-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Let me quote the very first line from the video.
AronRa: "Ernst Haeckel was a pinoeer zoologist and taxonomist who's numerous contributions to biology go largely unnoticed compared to a couple of rather odd errors. First..."
Clearly, AronRa is about to discuss all the errors Haeckel made. Does this include the drawings of embryos? Who knows, you didn't watch the video. Yet, you had absolutely no problem ASSUMING AronRa was going to try and use Haeckel's drawings to prove evolution - when in fact, he was going to expose creationists who keep referring to Haeckel's research as evidence against embryology.
You even stated that Haeckel's drawings were dismissed by scientists, which is correct because those drawings weren't based on actual observable embryos. What you fail to understand is that embryology is based off of actual images of embryos and has been since Darwin!
The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing until you actually watch the video since you didn't even attempt to understand a single word. You jumped to a conclusion about the video that was not only false, but was addressed in the video.
AronRa: "Ernst Haeckel was a pinoeer zoologist and taxonomist who's numerous contributions to biology go largely unnoticed compared to a couple of rather odd errors. First..."
Clearly, AronRa is about to discuss all the errors Haeckel made. Does this include the drawings of embryos? Who knows, you didn't watch the video. Yet, you had absolutely no problem ASSUMING AronRa was going to try and use Haeckel's drawings to prove evolution - when in fact, he was going to expose creationists who keep referring to Haeckel's research as evidence against embryology.
You even stated that Haeckel's drawings were dismissed by scientists, which is correct because those drawings weren't based on actual observable embryos. What you fail to understand is that embryology is based off of actual images of embryos and has been since Darwin!
The rest of your post isn't even worth addressing until you actually watch the video since you didn't even attempt to understand a single word. You jumped to a conclusion about the video that was not only false, but was addressed in the video.
That's a misrepresentation of the theory for one.
For another, you didn't address a single point made in the video. Oh, you made a vague reference to what he said and added "LOL" as your argument.
Do you know why you rejected the skulls showing off our ancestry? Because you refuse to see it. You wanted a transition as clear as the image you posted, and you got it - all those fossils.
You said you watched him "butter up" the errors, when you really mean you watched him discuss the errors that scientists didn't take seriously at all and exposed in an honest discussion.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation, you're merely trying to laugh and hope people laugh with you.
For another, you didn't address a single point made in the video. Oh, you made a vague reference to what he said and added "LOL" as your argument.
Do you know why you rejected the skulls showing off our ancestry? Because you refuse to see it. You wanted a transition as clear as the image you posted, and you got it - all those fossils.
You said you watched him "butter up" the errors, when you really mean you watched him discuss the errors that scientists didn't take seriously at all and exposed in an honest discussion.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation, you're merely trying to laugh and hope people laugh with you.
This would be a wonderful discussion to have but I'm afraid we would lose track of your claims that scientists have been constantly "fooled" by fake fossils or flawed data. Furthermore, we wouldn't get anywhere with such a discussion anyway as I'll point out. One fossil did fool scientists and larger sample sizes helped correct the error, which is odd since you claim this is a conspiracy in which science is trying to cover all the flaws.
Earlier, you were asked by Cycel, "What can you tell me about this pig tooth? Why were people fooled? I just wonder how much you actually know about this hoax that took place a hundred years ago?"
You responded with "Cycel, when someone claims your wrong and provides evidence, it is your job to defend the claim, if you cannot defend it then it is false... It is not my fault that they are forges..."
You're under the impression that evolutionists are defending Nebraska Man. You're attacking a strawman. A scientist incorrectly labeled a pigs tooth as that of ancient man, and the scientific community (who accepted evolution) corrected this claim. Yet, you keep acting like the scientific community was "fooled".
You even responded with, "Because a farmer told a scientist he found an ape tooth. The scientist looked at it and said BY GOOLLY ITS A MISSING LINK!"
This was your response to Cycel when he asked you yet again to explain what happened. Why is your response overly simplified and sarcastic?
Earlier, you were asked by Cycel, "What can you tell me about this pig tooth? Why were people fooled? I just wonder how much you actually know about this hoax that took place a hundred years ago?"
You responded with "Cycel, when someone claims your wrong and provides evidence, it is your job to defend the claim, if you cannot defend it then it is false... It is not my fault that they are forges..."
You're under the impression that evolutionists are defending Nebraska Man. You're attacking a strawman. A scientist incorrectly labeled a pigs tooth as that of ancient man, and the scientific community (who accepted evolution) corrected this claim. Yet, you keep acting like the scientific community was "fooled".
You even responded with, "Because a farmer told a scientist he found an ape tooth. The scientist looked at it and said BY GOOLLY ITS A MISSING LINK!"
This was your response to Cycel when he asked you yet again to explain what happened. Why is your response overly simplified and sarcastic?
I agree, I thought the same thing when T_L made the reference. But, Elijah did mock them. I don't, however, think that we should consider it a small thing to mock (or in anyway insult) one another.
1 Kings 18:27
[SUP]27 [/SUP]It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.”
1 Kings 18:27
[SUP]27 [/SUP]It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, “Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.”
In science, a theory refers to an explanation regarding elements of a specific phenomena.
They didn't. At no point in the trial was Nebraska man brought up by either side.
If you fail to find hard evidence that Nebraska man was mentioned, are you willing to admit that you were not only wrong but whatever sources you obtained this misinformation from were being dishonest?
They didn't. At no point in the trial was Nebraska man brought up by either side.
If you fail to find hard evidence that Nebraska man was mentioned, are you willing to admit that you were not only wrong but whatever sources you obtained this misinformation from were being dishonest?
Certain items of "scientific evidence of evolution" were mentioned at the trial, whether or not formally presented. This included Piltdown Man (announced to the world in December 1912, and repudiated in the 1950s when the British Museum's Kenneth Oakley devised a new method for determining whether ancient bones were of the same age), but especially Nebraska Man was proclaimed. The great Nebraska Man, discovered only three years before in Bryan's home state, was exalted at the trial as the outstanding evidence that man had evolved from an apelike creature.
"One of the most singular and embarrassing incidents in the history of evolutionary science began in 1922, when a solitary molar tooth was found in Nebraska. First-rank paleontologists, anthropologists and anatomists examined the cusp pattern, and all agreed with its discoverer that the tooth belonged to an ancient ape-man: a 'missing link' of tremendous importance, to which they gave the name Hesperopithecus a 'Western ape.'
"The tooth was certainly ancient; it was embedded in million-year-old Pliocene deposits. But what else could be said about it? For starters, English anatomist Sir Grafton Elliot Smith and a museum artist collaborated to produce a painting of both male and female Hesperopithecus for the Illustrated London News. Their 'reconstruction' featured full figures of a well-muscled, ski browed pair in a prehistoric landscape complete with early horses and camels.
"Professor H.F. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History, welcomed the news. Antievolutionist politician William Jennings Bryan was a Nebraskan, and Osborn rubbed it in: 'The Earth spoke to Bryan from his own State,' he crowed, 'the little tooth speaks volumes. . evidence of man's descent from the ape.'
"In 1925, when John Scopes was tried for breaking Tennessee's state law against teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the public schools, the Hesperopithecus tooth was introduced as evolutionary evidence, along with other fossils, of early man [as] then accepted by science (including Piltdown, which was later revealed as a fossil forgery).
"Two years after the 'Monkey Trial,' a team of paleontologists returned to the Nebraska site where Hesperopithecus had been discovered five years earlier, determined to find more of this mysterious creature. To their joy, weathering had exposed parts of a jaw and skeleton on the precise spot. Eagerly, they brushed away dust and sand until the ancient fossil emerged to tell its truth, the infamous molar had once belonged to an extinct pig!" *A. Milner. Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990). P. 322.
In 1928, it was discovered that a mistake had been made and the "hominid tooth" of prehistoric Nebraska Man turned out to be nothing more than a pig's tooth! Three years after the Scopes Trial, one main "proof" of evolution had been destroyed.
In 1953, Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley used a newly-developed fluorine test on the original Piltdown skull fragments, and discovered that the bones were a hoax! This became something of a national scandal focusing on the British Museum, although museum officials were probably only innocent dupes. Twenty-eight years after the Scopes Trial, the other main "proof" of evolution was destroyed.
"Two main lines of evidence for evolution [at the Scopes Trial] were the Piltdown man and Nebraska man. Nowhere in the trial did the scientific problems receive any sensible discussion. Darrow displayed ignorance both about the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Bible, and leveled a barrage of insults and vilification at fundamentalist Bryan. Bryan did not respond in kind. Darrow was clearly the media favorite, however." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 100.
"Some thought that reports of what occurred at the trial would damage the cause of evolution. However, on the contrary, the evolutionists have used it to state repeatedly that although Darrow 'lost' the trial, he 'won' the case and that since the time of the Scopes Trial, no intelligent person can any longer doubt the truth of evolution.
"However as time has passed, the 'scientific' evidences against evolution have increased both in number and in strength. There is more that can be said against an evolutionary belief now than there has been at any time in the past because more facts are known and more evidences against evolutionary theory are constantly coming to light." Donald W. Fatten, "The Scopes Trial," in Symposium on Creation III (i971), p. 117.
"One of the most singular and embarrassing incidents in the history of evolutionary science began in 1922, when a solitary molar tooth was found in Nebraska. First-rank paleontologists, anthropologists and anatomists examined the cusp pattern, and all agreed with its discoverer that the tooth belonged to an ancient ape-man: a 'missing link' of tremendous importance, to which they gave the name Hesperopithecus a 'Western ape.'
"The tooth was certainly ancient; it was embedded in million-year-old Pliocene deposits. But what else could be said about it? For starters, English anatomist Sir Grafton Elliot Smith and a museum artist collaborated to produce a painting of both male and female Hesperopithecus for the Illustrated London News. Their 'reconstruction' featured full figures of a well-muscled, ski browed pair in a prehistoric landscape complete with early horses and camels.
"Professor H.F. Osborn, head of the American Museum of Natural History, welcomed the news. Antievolutionist politician William Jennings Bryan was a Nebraskan, and Osborn rubbed it in: 'The Earth spoke to Bryan from his own State,' he crowed, 'the little tooth speaks volumes. . evidence of man's descent from the ape.'
"In 1925, when John Scopes was tried for breaking Tennessee's state law against teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the public schools, the Hesperopithecus tooth was introduced as evolutionary evidence, along with other fossils, of early man [as] then accepted by science (including Piltdown, which was later revealed as a fossil forgery).
"Two years after the 'Monkey Trial,' a team of paleontologists returned to the Nebraska site where Hesperopithecus had been discovered five years earlier, determined to find more of this mysterious creature. To their joy, weathering had exposed parts of a jaw and skeleton on the precise spot. Eagerly, they brushed away dust and sand until the ancient fossil emerged to tell its truth, the infamous molar had once belonged to an extinct pig!" *A. Milner. Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990). P. 322.
In 1928, it was discovered that a mistake had been made and the "hominid tooth" of prehistoric Nebraska Man turned out to be nothing more than a pig's tooth! Three years after the Scopes Trial, one main "proof" of evolution had been destroyed.
In 1953, Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley used a newly-developed fluorine test on the original Piltdown skull fragments, and discovered that the bones were a hoax! This became something of a national scandal focusing on the British Museum, although museum officials were probably only innocent dupes. Twenty-eight years after the Scopes Trial, the other main "proof" of evolution was destroyed.
"Two main lines of evidence for evolution [at the Scopes Trial] were the Piltdown man and Nebraska man. Nowhere in the trial did the scientific problems receive any sensible discussion. Darrow displayed ignorance both about the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Bible, and leveled a barrage of insults and vilification at fundamentalist Bryan. Bryan did not respond in kind. Darrow was clearly the media favorite, however." Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 100.
"Some thought that reports of what occurred at the trial would damage the cause of evolution. However, on the contrary, the evolutionists have used it to state repeatedly that although Darrow 'lost' the trial, he 'won' the case and that since the time of the Scopes Trial, no intelligent person can any longer doubt the truth of evolution.
"However as time has passed, the 'scientific' evidences against evolution have increased both in number and in strength. There is more that can be said against an evolutionary belief now than there has been at any time in the past because more facts are known and more evidences against evolutionary theory are constantly coming to light." Donald W. Fatten, "The Scopes Trial," in Symposium on Creation III (i971), p. 117.
Last edited:
P.s. percepi, here you are... Now stop being brainwashed... http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Fay_Cooper_Cole_expert.pdf