Jump to content


Abortionists Having To Face Truth.


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#141 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:38 PM

Actually, the scientist would be held in the highest respect.

Louis Pasteur had the 'temerity' to disprove spontaneous generation when it was widely believed by most of the scientific community. As such, he is respected as much or more than any other scientist in history.

Einstein disproved one of Newton's laws. Would you like to pretend that Pasteur and Einstein were treated as idiots? By all means, feel free to do so.

Scientists hold the highest respect for the ones who discover new things or refute old ones. The idea that scientists jealously protect some flawed belief is a joke - hounding, villifying, labelling, scientists that seek truth is false propaganda.

View Post


This is true, in the long run. Sometimes to be fair scientists haven't been kind to those who criticize established beliefs (for example those who proposed continental drift were given a hard time), though in others there indeed has been immediate acceptance of the new theory, such as general relativity.

I do agree that if the evidence were good that evolution is false (and it would have to be really really good given the amount evidence in favour of evolution) then the scientist that achieved it would be regarded as a hero. Many scientists would love to do this.

Don't equate evolutionists and atheists - they are not the same thing. See the Catholic church for example.

#142 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 April 2009 - 05:55 PM

Don't equate evolutionists and atheists - they are not the same thing. See the Catholic church for example.

View Post


Atheists are for the most part evolutionists (very few would claim to be anything different). Therefore the correlation is rightly made, and conclusion easily drawn. The bigger question is; why would you attempt to distance yourself from them. It’s the same bed, with the same sheets and the same pillows.

#143 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:09 AM

Science is looked at skeptically. When one scientist proposes an idea, it must convince scientists that might not want to be convinced. If their work contains an error, other scientists eagerly refute that error and race to publish the results.

View Post

Oh, you think so huh? Well how come multiple dating methods are not always used and the data from them published? How come only the method and the dates that get published are those that agree with TOE? We know for a fact that there is extreme variation in the results of different methods. But science is not skeptical about this. At all! Only creation scientists, performing valid science is skeptical about this. Then when they publish their results, the whole scientific community writes it off as irrelevant.


Scientists don't gain fame and recognition by agreeing with other scientists, they get it by coming up with something new or disproving something old. Any scientist would LOVE to disprove evolution, for example - fame, wealth, and glory would be theirs and they would be hailed as the most brilliant mind of their age.

View Post

Baloney! You can't get published if you don't over all agree with the mainstream in science. Especially when the subject concerns evolution. There aremultiple examples of this.

Unfortunately, all evidence from numerous different fields all point in the same direction - they are unambiguous in their support of evolution. However, the theory of evolution is far from perfect and is often revised in light of new evidence - and each revision makes it stronger.

View Post


Double baloney!! There are countless pieces of evidence that don't point toward evolution and millions of years. Polonium halos is one of them. The Law of Biogenesis is another. But you won't find any of this evidence in any high school or collegiate level published science text book in the last ten years. Why is that?

Thank goodness for the "mishaps in science" since without them, we wouldn't learn. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone learns from them. Admitting to its mistakes and learning from them is the greatest attribute of science. Ironically, many others view it as a weakness.

View Post

These weren't mistakes. Haekel's embryos was a purposeful manipulation of data. Piltdown man was a purposeful manipulation of data. Embryonic "gill slits" is a purposeful manipulation of data.

If a scientist is motivated by fame, or money, or any other reason, its more or less irrelevant. Its the evidence that tells the tale :)  :D  :lol:  :lol: , not the scientist. I personally could care less about Darwin - if he was motivated by money and fame, if he danced around in ladies clothing, if he recanted every claim he made about evolution - that would not weaken the theory of evolution in the slightest. Like I said, its the evidence that tells the tale.

View Post

Irrelevant??? Triple baloney!!! It is always relevant.

Evidence tells no tales! You should learn this. What fossil has ever said it evolved from or into anything? People tell the tales. Scientists tell the tales. What rock layer ever told a tale about how and when it was laid down??? People and scientists tell the tales. You are just plain logically unsound on this one brother.

#144 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:22 AM

Actually, the scientist would be held in the highest respect.

Louis Pasteur had the 'temerity' to disprove spontaneous generation when it was widely believed by most of the scientific community. As such, he is respected as much or more than any other scientist in history.

Einstein disproved one of Newton's laws. Would you like to pretend that Pasteur and Einstein were treated as idiots? By all means, feel free to do so.

Scientists hold the highest respect for the ones who discover new things or refute old ones. The idea that scientists jealously protect some flawed belief is a joke - hounding, villifying, labelling, scientists that seek truth is false propaganda.

View Post


You have so much to learn. Louis Pasteur is one of the most hated scientists in all of atheistic scientific history. You are correct in saying that he disproved/falsified spontaneous generation, and he confirmed the Law of Biogenesis. Since his era, not one boundary or exception has been discovered. Yet you will not find one mention of the Law of Biogenesis in any modern day text book. Why is that? Well it's because the entire field of OOL studies relies on the faith that this law is bounded. The entire field of OOL relies on spontaneous generation which Pasteur falsified. But that doesn't stop scientists. They know if they keep people ignorant of natural laws, then they can go about their business.

The Law of Biogenesis is so fundamental to understanding Biology. Germ theory relies on it. Evolution relies on it. Everything in Biology has it's foundation in the Law of Biogenesis. But it's missing from the textbooks. Why is that?

#145 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:20 PM

Gianna Jesson Abortion surviver in Australia - Part one

kPF1FhCMPuQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1


Part two

k8B1nKGIAeg&hl=en&fs=1

#146 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:01 PM

Bex,

I want to thank you for sharing that. That testimony is so powerful. You have to have a heart of rock or a head full of stuffing not know that every word of what she said is true. Where were the feminists fighting for her rights?


Gianna Jesson was born 7 months after me. My story is nothing like that but I was also supposed to be a statistic. My mother had cancer for around five years before having me... number ten. The local doctors only offered her an abortion and refused delivery. Praise God, that my mother would hear nothing of that and traveled an hour and a half to a doctor that would accept the challenge.

If anyone watching that testimony or reading mine has had an abortion. I want you to know that Jesus died for all of your sin. So stop making excuses and let Him have that one. Only He can forgive you and make you whole.

#147 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 April 2009 - 01:32 AM

Bex,

I want to thank you for sharing that. That testimony is so powerful. You have to have a heart of rock or a head full of stuffing not know that every word of what she said is true. Where were the feminists fighting for her rights?
Gianna Jesson was born 7 months after me. My story is nothing like that but I was also supposed to be a statistic. My mother had cancer for around five years before having me... number ten. The local doctors only offered her an abortion and refused delivery. Praise God, that my mother would hear nothing of that and traveled an hour and a half to a doctor that would accept the challenge.

If anyone watching that testimony or reading mine has had an abortion. I want you to know that Jesus died for all of your sin. So stop making excuses and let Him have that one. Only He can forgive you and make you whole.

View Post


Hi Adam,

You're very welcome, it was a pleasure to share. Yes it is VERY powerful and how close she was to being another victim of the silent holocaust. Though she has indeed been injured, she has come out of this a powerful and fearless voice for the unborn.

I'm very glad your Mother said yes to life! For your sake, but also for hers. You were very lucky! Praise God that you were spared Adam!

I once considered abortion an option and was blind to the realities. Either I blinded myself, or I was simply far from God and far from the clarity of truth. What was I thinking?

Christ appears to shine a mirror into the soul. One starts to see themselves so much more clearly (not always pretty). He clarifies and exposes. I was lost and didn't know it! He is very patient, merciful and long suffering of us human beings. However, I would not want to be in the shoes of those who persist in such horrors in full knowledge of what they are doing when they face the living God. His mercy is great, but so is His justice.

I'd say it might do us all good to ponder these quotes when considering the innocent/ unborn:

Luke 1:42
"And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb



Luke 1:44, "For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."


Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose."



Psalm 139:13
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother?s womb.


Job 10:18, "Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me. "


Isaiah 5:20 warns, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness."


Matthew 18:10 warns, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven."


Deut. 27:25
Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person.  And all the people shall say Amen.


Prov 6:16-17
These six things doth the Lord hate: yeah, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood.


We must remind those that have supported or even committed or had abortion/s, whether done out of selfishness/desperation/ignorance - that the mercy/forgiveness and healing grace of God is there waiting for those truly sorry/repentent. He died for all sin and all sinners without exception.

#148 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:05 AM

I do agree that if the evidence were good that evolution is false (and it would have to be really really good given the amount evidence in favour of evolution) then the scientist that achieved it would be regarded as a hero. Many scientists would love to do this.

View Post


The evidence is really, really, good that evolution is false because there is no evidence that it is true (“A” cannot = “B” at the same time in the same sense). And the scientists who promulgate the model of evolution (and those who have done so in the past) are regarded as heroes. Take Darwin for example.

#149 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:14 AM

My mother was pro-choice
*
Crackling briar, crackling briar
laugh while you may
the fire will consume you
as readily as hay
It is the empty vessels
that the most noise makes
they will all be swept away
when the morning breaks.
A woman with child will glow
with a spirit sent by God
to create in her a living soul
she will clothe with flesh and blood
Oh do not this thing
I beg of you to stay
you will never fill the emptiness
of the life you took away.
My mother was for freedom
I am glad she was pro-choice
she chose to let me live
before I had a voice.
*
The Totton Linnet

#150 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 April 2009 - 05:47 AM

Perhaps this encapsulation can clear up a fact or two.

"In the evolutionary appreciation of the facts of embryology we must take particular care to distinguish sharply and clearly between the primary, palingenetic evolutionary processes and the secondary, cenogenetic processes. The palingenetic phenomena, or embryonic recapitulations, are due to heredity, to the transmission of characters from one generation to another. They enable us to draw direct inferences in regard to corresponding structures in the development of the species (e.g. the chorda or the branchial arches in all vertebrate embryos). The cenogenetic phenomena, on the other hand, or the embryonic variations, cannot be traced to inheritance from a mature ancestor, but are due to the adaptation of the embryo or the larva to certain conditions of its individual development (e.g. the amnion, the allantois, and the vitelline arteries in the embryos of the higher vertebrates). These cenogenetic phenomena are later additions; we must not infer from them that there were corresponding processes in the ancestral history, and hence they are apt to mislead."

The fundamental importance of these facts of comparative anatomy, atavism, and the rudimentary organs, was pointed out by Darwin in the first part of his classic work, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to s@x" (1871). ("Descent of Man" (Popular Edition), page 927.) In the "General summary and conclusion" (chapter XXI.) he was able to say, with perfect justice: "He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog—the construction of his skull, limbs, and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the parts may be put—the occasional reappearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which are common to the Quadrumana—and a crowd of analogous facts—all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor."

I think this does a good job of summing up what both evopushers had to say. Häckel does not say adult forms are recapped. Darwin does use recap as evidence - he says all you have to do is look at it in order to be convinced, unless you're content to emulate the savage.

Eat truth, antihistorians.

#151 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 April 2009 - 07:08 AM

Straw Häckel Discovered
Scarecrow Ernst Unmasked


Danger !!! Sit down, empty your mouth. Take a deep breath, and exhale before proceeding further

It has been established that Ernst Häckel did not teach the recapitulation of adult ancestral forms by embryos, and that the idea is falsely attributed to him. There is an apparent motive: in order to continue publishing the Jena professor's fables in spite of their fraudulent nature and the fact that they've been known to be false for over a century. So whence came this false idea of what recap is about?

On the other hand it is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.


"Who'd-a ever thunk it?" Local evolutionologist CTD was astonished at his discovery. "These cats are just amazing. They dump all over Ernst for this idea which he didn't have, and it turns out their great false prophet, or demigod, or whatever - it's all his dopey idea the whole time! What're they gonna say now?"

He points out that the recap rewrite is even more explicitly funny when the passage is reviewed in its fuller context

On the other hand it is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state. In the great class of the Crustacea, forms wonderfully distinct from each other, namely, suctorial parasites, cirripedes, entomostraca, and even the malacostraca, appear at first as larvae under the nauplius-form; and as these larvae live and feed in the open sea, and are not adapted for any peculiar habits of life, and from other reasons assigned by Fritz Muller, it is probable that at some very remote period an independent adult animal, resembling the Nauplius, existed, and subsequently produced, along several divergent lines of descent, the above-named great Crustacean groups. So again, it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor, which was furnished in its adult state with branchiae, a swim- bladder, four fin-like limbs, and a long tail, all fitted for an aquatic life.

As all the organic beings, extinct and recent, which have ever lived, can be arranged within a few great classes; and as all within each class have, according to our theory, been connected together by fine gradations, the best, and, if our collections were nearly perfect, the only possible arrangement, would be genealogical; descent being the hidden bond of connexion which naturalists have been seeking under the term of the Natural System. On this view we can understand how it is that, in the eyes of most naturalists, the structure of the embryo is even more important for classification than that of the adult. In two or more groups of animals, however much they may differ from each other in structure and habits in their adult condition, if they pass through closely similar embryonic stages, we may feel assured that they are all descended from one parent- form, and are therefore closely related. Thus, community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent; but dissimilarity in embryonic development does not prove discommunity of descent, for in one of two groups the developmental stages may have been suppressed, or may have been so greatly modified through adaptation to new habits of life as to be no longer recognisable. ...


Chapter 14, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"See that special pleading - that selectivity in applying the rule?" CTD's eyes have a predatory glint as he explains, "That's a tell-tale sign of a weak argument. This junk is so weak, it's quite possible that it was thrown in as a distraction weakness so nobody'd figure out how polywrong this stuff really is. Ever see an adult fish result from a mammalian miscarriage? Ever?"

This find is being reported to other evolutionologists via the world wide web. It's potential impact has not yet been estimated.

#152 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 April 2009 - 12:28 PM

In the past, recap was known to be false, and we now have even more information on the topic than they had then. It wasn't just "Häckel got the details wrong". It's all wrong.

Although it is true that vertebrate embryos are somewhat similar at one stage of their development, at earlier stages they are radically dissimilar. After fertilization, animal embryos first undergo a process called “cleavage,” in which the fertilized egg divides into hundreds or thousands of separate cells. During cleavage, embryos acquire their major body axes (e.g., anterior-posterior, or head-to-tail, and dorsal-ventral, or back-to-front). Each major group of animals follows a distinctive cleavage pattern; among vertebrates, for example, mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles cleave very differently. (Gilbert, 1994)

Source

"Oh, but they look alike!" Hmmm. Since when does looking alike make things the same? There are lots of marsupials that look just like placentals. There are flies that look like bees. Even those shown & fooled by the copies of Häckel's false drawings which were published in so many schoolbooks had no excuse to conclude all embryos were basically the same thing.

Here's a clue about "looking alike". First off, they have to cherry pick pictures from different ages, in order to get the resemblances. Secondly, the main reason embryos look alike is because they all have big heads. Okay, what's the most sophisticated part of any critter's body? The head. Only makes sense that it needs to start developing first. You've got eyes, ears, mouth, nose - all destined to contain specialized sensory equipment. And the brain is generally located in the head too. So what part do you expect to develop first, based on these considerations? I don't think it's the foot. I don't think it's the knee or the finger nails.

#153 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 07 April 2009 - 09:46 AM

Atheists are for the most part evolutionists (very few would claim to be anything different). Therefore the correlation is rightly made, and conclusion easily drawn. The bigger question is; why would you attempt to distance yourself from them. It’s the same bed, with the same sheets and the same pillows.

View Post


Nicely put. But not all evolutionists are atheists, that's my point. Hence the reference to the Catholic Church.

Rich

#154 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:24 AM

Nicely put. But not all evolutionists are atheists, that's my point. Hence the reference to the Catholic Church.

Rich

View Post


I agree, not all not all evolutionists are atheists. That was never in question (and it was not what you said), but, all atheists aren't really atheists either... I mean, if you want to be technical :mellow:

#155 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2009 - 02:46 PM

I've always liked it when young earth creationists make threads about Haeckel. It shows that those who accept evolution are so honest that you have to go back over a hundred years to find one who told a lie.

Is this even an argument? Some guy lied once? Do we toss out hundreds of years of biology if a biologist tells a lie? Do we toss out thousands of years of a religion if a religious person tells a lie? Do we toss out thousands of years of math if a mathematician tells a lie? Hardly. People lie, people make mistakes, people are human. Thanks goes to science for finding those lies, those mistakes, and learning from them instead of hiding them and clinging to them like dogma.

Meanwhile, YECs lie constantly every day about many scientific fields in order to maintain completely disproven beliefs. I'm stunned that accepting God's creation as it really is is so unacceptable to so many people who believe in God.

#156 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 07 April 2009 - 03:05 PM

I've always liked it when young earth creationists make threads about Haeckel. It shows that those who accept evolution are so honest that you have to go back over a hundred years to find one who told a lie.

View Post

There were other lies, but Piltdown man, for example, is no longer used in textbooks. However, a hundred years after the lie was exposed, textbooks still print Haeckel's faked drawings and claim that they prove evolution. The lie is repeated, time and again.

#157 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 April 2009 - 04:23 PM

I've always liked it when young earth creationists make threads about Haeckel. It shows that those who accept evolution are so honest that you have to go back over a hundred years to find one who told a lie.

Oh what an impressive interpretation of history this is! Doesn't create a good impression, but it's still impressive. And informative. It took a lot of bias to produce that one.

Is this even an argument? Some guy lied once? Do we toss out hundreds of years of biology if a biologist tells a lie?

If it's not a good argument, why are you making it? My guess is that it was manufactured in order to have an argument you could defeat.

Do we toss out thousands of years of a religion if a religious person tells a lie? Do we toss out thousands of years of math if a mathematician tells a lie? Hardly. People lie, people make mistakes, people are human. Thanks goes to science for finding those lies, those mistakes, and learning from them instead of hiding them and clinging to them like dogma.

Thanks to self-contradiction and accurate history for letting us detect lies so easily. Thanks to ease and simplicity of detection, for indicating to that anyone who is the least bit informed, and is found still pushing stale old worn-out lies which never had any traction is almost certainly being deceitful.

In more direct response to that first bit, we do allow persons dogmatically pushing religious beliefs to successfully undermine their own credibility, especially when they put much effort into it.

Meanwhile, YECs lie constantly every day about many scientific fields in order to maintain completely disproven beliefs. I'm stunned that accepting God's creation as it really is is so unacceptable to so many people who believe in God.

View Post

Thanks to false accusations for springing forth with such ease in place of meaningful argument. How likely can it be that an individual with facts on his side would rather sling mud (and with such poor, panicky aim)? In the case at hand, the facts have always shown recap to be false and abortion to be the killing of an innocent, fully-human infant.

#158 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 14 April 2009 - 05:53 PM

There were other lies, but Piltdown man, for example, is no longer used in textbooks.  However, a hundred years after the lie was exposed, textbooks still print Haeckel's faked drawings and claim that they prove evolution.  The lie is repeated, time and again.

View Post


You can probably still find Haeckel's drivel in some text books today. But, this thread has proven that evolutheists are still trying to defend Haeckel today (even if half heartedly). And they’ll trot out the old canard that Christians have to dig a hundred years back to Haeckel to find evidences against evolution. But, I submit (although there is a plethora of modern evidence against evolution), if it’s rotten at the roots, it’s rotten at the branches…




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users