While AndyJ was somewhat insulting in his post you objected to it would appear that he is correct.
You clearly seem to be getting very basic concepts completely wrong.

I like your last link, it manages to do nothing to support your claims about creationism or do anything to undermine science.
In fact if you read the spiel you can see that it is nothing but crap with a fixed agenda and backwards logic.
The primary function of a creation scientist is to investigate the nature of our world from the intelligent design perspective. We must theorize from our unique point of view if the truth is to be understood. Given the effect of the theory of evolution on people's ability to believe in God, evolutionary biology is probably the most important topic for a creationist to study.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jp...g/k-bigpic.jpg

/thread

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8...sonwithrel.jpg


http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8...ppc1qizwbz.jpg


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/824...4878005155.jpg

I thought raptors would be faster :hmmm:

I never said there was such evidence. In fact, I think I stated definitively, somewhere in this thread, that I could not prove the existence of God.
In all honesty, I don't frequent that website to which I posted the link. I happened upon it by chance while trying to research a name that I could not recall. I simply posted it as an example of the arguments on both sides of the fence, and, to show why I don't always trust everything others purport as fact. I did not post it to prove OR disprove anything or anyone. I started (in my OP) by posting a reference to a film that, according to those interviewed (scientists, professors and science journalists), if there is such evidence, it is being quashed and those trying to bring it to light are being blackballed.
As an afterthought:
I don't know exactly how many hoaxes it cites, you say 6. The links that do work (I checked some of them) appear to be credible. I'm certain, if you really wanted to, you could easily Google them to check their validity. I'll bet they are all correct. I may be wrong, but your response implies (to me) that you were somewhat unaware of such hoaxes (if you already knew, you wouldn't have had to research the links) . If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?

And the suggestion that the technique of dropping rocks on the creationists heads would work in a similar fashion - aka - extinguishing the physical life of whomever/whatever was hit in the head with said rocks, follows this how?

No one had posted that everyone must believe or be condemned. No one was imposing any belief..... but the comment was still made. Which is where my problem is. Respect is a 2 way street. I disagree with much of the evolutionary theory - yet I don't go suggest that evolutionists should be killed.

Depends on the raptor, but the average is about 30mph which is 13.41m/s, but some supposedly could reach 50mph (21m/s).

Gallimimus could hit 43mph, but others of its genus (Ornithomimosauria) could clock 60mph in a sprint. :yep:

Being on the wrong side of either genus would be a bad thing though, especially given how damaging an ostrich kick is.

The Velociraptor size is right, but the Dilophosaurus size is wrong, far too big.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...urus_scale.png

I am amazed at the rhetoric you can get on this subject. None of it is new. Even the insult jokes are reruns. I think it is all pretty childish. Yes, the claim in the link is laughable, but the internet is full of that kind of stuff. You would think it was something new. Why it still gets the reaction it gets is the real joke.

History can be a good teacher. Look at the United States of America. From the first moment that Europeans set foot on this continent, religion has played a prominent role in American life. Through out its entire history up to the present it has contributed to American life and culture in a significant way. At the same time the US was and still is one of the most advanced nations on earth. Americans fought a civil war, two world wars, put men on the moon, expelled their segregation demons and went through many other trials. Technologically and scientifically they are a very advanced nation. Yet they are still a religious people. Is this a coincidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the US is a 'blessed nation'. What I am suggesting is that diversity in all things is a strength, not a weakness. Still there are those who wish to change this model in the belief that the world will be a better place. I would say that that would be mistake.

I am almost certain that we will never see Creation Science taught in the public education system of any Western democracy. I would bet on it. Most religious people would oppose it as well as the secular. I also think that the New Atheists like to make a big deal out of the possibility because it gives them a chance to speak.

Some time ago I saved this quote but I don't know who wrote it. I thought it was pretty good. The emphasis is mine.

We aren't talking about the existence of God. Despite some people's insistence on overt hostility, this thread is about Creationism and Evolution. What I said was that there is no evidence for the six-days creation of Earth. All evidence used in that argument is force-fitted into the pre-existing concept, which is derived solely from the Bible. It's attempting to use science to "prove" faith.

Unlike some, I'm not anti-religion, or anti-anything other than faulty arguments. Yes indeed, there are a few who treat their belief in Evolution, or even Athiesm, as though it were a religion. That may be a part of human nature. They are, however, in the minority. I may be unique in not having a dog in this hunt. I don't care if Evolution is the correct answer or not. I only look at the logic applied by both sides of an argument, and try to understand what they're doing wrong. I still get it wrong as often as not.


I did check them - every single one.

And you would win that bet, if only on the point that the hoaxes were real. People do that sometimes. On the other hand the agenda behind the links themselves is false. The people posting the links are trying to prove Evolution wrong based on what some dishonest people perpetrated. They attempt to paint all research and all finds with the same brush, which is dishonest on their part.

I was familiar with Piltdown Man and a couple of others. I wasn't aware of Archeoraptor. As for looking at links or not, I have the habit of looking at everything, just to see what that particular take is.

1. Each lie was put forth by a different person, or set of people. Each case must be taken individually. Why did they do it? Money? Fame? As I said earlier, was any of the six perpetrated by a reputable scientist desperate to prove Evolution? I couldn't fine one, or even anyone accusing them of that other than some Creationist or other. Therefore the Creationist in question is trying to apply someone's personal motivation to all scientists who subscribe to Evolution. Therefore the Creationist is lying just as much as he accuses the Evolutionist of doing.

Therefore: 2. How many lies are you going to believe before you begin to question their credibility? It has been pointed out several times that Creationism has no science behind it all, and there is nothing discovered that would lead an unbiased observer of the evidence to conclude that the Earth was created in six days. For all I know it may have happened that way, but there is no evidence for it at all.

What an incredible failure of logic:rotfl2:
I clicked on your link, I was astounded that there was a hoax involving Pildown man, I am so glad you brought this world famous event to my attention as I would never have heard of it unless I followed your link as world famous well repeated stories are not something many people know about.

Do you realise that the examples you are citing actually undermine the position which you claim you don't want to defend?




Is it time for the academy award for hamming it up?
Bonus points for the pun:03:

And once again you descend to crapping on people while managing not to contribute anything of your own. Mockery is not discussion. Also once again, despite your claims to the contrary, you make me wonder if you aren't actually Skybird's second account.

By the way in which I post in this thread I give the original issue linked in posting #1 and the following debate on later pages in this thread exactly the kind of respect and serious honesty that after having done these kinds of threads for so many years I think the issue deserve. I cannot bring it over me to deal with it as an equal opponent anymore that qualifies for any sort of intellectual, reasonable not to mention academic exchange, and it is an insult of my intellect and whatever I have in wittiness if the same creationist nonsense claims that have been disproven so very often already again get brought to my attention as if now they deserve any more serious consideration than before. I cannot take serious and pay respect to this nonsense without violating my own reasonability and standards. So may see why I have a problem there.

What this all qualifies for only, is this: mockery and laughter. These things have been taken serious and been treated with respect for far too long in history already. And have not been of positive effect.

And you are wrong in this, too: when somebody comes with creationist "theories" and then somebody says that has nothing to do with wanting to impose a belief on other people and want this belief to creep into a wider public's awareness, then somebody has not heard the starting shot. Since creationism bases in its roots on belief and said belief's dogma on historic explanations, it of course is propagating belief and said dogma. Creationism without locating it within the theistic dogmas of Christianity and Islam does not make sense (I mention Islam since Creationism is spreading in the Muslim world, too, just in case you did not know that).

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4...gionheaven.jpg

True.
Im not religious but i find all those you tube atheist speakers very amusing.
I just cant stop wondering that this is some alternative way for them to make celebrities of themselves and loads of money because they could not really make it in serious fields of science.

As for the issues of world being 7 thousand years old , dinosaurs or so , the theology is far beyond that if you care to look.
Religious educated thinkers have dealt with this in some interesting ways.

Be fair Crank, it is quite a while since there has been a creationism topic.

Yes Steve, the middle line really just craps on creationism without contributing any explaination as to why the hoaxes exposed by science undermine the conspiracy theory of a cover up.
The top portion addresses a complete failure of logic.
The last portion deals with someone still harping on with a claim that was clearly a ridiculous when it was first made and remains ridiculous no matter how many times he repeats his faux outrage about it.