough for me.

It is enough for me to note a consistent pattern of lies and deception from anti-evolutionists.

Have the claims of Dawkins, Myers, et. al., been denied by the makers of Expelled?

all the secular documenteries that interview christian scholars, archaeologists and others. te naked archaeologist with jacobvici used to use bullying tactics and others simply cut an dpaste interviews to get the interviewee to say what they want him/her to say.

I shouldn't have bothered asking. My point being that I will condemn and denounce all such deceptive tactics, whenever they are done. I don't accept a tu quoque approach to judge the morality of actions.

the Bible which has a verse that states that they do the same thing.

it has been awhile since i have seen the film but i recall one episode which had dawkns admitting to something that he would not normally admit to. the fact that, as i well know, evolutionists have nothing to stand upon except inferrance, conjecture and hypothesis nothing factual, for everything they claim as evidence can be used to support creationism.

"He would not normally admit to" that because neither he nor any scientist believes that.

Creationism (or ID, or whatever you want to call it) is entirely untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. If something appears to be well-designed, that counts as evidence for a designer, but if something appears to be poorly designed, it's because we don't understand the designer's purposes.

[archaeologist]

It is enough for me to note a consistent pattern of lies and deception from anti-evolutionists.

please, what you perceive to be lies and deceptions may not be so.

I shouldn't have bothered asking. My point being that I will condemn and denounce all such deceptive tactics, whenever they are done.

well you just asked me at a time when i am extremely busy and too tired to do those extra things. maybe ask me another day.

Creationism (or ID, or whatever you want to call it) is entirely untestable, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

this is a standar5d evolutonary party line which ignores the following facts:

1. the process of evolution itself cannot be put into a test tube and studied nullifying the claim made by evolutionists that God can't be put into a test tube, thus God does not exist (or whatever along those lines of dissent.) rendering it 'unscientific'

2. the idea of natural selection cannot be put into a test tube and studied thus eliminating that as well , like #1, from being 'scientific'.

3. evolutionary scientists do not know what the original conditions were at the 'start of life' (their version) thus they cannot test, falsify or observe anything and claim it is the product of evolution.

4. evolutionary scientists observe many things during their scientific process and INFER, conjecture, hypothesize that it is the product of the evolutionary process. they are dishonest in that they refuse to acknowledge that the sameresults can be obtained by alternative processes and acts. i.e. God's genetic design as influenced by the corruption that entered the world at Adam's sin.

5. if evolution was 'scientific' evolutionary scientists would be able to re-create the original conditions and observe evolution in action from start to finish and see the transitional forms and verify/confirm their claims. since they cannot, not only can they not verify their claims but they cannot claim that evolution is scientific.

6. we may not be able to study THE ACT OF CREATION but we can study the results. Creation was a one time supernatural act which designed things to work in a certain way. everything works the same way, birth, day & night, life in general today as it did when God created the everything with the exception of the corruption and sin that entered the world at Adam's sin.
nothing has changed.

7. the time frame evolutionists say is needed to see a species change is too convenient as everyone will be long dead and gone before verification is found. kind if useless theory for people to believe in as their proof comes milions of years later when it doesn't matter. with creation we see the results everyday and we do not have to wait for verification

8. what you call the evolutionary proess, whether micro or macro, can be explained in such teerms as immunity, defective genes, function of genes and so on. a mutaton is a product of the corrupted genes reacting to the presence of the corrupted material or altered design process. it is not an evolutionary gain but an illness a problem etc., which hinders living a perfect life. it is all explained in the fall of man, the book of romans etc.

9. God contains love, mercy, anger, creativity, desires, thought, etc., which makes it understandable that we humans possess basically the same things. the process of evolution possesses none of those things, it is thoughtleess, uncreative, desireless, emotionless and so on and you cannot create something from nothing. the process of evolution is and has nothing andit cannot spawn anything for it has nothing to use or input into its 'creation'.

10. the parameters of secular science auomatically eliminate aything that is beyond what is natural, which means that secular science is looking in the wrong places for the wrong answers.

thus it is evolution that is unscientific not creation for secular science has designed itself to miss the truth.

[asdf]

this is a standar5d evolutonary party line which ignores the following facts:

1. the process of evolution itself cannot be put into a test tube and studied nullifying the claim made by evolutionists that God can't be put into a test tube, thus God does not exist (or whatever along those lines of dissent.) rendering it 'unscientific'

2. the idea of natural selection cannot be put into a test tube and studied thus eliminating that as well , like #1, from being 'scientific'.

It can be and has been done. Lenski's E. coli experiment is one such example.

3. evolutionary scientists do not know what the original conditions were at the 'start of life' (their version) thus they cannot test, falsify or observe anything and claim it is the product of evolution.

4. evolutionary scientists observe many things during their scientific process and INFER, conjecture, hypothesize that it is the product of the evolutionary process. they are dishonest in that they refuse to acknowledge that the sameresults can be obtained by alternative processes and acts. i.e. God's genetic design as influenced by the corruption that entered the world at Adam's sin.

Abiogenesis is not a part of the study of evolution.

5. if evolution was 'scientific' evolutionary scientists would be able to re-create the original conditions and observe evolution in action from start to finish and see the transitional forms and verify/confirm their claims. since they cannot, not only can they not verify their claims but they cannot claim that evolution is scientific.

That's just silly. It's like claiming police detectives cannot collect evidence and determine murder suspects because they don't have a time machine.

6. we may not be able to study THE ACT OF CREATION but we can study the results. Creation was a one time supernatural act which designed things to work in a certain way. everything works the same way, birth, day & night, life in general today as it did when God created the everything with the exception of the corruption and sin that entered the world at Adam's sin.
nothing has changed.

This is virtually meaningless. It essentially says "creation looks the way that creation looks".

7. the time frame evolutionists say is needed to see a species change is too convenient as everyone will be long dead and gone before verification is found. kind if useless theory for people to believe in as their proof comes milions of years later when it doesn't matter. with creation we see the results everyday and we do not have to wait for verification

What "results" can be seen with creationism? What predictions does it make?

8. what you call the evolutionary proess, whether micro or macro, can be explained in such teerms as immunity, defective genes, function of genes and so on. a mutaton is a product of the corrupted genes reacting to the presence of the corrupted material or altered design process. it is not an evolutionary gain but an illness a problem etc., which hinders living a perfect life. it is all explained in the fall of man, the book of romans etc.

That does not correspond to observations of reality.

9. God contains love, mercy, anger, creativity, desires, thought, etc., which makes it understandable that we humans possess basically the same things. the process of evolution possesses none of those things, it is thoughtleess, uncreative, desireless, emotionless and so on and you cannot create something from nothing. the process of evolution is and has nothing andit cannot spawn anything for it has nothing to use or input into its 'creation'.

10. the parameters of secular science auomatically eliminate aything that is beyond what is natural, which means that secular science is looking in the wrong places for the wrong answers.

The parameters of science in general are necessarily limited to that which can be accessed through observation, experimentation, and falsifiability.

You are [apparently] advocating willful innocence of the way the world works in favor of a "God of the gaps" approach. Whereas the scientific method advocates engagement with the universe in the never-ending search for understanding.

thus it is evolution that is unscientific not creation for secular science has designed itself to miss the truth.

In what way is evolution "unscientific"? How do you, personally, define "scientific" and "unscientific"? (For you must be using a novel definition of words to say that.)

[archaeologist]

It can be and has been done. Lenski's E. coli experiment is one such example.

no, that just proves my point that evolutionists onlylook at evolution as the possible source and then search no further for alternatives.

Abiogenesis is not a part of the study of evolution.

typical escape route taken, except i wasn't talking about abiogenesis. But since you cannot explain the original conditions, or how the process came into being, you are just using more faith to believe in evolution than christians do when they believe in God. it also says you have no answers.

That's just silly. It's like claiming police detectives cannot collect evidence and determine murder suspects because they don't have a time machine

not at all. your analogy fails because the police can get verification to confirm their theories, with evolution you cannot, you are just feeling around in the dark never knowing if you got it right.

This is virtually meaningless.

and you would be wrong as evolution has nothing to show it is correct, everything proves creation because everything runs according to what Genesis says. every maternity ward, animal hospital, every plant nursery bears this out.

What predictions does it make?

doesn't have tomake any predictions and you are tryingto fit a infallible, supernatural act into a secular, fallible model. just doesn't work, sort of like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

your secular model, developed by unbelievers have purposefully designed secular science so it won't find the truth.

That does not correspond to observations of reality.

of course my comment fits with reality, for God is reality, evolution is imaginary. what you are saying is that it doesn't fit with your (secular science's) inferrences, conjecture, hypothesis.

You are [apparently] advocating willful innocence of the way the world works in favor of a "God of the gaps" approach.

and you would be wrong.

The parameters of science in general are necessarily limited to that which can be accessed through observation, experimentation, and falsifiability

yet you cannot apply those to evolution. you have not observed it, cannot falsify it nor can you use experiments because of the time frame needed to prove the experiments true.

face it you are backing a dead horse because if evolution were true, you would be able to refute everything i have said instead of doing those flimsy excuses that are just empty statements designed to provide an escape hatch for you to avoid dealing with the real issues.

here is another real issue for you: almost every society, ancient or modern, has both a creation and flood myth yet NOT ONE of them has an evolutionary tale, myth or legend. it didn't happen, does not exist and there is NO micro or macro processes, nor natural selection. everything happens is accordingto how God designed it couple with the corruption and sin that entered into the world at Adam's sin.

there is no getting around that fact. what you call micro evolution is merely a genetic defect not an advancement of life. by the way, where would mongoloid children fit into the scheme of things? are they the next step or the miss link?

[asdf]

no, that just proves my point that evolutionists onlylook at evolution as the possible source and then search no further for alternatives.

The data are open. If you, or a creationist scientist, wants to examine it, propose an alternate mechanism besides mutation, heritability, and selection, you're free to do so.

not at all. your analogy fails because the police can get verification to confirm their theories, with evolution you cannot, you are just feeling around in the dark never knowing if you got it right.

In what way can a police detective get verification on an event that happened in the past?

and you would be wrong as evolution has nothing to show it is correct, everything proves creation because everything runs according to what Genesis says. every maternity ward, animal hospital, every plant nursery bears this out.

Again, you've given nothing other than "everything is what it is". What prediction has a creationist interpretation of Genesis made that has been born out by the findings of empirical reality?

doesn't have tomake any predictions and you are tryingto fit a infallible, supernatural act into a secular, fallible model. just doesn't work, sort of like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

If it doesn't make predictions, doesn't account for the diversity of life, doesn't make falsifiable statements about reality other than "everything is what it is", then what use is it, practically?

How could one test whether the creationist hypothesis is correct?

your secular model, developed by unbelievers have purposefully designed secular science so it won't find the truth.

The evolutionary model was developed by people making observations about their surroundings. Some were theists, some were not.

of course my comment fits with reality, for God is reality, evolution is imaginary.

I suppose I should have said physical reality.

what you are saying is that it doesn't fit with your (secular science's) inferrences, conjecture, hypothesis.

...evidence, data, predictions, tests upon tests, refinement of the theory as hypotheses are either vindicated or overturned...

What do you have on the creationist side? So far, all I've seen is an assertion, which is not subject to verification, fact-checking, or correspondence with actual events in the actual, physical, universe.

and you would be wrong.

Please enlighten me. How is your perspective not God of the gaps?

yet you cannot apply those to evolution. you have not observed it, cannot falsify it nor can you use experiments because of the time frame needed to prove the experiments true.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

face it you are backing a dead horse because if evolution were true, you would be able to refute everything i have said

You've said essentially nothing. Evolution has been vindicated and shown to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. There's a reason why over 99% of scientists studying related fields accept the evolutionary model.

instead of doing those flimsy excuses that are just empty statements designed to provide an escape hatch for you to avoid dealing with the real issues.

Pot, meet kettle.

here is another real issue for you: almost every society, ancient or modern, has both a creation and flood myth yet NOT ONE of them has an evolutionary tale, myth or legend.

Why would you expect to find an "evolutionary tale, myth or legend"?

it didn't happen, does not exist and there is NO micro or macro processes, nor natural selection.

Wow. That's even more laughably preposterous than most creationists. You're truly the first creationist I've met who denies micro-evolution as well as macro.

everything happens is accordingto how God designed it couple with the corruption and sin that entered into the world at Adam's sin.

How can that be put to the test? What would the universe look like otherwise?

there is no getting around that fact. what you call micro evolution is merely a genetic defect not an advancement of life.

Either laughably ignоrant or laughably dishonest.

Guppies have been observed to evolve over quite few generations. Those in an environment with predators develop drabber colors to blend in with the rocks; those in predator-free environments develop brighter colors for reproductive compe***ion.

Exactly as predicted by the evolutionary model.

When you deny micro-evolution, do you deny that this experiment occurred, claim that the modification of the guppies was a "genetic defect not an advancement of life", or *handwave goddidit*?

by the way, where would mongoloid children fit into the scheme of things? are they the next step or the miss link?

What are you talking about?

Every human living today is a member of H. sapiens sapiens, regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin.

The concept [of the "Mongoloid" race] originated with a now disputed typological method of racial classification. All the -oid racial terms (e.g. Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, etc.) are now often controversial in both technical and non-technical contexts and may sometimes give offense no matter how they are used. This is especially true of "Mongoloid" because it has also been used as a synonym for persons with Down Syndrome, and in English as a generic insult meaning "idıot". A shortened version of the term, "mong" or "mongo", is also used in the United Kingdom, mainly Scotland. These insults have become common and the majority who use them will have no idea of their racist connotations or connection to the word "mongol". Contrary to popular beliefs, Mongoloid refers to diverse ethnical groups, and not of a homogeneous group.

Since people with Down syndrome may have epicanthic folds, the condition was widely called "Mongol" or "Mongoloid Idiocy" John Langdon Down, for whom the syndrome was named, claimed in his book Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idıots (1866), that the Mongol-like features represented an evolutionary degeneration when manifested in Caucasoids. The use of the term "Mongoloid" for racial purposes has therefore acquired negative connotations because of the connection with Down syndrome.

Let's not bring in discredited, racist, archaic terminology and arguments into this. Thanks.

[archaeologist]

The data is open. If you, or a creationist scientist, wants to examine it, propose an alternate mechanism besides mutation, heritability, and selection, you're free to do so.

don't need toas your offer just evades the point i made and you confirmed. evolutionists are dishonest and attribute everything to this non-thinking process when in reality there are other alternatives.

In what way can a police detective get verification on an event that happened in the past?

to name 2: eyewitness accounts and a confession. neither option is available to the evolutionist.

What prediction has a creationist interpretation of Genesis made that has been born out by the findings of empirical reality?

AGAIN, creationism doesn't have to make predictions nor do they need to use empirical data. such are secular ideals which are imperfect and can be manipulated to get the desired result. one canmake a prediction but that does NOT exclude the possibility of alternatives producing the same results.

evolutionists and secular scientists have forgotten one very important fact: this is God's creaion, God's world and HE makes the rules NOT the secular world and that rule is-- for people to use faith NOT science.

science is merely a tool to discover what God did among a few other duties.

If it doesn't make predictions, doesn't account for the diversity of life, doesn't make falsifiable statements about reality other than "everything is what it is", then what use is it, practically?

How could one test whether the creationist hypothesis is correct

again, you are trying to fit an one time supernatural act into a natural, secular model and it won't work. creation does not have to predict anything and the result of creation, as exampled, proves it true. we do not have to make falsifiable statements, that is another secular idea meant to lead people away from the truth.

as for thediversity of life--God's creativity and desire for variety.

i have to make this into 2 responses as the website keep skickingme out if i reply for too long of a time.

[archaeologist]

The evolutionary model was developed by people making observations about their surroundings. Some were theists, some were not.

only one had a science degree andit wasn't darwin or lyttle. i can observe you taking a t.v. from a house in harlem, assume you are stealing it and call the cops. you can't complain because i observed it drew conclusions from the surroundings, and a friend of mine has a criminology degree.

it takes investigation, honesty and a desire for the turth to get to the bottom of the problem. in the example above-- you were helping a friend move from harlem to queens but from observations and surroundings a different story was being told.

keep in mind that the bias of evolutionary scientists automatically omits the biblical option from one of the alternatives, that isnot honest, objective nor scientific. to be scientific one has to be open to all possibilities.

to be christian, one has to believe and follow God.

...evidence, data, predictions, tests upon tests, refinement of the theory as hypotheses are either vindicated or overturned

this is one of the fatal flaws of evolution. the truth doesn't change,if ti does then one never had theturth to begin with and there is little hope they have found it with the new ideas. they certainly cannot confirm it because they have no idea how evolution does things, the original conditions nor sen any transitional species. it is all conjecture, assumption and wishful thinking

You've said essentially nothing. Evolution has been vindicated and shown to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. There's a reason why over 99% of scientists studying related fields accept the evolutionary model.

no it hasn't and the reason why many scientists (and it is not 99%) is because they do not want to do things God's way and use faith. they want to do things their own way and create the past the way they want it to be.

i guess i have to make this a 3 post response.

[archaeologist]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

no i am not. you cannot falsify something unless you have the truth with which to compare, evolutionists do not have the truth, they cannot verify their findings, they do not have enough time to confirm their conclusions. the list could go on, the evolutionist is basically designing as they go andthey have no clue if they got it right or if they ever will. there is so much they do not know.

How is your perspective not God of the gaps?

there are no gaps as far as i know.

Why would you expect to find an "evolutionary tale, myth or legend"?

if evolution were true, there would be NO creation myths probably no flood myths for you do not create a legend out of something that you have no conception. you forget that the ancients were robably smarte than darwin and his friends and would have figured out how they came to be and would have been told by their ancestors of the 'great change' that takes place.

there is so much that would be involved and it just does not appear at all in the ancient world but creation and the flood do.

That's even more laughably preposterous than most creationists. You're truly the first creationist I've met who denies micro-evolution as well as macro.

thereis a verse in Genesis, itis either 1:30 or 2:1 which states "and theuniverse and the earth were completed in all their vast array" micro E cannot happen either. the creative act was finished and their was no more work to be done. evolution goes against scripture in all forms.

those that accept micro E are compromising their beliefs and adopting false secular teachings.

How can that be put to the test? What would the universe look like otherwise?

you cannot use secular tests, they are too nferior and designed to omit the truth. when God acts supernaturally, it is outside of the scope of secular science.

Guppies have been observed to evolve over quite few generations. Those in an environment with predators develop drabber colors to blend in with the rocks; those in predator-free environments develop brighter colors for reproductive compe***ion

thats not evolution in action but how they are designed to act. when one has enemies around (even humans) one acts cautiously, but when the area is safe and there are no enemies then one acts more flamboyantly. that is not evolution but normal behavior.

its not a prediction and anyone can design the prediction to acheive the result they want, predictions mean nothing.

What are you talking about?

it is an example. where do you place mongoloid children on the evolutionary scale? are they an inferior product or the next step up the ladder? remember you cannot have it both ways and you must put theminthe tree somewhere, if you don't you are being dishonest and constructing a scale absent of complete data and investigation.

it has nothing to do with why their were called that. it has to do with your application of evolutionary principles.

so stop avoiding the issues with your sidetracking and tangents. answer the challenges.

When you deny micro-evolution, do you deny that this experiment occurred, claim that the modification of the guppies was a "genetic defect not an advancement of life", or *handwave goddidit*?

yet when evolutionists cannot meet a challenge or answer a queston they fall back to---- evolution did it--- you are accusing me of of something i am not doing except saying that God's design was corrupted by Adam's sin. everything you claimto be evolutionary, i can show you that it is God's design functioning under the influence of the sin, the corruption, the diseases that entered the world at adam's sin.

you can't disprove that because the evolutionary time frame is too short and the evolutionary investigation is not honest anduses improperly designed tools.

[asdf]

thats not evolution in action but how they are designed to act. when one has enemies around (even humans) one acts cautiously, but when the area is safe and there are no enemies then one acts more flamboyantly. that is not evolution but normal behavior.

I'm not talking about individual guppies, but changes over time in generations of guppies.

it is an example. where do you place mongoloid children on the evolutionary scale? are they an inferior product or the next step up the ladder? remember you cannot have it both ways and you must put theminthe tree somewhere, if you don't you are being dishonest and constructing a scale absent of complete data and investigation.

As I said before, all research and data in genetics suggests that all members of H. sapiens sapiens, including those in questionable, racist-defined, ethnicities, are the same species. There is no "ladder".

to name 2: eyewitness accounts and a confession. neither option is available to the evolutionist.

Ah. In that case, you would have us ign-orant, not only of criminal justice where eyewitnesses are not talking, but also of history, archaeology (particularly ironic), geology, etc., etc., etc.

there are no gaps as far as i know.

Do you understand what I mean by "god of the gaps"?

[archaeologist]

I'm not talking about individual guppies, but changes over time in generations of guppies.

'generatons', 'populations' are just another evolutionist's distraction because they know their theory will not hold up to close scrutiny. it is purely hypothetical based upon conjecture.

one of the major flaws of evolution is that they will take a short term reproductivr group, see different changes then extrapolate that to all species even though there is no proof such 'changes' will occur outside thatone study group.

as i have said, and you ignored (which seems to be par for the course as you haveignored a lot of point i have made), the idea that guppies are more exhuberant when their predators are not around is not an evolutionary clue or change, it is just normal life--sort of like escaping an abusive household for a human. they leave a hatefilled atmophere and join a loving one, they didn't 'evolve' but were given a chance to be who they really were.

As I said before, all research and data in genetics suggests that all members of H. sapiens sapiens

there is no such thing as H sapien sapiens, no suchthing as neanderthals, no such thing as ...etc. there is just human. such classifications are needed by evolutionists in order to make their theory 'work'

including those in questionable, racist-defined, ethnicities, are the same species. There is no "ladder".

there is no such thing as 'race'. as the Bible says 'all men came from adam'. the differences you see between humans is purely genetical. the odds of 1 human species 'evolving' without help is astronomical, the chances of 4 sepereat racesdoingthe eact same thing, having the same type of brain, reproductive systems, general physical features and so on---are beyond astronomical and have entered the realm of impossible.

In that case, you would have us ********, not only of criminal justice where eyewitnesses are not talking, but also of history, archaeology (particularly ironic), geology, etc., etc., etc.

don't know what the ** word(s) is/are but this sentence makes no sense. you do not want to go here as i take archaeologists to task all the time when they try to dictate what took place in the past without the proper evidence or documentation.

history, archaeology geology are highly subjective fields and no one has a hidden smoking gun, we all have the same evidence and when i major discovery is made--we all hear about it.

you also went to the absurd as there are more eye-witnesses than the victim.

it is clear you have no case, no argument and you avoid dealing with points i have made because you have nothing, which is what evolution is--nothing. to think that 19th,20th & 21st century scientists can look back thousands, millions and billons of years and declare they know what took place is very arrogant.

most of them couldn't tell you what they had for breakfast the week before and they certainly could not prove it with enough physical evidence let alone say what happened200,000,000 years ago sinceth earth has been scorched with volcanoes, earthquakes, wars, landslides, construction, floods and so on.

evolutionists and you are just deluding yourselves.

[archaeologist]

Do you understand what I mean by "god of the gaps

science is NOT the final authority, it is not the only place to get answers and those who put science above God's word is just creating another god and bible, except theirs makes mistakes, changes, and can never seem to get the to the truth.

it is a tool used for deception and deceiving people. it used to be a tool to discover the truth now it isused to promote lies, injustice,and other harsh treatments of people.

here is an article at www.icr.org, (yahoo didn't cough up the url so i have to just give you a ***le and a blurb)

The Gaps in 'The God of the Gaps'

Is a "god of the gaps" at the root of Intelligent Design (ID) and creation science? This informal logical fallacy occurs when a given mystery (or gap) that science has not solved is "explained" with reference to divine activity: "God just made it work out, somehow," some theists might say.

For example, science cannot yet fundamentally explain why atomic nuclei, packed with positively charged and repelling protons, do not fly apart. "God of the gaps" reasoning would posit that God simply holds them together. The standard model of particle physics, in contrast, holds that an enigmatic "nuclear force" keeps them together. (But this also seems faith-based--perhaps using a "nature of the gaps" concept.) If, however, a new property or model of atoms is found that can explain this atomic cohesion, then invoking either the divine or some natural force to fill in "the gap" will become unnecessary.

Contrary to the claims of ideological naturalists, "god of the gaps" thinking does not characterize the central tenets of either ID or creation science. ID specializes in detecting design, just like archaeologists and forensics scientists, who carefully examine artifacts or events to determine whether they were manufactured non-naturally. ID researchers likewise infer a designer from the observation of purposefully placed patterns.

God has the answers and He wrote them in the Bible beginning with Genesis. secular science will never give you the answer because it is designed to provide alternatives to the Bible. read the book Battle of Beginnings by Dr. Del Ratszch itwill explain a lot more better than i.

[archaeologist]

sure some creationists do tell lies but most times it is because they are misinformed, or think they are telling the truth or they are accused of lying by those who distort the meaning of the word 'lie'

when it comes right down to it, the people who are lying are the evolutionists as their theory does ot stand up to scrutiny, cannot provide answers and changes almost every year.

that fact alone disqualifies the evolutionary theory as being truth or the correct way that origins was done.it shows a complete disregard for people as it does not care if the ancients had the knowledge of the theory and it does not care if those who believed an earlier version are discredited because the present army of scientists decided to make changes in the theory.

simply put, science is being used to deceive people through the evolutionary theory and it needs to be stopped. Christians need to stop relying on scientific experts and return to God and His word, which means that the alternatives to Gen. 1 (progr. creationism, theistic evolution, day-age, OEC ideas etc., must be abandoned)

we do not know the age of the earth and such knowledge does not matter for it is a distraction to the gospel and salvation. plus you cannot say you believe or love God, then claim he didn't tell the truth in Genesis 1, 2 and so on. such an act is disbelief and sin.

[Jean Chauvin]

This is a strange post.

Why are Creationist dishonest? Is it because we believe the behemoth in Job 40:15 was an actual dinosaur and not a hippo?

Or is it because we believe Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that God is Sovereign?

Not sure where your coming from.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[asdf]

This is a strange post.

Why are Creationist dishonest? Is it because we believe the behemoth in Job 40:15 was an actual dinosaur and not a hippo?

Or is it because we believe Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that God is Sovereign?

Not sure where your coming from.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I recommend reading the post to which you are responding—it might give you a better idea of where the OP is coming from than sheer conjecture based on the ***le alone.

[GiGi]

I don't think creationists are dishonest. I think they are indoctrinated into a religion that is harmful.
We don't know how old our world is, and neither do you. One thing is certain, it is much more than 10,000 years old.
Science is fluid, progressive, and flexible. Religion is fixed, ridgid, and defeats progress. You can thank science for the home you live in, the food you eat, even the computer you use to read this post, and so much more!!!

[asdf]

I don't think creationists are dishonest. I think they are indoctrinated into a religion that is harmful.

I agree that your average Joe Creationist is not necessarily dishonest. I think of them as unwitting dupes, having been conned into believing lies and into holding onto them for dear life.

It's the professional creationists that are utterly mendacious. There is evidently no lie, non sequitur, question begging, distortion, Tiny Precious Doubt, or false pretense (as in the OP) that they won't stoop to in order to keep the coffers, and the pews, full.

We don't know how old our world is, and neither do you. One thing is certain, it is much more than 10,000 years old.
Science is fluid, progressive, and flexible. Religion is fixed, ridgid, and defeats progress. You can thank science for the home you live in, the food you eat, even the computer you use to read this post, and so much more!!!

How does the quote go? When the evidence contradicts one's dogma, the scientist goes with the evidence, and the religious goes with the dogma. (I'm sure it's said much clearer and pithier than that.)

[GiGi]

It's the professional creationists that are utterly mendacious. There is evidently no lie, non sequitur, question begging, distortion, Tiny Precious Doubt, or false pretense (as in the OP) that they won't stoop to in order to keep the coffers, and the pews, full.

There's a lot of money to be made in the business of ignorance.