Creationists

[Hollie]

More false quotes from the IHEU website. Holly, your are the drag queen of false quotes.

They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.

I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.

I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.

 

[UltimateReality]

The TOE is science.

You can't accept that because it conflicts with the bible and a 6000 year old earth.

The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?

It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.

 

[Hollie]

An Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2006

An Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's Newpage for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information.These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

More garbage from Lawrence Krauss. I don't know why you think these websites will support your belief in a 4 Billion year old universe. Or that you think you can prove the origins of life questions with such secular humanist dogma.

It sure has a way of putting a muzzle on the fundie creationists.

You can't refute science so your only avenue left is to disparage it. You really do make yourself quite the pompous boob with your lashing out.

 

[Hollie]

The TOE is pseudo science based on your materialist secular humanist religion. You spend all your time cutting and pasting from IHEU websites and never stop long enough to actually do any critical thinking.

You cut and paste false quotes from your religious leaders like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. If your good with "may haves" and "might haves", and nice little stories about how giraffe necks are longer because they could only eat high fruit, supporting your supposed fact, then by all means continue to support your myth. But don't pretend that the outrageous claims of the TOE are backed by any real science. News flash for you: Darwin's tree of life has been dis-proven by modern genetics and the embryo drawings were fakes. However, since Darwinism is religion for you, none of this should matter. Continue to go ahead and cling to your religion even no there is no proof.

You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?

It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

 

[UltimateReality]

They're all referenced. You're simply in denial. Your insensate hatred for me or anyone else who challenges your dogma is obvious, You need to get over that.

I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.

I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website in your futile attempts to substantiate your belief in an eternal universe.

 

[newpolitics]

So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.

It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".

And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.

A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID. The only thing ID proponents say is, it is too amazing, and resembles machinery or digital code that WE designed, therefore, it must also have a designer. Well, that is simply failing to allow for any other options, because their explanation has not been disproven. This is convenient for them (and easy) considering their conclusion contains an unfalsifiable element: god. I could easily advance the argument that we come from nature, so it is logical that our own designs would mimic it, or that given the laws of physics (especially the strength of gravity acting on all organisms), only certain designs would be effective in negotiating gravity and creating force for movement, and our minds and the process of nature happened to converge, by necessity, on certain designs. A binary-code works best, and is most efficient, therefore, out minds, and nature both converged on it. This is an explanation that doesn't require god, and makes total logical sense. Scientists believe that life on other planets would look similar, and for the same reason. Only certain designs, in the presence of gravity, would be effective for life if it wanted to move around their planet (ie, legs, eyes in the front of the head, etc...) This is even witnessed here, with convergent evolution. Squids' eyes are similar to our own, yet evolved on a separate path. (I realize you don't believe in evolution, but try and understand the concept of converging on a idea naturally). We converged on the same design for our eyes (in fact, their eyesight is better), because that is what simply what works. Evolution is not an "accident." It has to find ways to make things work given the constraints and difficulties of getting over gravity and the elements to be to do what it needs to, in order to survive. That is A LOT constraint if you think about it, and really, only a narrow realm of possibility would allow for a successful creature that would survive past natural selection. It is probably as a result of this, that things seem so "designed." Appearance of design, does not mean design. The simplest code one could think of, would be a binary code, instead of, for instance, a trinary code. The fact that we converged on this too with our intellect, should not be a surprise.

ID is, at best, an argument from incredulity, which is a form of argument from ignorance. I've said this ten times, and you can not refute this. You possess you no positive evidence of your own for ID, instead only rely on an absence of evidence for natural abiogenesis to support your claim. Even if we did have fossils, you would refute the veracity of radiological dating methods. The point is, you contain a presupposition, and no amount of reality will convince you otherwise. Whether evolutionists have presuppositions are not is irrelevant, because we have evidence for our claims, in fact, this is where our claims are derived from: from looking at the evidence, and following it to a natural conclusion. This is known as following the evidence. Creationists do the opposite and lead the evidence to their own presuppositions, which is why you can not and will not accept certain evidence as being evidence. This is "evidenced" by the fact that creationists will attempt to discredit radioactive dating methods, even though it is based on the same physics that allows their computer to run and atomic bombs to explode. It is selective treatment of reality.

 

[Hollie]

I don't really even need to read them because I have proven before you conveniently leave important parts of the quotes out and rob them of their original meaning. If you were truly trying to be honest you wouldn't cut and paste partial quotes and post them out of their original context.

I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're getting a little frothy there, dear.

I can see your hate is getting the best of you. You're ranting on using all the tired, worn cliches' that haunt the fundie creationist cabal.

You have a desperate need to denigrate evolution as a "religion". Do you find it strange that you would use the term "religion' as a means to disparage the pursuit of knowledge?

It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.

 

[Hollie]

It is your religion. You swear by its tenants and doctrines to support your belief in an eternal universe.

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.

I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.

The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."

So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.

So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.

 

[UltimateReality]

I have done that.

That is quite a contrast to the falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" I have had to correct you for dumping in this thread.

Your falsified, edited and manufactured "quotes" were not honest mistakes but deliberate fraud.

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.

 

[UltimateReality]

Science is not religion.

That's why the courts have consistently thrown out fundie creationst babble from a school syllabus.

Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.

I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.

The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."

So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.

So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.

Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.

 

[Hollie]

Oh sure, repeat my accusation back at me. No one else will notice how silly that looks. You have shown time and again how you twist the truth with your cut and pastes from the IHEU websites. You really should just stick to copying words from Lawrence Krauss website.

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.

I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.

There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.

By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese

Re: Top Creationist Lies

Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
college degrees.

Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.

Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
but there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
degree.

 

[UltimateReality]

So, using inductive reasoning, a diety should not be considered as an explanation, just because little to no evidence of abiogensis is available.

It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".

And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.

A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.

Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.

 

[Hollie]

Well that would be all fine and dandy if you were actually quoting science. But instead you twist some science in with your secular humanist dogma by leaving out important parts of quotes to twist the truth. Your endless cutting and pasting from the IHEU website to push your secular humanist agenda and belief in an eternal universe is exhausting.

I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.

The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."

So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.

So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.

Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.

It's a shame that you don't have the intellectual means and methods to offer a refutation.

The peer reviewed science is not your equpiied to debate, obviously. The mind-altering drivel you've been coached with at Harun Yahya has left you unable to effectively deal with science and facts.

 

[Hollie]

It depends on what your definition of diety is. As I have presented the argument before, using Lyell and Darwin's method, we can more logical deduce that an intelligent agent is the BEST EXPLANATION for the digital code in DNA, not some random force no one has ever seen in action in the modern world, nor has any evidence for. Until Materialist come up with evidence that functioning machine code randomly generates [without intelligent input!!!], our current, best, and most logical explanation is that it had an intelligent source. If you want to turn the scientific argument into a philosophical one, then by all means label that agent a "diety".

And the intelligent source acted post Big Bang. Some Materialists have suggested Panspermia. But that gets back to the "Turtles all the way down" argument of who made the Aliens? The only way that paradox is solved is by an Intelligent Agent who exists outside of Creation.

A deity: in this case, an intelligent designer. Logic deduction in arriving at the conclusion of an intelligent designer, has not been done, unless you can prove you're premises to be sound, which in this case, no one has (or in any arguments for the existence of god). I haven't even seen a real argument presented for the case of ID.

Being in denial about the merits of the scientific argument for ID is not the same as not having seen it.

And yet you have never been able to offer a scientific argument for supernaturalism. All you can offer is cut and paste from Harun Yahya.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're lashing out.

I can understand your frustration. Every time you and your cohort fundies have tried to force your religion into the school system, you've been thrown out in disgrace.

How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.

I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.

There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.

By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese

Re: Top Creationist Lies

Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
college degrees.

Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.

Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
but there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
degree.

I don't hate you Hollie. Merely pointing out the falsehoods you continue to post to support your belief in an eternal universe or calling you out on twisting and deleting pertinent parts of quotes is just a call to you to be more intellectually honest. Cutting and pasting from Lawrence Krauss Websites does not constitute engaging in the conversation and these attack quotes from your friends at the IHEU lack merit due to their incredible hate and bias against us creationists.

 

[Hollie]

Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections

Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections

Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR's Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland:
The ICR's Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: "Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all." This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed "admitted" that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist "scholarship."

David Raup, in a letter to Thomas J. Wheeler dated December 9, 1987 (quoted in Wheeler's "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show'," available from Wheeler at 426 Deerfield Lane, Louisville, KY 40207) wrote regarding a quote about the horse series being "phony" (used by Kennedy) that:
I suspect that much of the quote from the radio [actually television] came from the Sunderland interviews. Although I might easily have made the statement about the horse series, I do not remember doing so. In my interview with Sunderland I said: "Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable."
Wheeler notes that when he asked Kennedy for the source of the Raup quote, he was sent a photocopy of a page from The Quote Book which did not at all match what Kennedy said on the air (Wheeler reprinted it in full on p. 26 of his response) and does not state that there are no transitions in the horse series.

 

[UltimateReality]

I understand your frustration. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and your gawds really have nothing left to do but take up knitting.

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy!

ICR's Response? Proof of Creation Idiocy! - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Entitled Studies Show Extinct Reptiles Moved with Grace and Ease, this article only gives out reports about the 2 latest studies, and then concludes that this is [sic] Proof of Creation and Design out of outright denial of the existence of transitional forms that paved the way for the likes of T.rex to evolve. The first is the mentioning of the latest study that suggests Pterosaurs process the ability to fly by using their long forearms to pole vault themselves off the ground. However, the article is making as if pterosaurs were long thought to be clumsy gliders and inexperienced fliers as claimed in some old-outdated dinosaur books of the early 1900s'. Any paleontologist, past and present, knows that pterosaurs can fly. But just how pterosaurs can fly, let alone get off the ground, have been a subject of much debating among paleontologists over the years. The latest study made by Paleontologists Michael Habib of Chatham University and Mark Witton of the University of Portsmouth is the latest in achieving a much better understanding on how giant pterosaurs can get off the ground and fly without a problem.

The second is the mentioning of the latest studies made by Paleontologist and graduate student Scott Persons who found that T.rex had a large muscular robust area at the beginning of the tail at the upper leg bone area that allows the tyrant dinosaur to run real fast to catch its prey. Thus, leading Persons to say, "Contrary to earlier theories, T. rex had more than just junk in its trunk."

So what does ICR thought about all this? Simple. ICR, in all its ignorant glory, stupidly and mindlessly concludes that there's no evidence for such evolution as mentioned in the article about the locomotion of T.rex, never mind the transitional forms showing us that the great Tyrannosaurus Rex did evolved from so-called "pre-theropod fossil skeletal features that show any hint of transitioning toward the observed fully developed theropod-like features" like Eotyrannus, Aviatyrannis, Proceratosaurus, Guanlong, and Stokesosaurus.

So, at the conclusion of the article, ICR boldly, stupidly, and ignorantly declares that both these latest studies on pterosaurs and T.rex locomotion is proof of creation and design. Every fossil found shows that they were all "fully formed" and that they were "created with the fully formed ability to move with agility", never mind what is mentioned above about the T.rex ancestry and never mind the fact that giant pterosaurs like Pteranodon and Quetzalcolatlus did evolved from the likes of Darwinopterus a transitional pterosaur from Middle to Late Jurassic China.

Too bad this response is not based in reality. This is another construct of Lawrence Krauss and has no basis in any truth. Trying to pretend that it is science you believe in while holding to the eternal universe theory to allow more "magic" time to prove your origins beliefs is not going to fly with anyone with even the slightest ability to reason.

It's a shame that you don't have the intellectual means and methods to offer a refutation.

The peer reviewed science is not your equpiied to debate, obviously. The mind-altering drivel you've been coached with at Harun Yahya has left you unable to effectively deal with science and facts.

I could say the same thing about your coaching from Lawrence Krauss. Why would I attempt to respond to a cut and paste argument from your IHEU websites? We would have to call that "dignifying your intellectual dishonesty with a response" which I won't do.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections

Yet more lies by Creationists, and their corrections

Niles Eldredge, in The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism (1982, Washington Square Press, pp. 130-131) writes regarding the ICR's Gary Parker and Luther Sunderland:
The ICR's Gary Parker has been among the more blatant offenders [in distorting the words of scientists]. On page 95 of his Creation: The Facts of Life, we read: "Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American Museum, and even the British Museum say we have not a single example of evolutionary transition at all." This is untrue. A prominent creationist [Sunderland] interviewed a number of paleontologists at those institutions and elsewhere (actually, he never did get to Harvard). I was one of them. Some of us candidly admitted that there are some procedural difficulties in recognizing ancestors and that, yes, the fossil record is rather full of gaps. Nothing new there. This creationist then wrote letters to various newspapers, and even testified at hearings that the paleontologists he interviewed "admitted" that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Thus, the lie has been perpetuated by Parker. All of the paleontologists interviewed have told me that they did cite examples of intermediates to the interviewer. The statement is an outright distortion of the willing admission by paleontologists concerned with accuracy, that, to be sure, there are gaps in the fossil record. Such is creationist "scholarship."

David Raup, in a letter to Thomas J. Wheeler dated December 9, 1987 (quoted in Wheeler's "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show'," available from Wheeler at 426 Deerfield Lane, Louisville, KY 40207) wrote regarding a quote about the horse series being "phony" (used by Kennedy) that:
I suspect that much of the quote from the radio [actually television] came from the Sunderland interviews. Although I might easily have made the statement about the horse series, I do not remember doing so. In my interview with Sunderland I said: "Well, as more is learned about the evolution of the horse, more separate lineages have been recognized and it's far more complicated than early work indicated." I suspect that the quoted statements were actually made either by Eldredge or Gould. I have heard Gould repeatedly criticize the traditional museum treatment of horse evolution. And Eldredge said in his Sunderland interview that the AMNH [American Museum of Natural History] exhibit on the subject is "lamentable."
Wheeler notes that when he asked Kennedy for the source of the Raup quote, he was sent a photocopy of a page from The Quote Book which did not at all match what Kennedy said on the air (Wheeler reprinted it in full on p. 26 of his response) and does not state that there are no transitions in the horse series.

Leave it to Lawrence Krauss to only be able to come up with articles from the 80's and 90's. Continuing to quote him and his minions is not going to convince us of your belief in the eternal universe.

 

[Hollie]

How do you see that me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is lashing out? Pointing out your cutting and pasting from the IHEU website and deleting parts of quotes to support your materialist religion and belief in an eternal universe is just stating the facts.

I understand your frustration. You're forced to launch into personal attacks because your fundie religious clams lie in tatters before your.

There's no reason to hate me. If you must hate someone, hate the folks at the fundie creationist ministries who have lied to you.

By: Elliott Finesse Re: Top Creationist Lies Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Rese

Re: Top Creationist Lies

Part 1: The head of the Creation Science Research Center falsifies his
college degrees.

Dr. Kelly Segraves, Director of the CSRC (Creation Science Research
Center), listed himself as M.A. and D.Sc. on the 1975 CSRC letterhead.
After having it called into question, Segraves dropped the D.Sc. in 1981
and now lists "D.R.E." in its place.

Segraves has claimed that his D.Sc. is honorary from "Christian
University", yet a computer search indicated that the only university with
that name is located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Segraves claims to have received his M.A. from Sequoia University in 1972
but there is no such place. The closest name match is a Sequoia College
in California, which only offers two year associate degrees and has no
record of any student named Kelly Segraves. Note that "D.R.E." is a
doctorate of religious education and does not qualify as a scientific
degree.

I don't hate you Hollie. Merely pointing out the falsehoods you continue to post to support your belief in an eternal universe or calling you out on twisting and deleting pertinent parts of quotes is just a call to you to be more intellectually honest. Cutting and pasting from Lawrence Krauss Websites does not constitute engaging in the conversation and these attack quotes from your friends at the IHEU lack merit due to their incredible hate and bias against us creationists.

I'm afraid that you have assumed the tactics of the charlatans at the ICR, Harun Yahya and other creationist ministries by lying in order to defend your false claims.

That's a shame. In typical fundie fashion, you will accept whatever tactic is required to defend the falsified "quotes", edited "qoutes" and false attributions in order to further your dogma.

Let go of the hate you have for others. Accept that there is a brightness that is falling across the planet called literacy and education and knowledge, exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.