The Dinosaur Dilemma (part 2) - Convicted - Dr. Brad Harrub

[Sc0ttPrian]

Is it michael jacksons footprint? or is it jesus' footprint while he was imprinting himself in a chip? haha, calling an oval shaped print a human footprint is a VERY long reach.

[Seymour13]

Anyway, merry x-mas.

I might find some of the things you've said disgusting, but from one human to another I wish you well.

[somethingdiffereable]

See what happens when some professors and schools give out passing grades and degrees to hillbillies!

[b66175]

May God bless you and keep you !

[hevy99]

@ FocusPress1 HE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON! Good job!! The biological and geological record proves the "CAMBRIAN EVENT" Darwin himself couldn't explain it, and neither can any other evolutionist or atheist. +++

[somethingdiffereable]

@icchurch Scientific quackery is an abomination to mankind. Pseudo-science should be a crime. It's wrong to teach something that has no basis in truth. I don't even know where to begin in the critisism of this scientific blasphemy. I thought this was some kind of joke, satire or parody when I 1st saw this. I spent years of my life studying biology in college and participated in genetic research studies in such "bushleague institutions" as Harvard University and M.I.T. This is shameful!

[jcchurch]

Maybe it's a good thing that FocusPress1 disabled comments on future videos. They know that we won't let the misinformation stand.

[aTnavarrow]

Interesting presentation.

Thank you

Happy evening from here ~

[somethingdiffereable]

So I guess you consider anything that is not out of the bible to be profanity? I don't get you people at all. I'll see what I can do to spread the message of true and I'm not talking about biblical fiction! 

[TChapman500]

@somethingdiffereable Nice misrepresentation of us!

[hevy99]

@somethingdiffereable TRUE? Obviously u dont know the meaning of the word. U must believe GOG is fictional, & CHRIST is a liar then. SO SAD 4 U! JESUS IS TRUTH! Aside from GOD's truth, there IS NO absolute truth. All this wishy washy postmoderny "truths" are all merely relative to "whatever." So if truth is merely "whatever" we choose it 2be, ignoring GOD, while at the same time reaping the benefits of biblical morals, virtues,& ideals, yet oblivious 2where they actually originated? FAR OUT MAN!

[somethingdiffereable]

@hevy99 You are right on several accounts yet wrong on some others. I don't believe that jesus was a liar but I do believe people who invented him and came up with the preposterous stories about him were liars. I don't believe the bible is good source of moral values either. The god of the bible is a vicious, contempuous, jealous, immature, vengeful, mass-murderer with an attitude problem. Surely not the type of intity that any civilized person would follow!Cannabols the Congo have better values

[hevy99]

@somethingdiffereable THEN U DONT BELIEVE IN RECORDED HISTORY, YET U CHOSE TWIST THE RECORDED HISTORY IN THE BIBLE! Entire bible screams the same basic message. LOVE ur nieghbor as urself & Love GOD who loves you. You can pick it apart as much as you want, dig out pieces of recorded history& harbor hate &resentment as u obviously have, then go to ur grave with that useless outlook, if you choose. I prefer life over certain death, and life more abundantly while i am here. its a no-brainer! +++

[somethingdiffereable]

@hevy99 I would rather burn in hell than worship this scoundrel of a god. But I know that such a being does not exsist. So I don't worry about it!

[Stianchez]

@somethingdiffereable Why is God a scoundrel exactly? o.O



[somethingdiffereable]

@Stianchez Rather than go into a long dissertation it would be easier jus to send you a relievant video or 2. So I will do that. The god of the desert A.K.A bible is quite a nasty fellow when you take a close look at him. Most christians have never realy taken a close look at the bible. What I will send you are passages strait out of the bible to prove my point.

[Stianchez]

@somethingdiffereable Thanks for taking your time to send the links. I know what you are talking about and I know what misconception you come from. If you wanna know why you're wrong, /watch?v=zvV3l_dVvFc

It's just 2 minutes long, You got that amount of time you can spend =)

PS, If God exist and did such things, who are you to say his actions are evil? On your view everything is subjective, surely he is free to do what he wants if this is his world?

Anyhoo take care =)

[somethingdiffereable]

@Stianchez God does not exsist! Never did! It's an invention of man! Designed as a means for tyrants to control the weakminded. The god of the bible is a tyrant. This justifies the action of tyrants to control their weakminded subjects. Religion is considered true by the common-man, false by the wise-man and neccessary by rulers.

[Stianchez]

@somethingdiffereable Watch the video I sent you and comment again, and tell me how he is a tyrant. =)

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

I find it questionable that you would use a vid as an argument when it offers no valid arguments, tries to excuse mass-murder, and says things such as; "no-one is truly innocent, all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of god".

Which is quite a vile and dehumanizing thing to claim (and only serves to lay bare the self-loathing of those that hold that particular belief).

[Stianchez]

@Seymour13 If we're going to argue for God, then assume he exist for a moment.

People are so earthly minded, if the Canaan's sacrifice their own children, rape their women. Kill their captives, horrible acts.

God gave them 400 years to change from their evil ways, if he let this continue they would influence or conquer others, and send more people to hell. God had two choice, let them all go to hell, or save innocent people and bring them to God.

Removing evil is not evil.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

Wow...

I decided to give you the benefit of doubt but it looks like I was wrong.

Good thing this is YT, IRL I wouldn't give wackjobs like you the time of day.

"God gave them 400 years to change from their evil ways"

Newsflash, at no given time is an entire community evil, there are always innocent victims (which is already dubious by human standards, now let's assume a 'perfect' being can't manage to NOT kill those innocents).

(cont.)

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

"God had two choices, let them all go to hell, or save innocent people and bring them to God."

Oh, such kindness to kill innocents in cold blood to save them from an even worse fate for which he is also responsible (making us capable of sin, making hell, and if you're a literalist he also put that friggin' tree in the garden of eden).

Infinite punishment for finite crimes is NEVER justified (and the height of immorality, regardless of the victim's crimes).

(cont.)

[Stianchez]

@Seymour13 A quick sidenote...(I sent another msg 2 minutes ago) "To kill innocent"

If your life is taken away, which is given to you freely by god and kept alive by God. He has every right to take that life back, now if that results in you going to heaven. I really dont see what kind of "horrible" action this is. Please explain how going to heaven is a "horrible" action.

PS, hell ain't eternal.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

Especially not for alot of non-crimes that are wrongfully considered sinful (since we're on the subject of hell anyway).

For example; I'm an average joe that generally tries to do as much good as I can, and as little bad, I have integrity, I value honesty, etc.

According to the bible I'm heading to hell since I don't believe jesus was who he is claimed

to be (I'm not sure he even existed at all), as one must accept jesus christ as his personal saviour and repent.

(cont.)

[Stianchez]

@Seymour13 You're depiction of God is grossly misrepresentend, we are not talking about the same God. When you debate for and against you constantly jump between christian and atheistical presupusitions. If you're going to debate for or against God, then stick to one. First you claim he's evil, which doesn't exist on the atheistical view.

PM me your case instead, it is far too messy to keep track of in a 500 PM. Remember if you're going to debate against God. Stay on track.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

"When you debate for and against you constantly jump between christian and atheistical presupusitions."

Bullshit.

"First you claim he's evil, which doesn't exist on the atheistical view."

Again bullshit, there is no atheistic view and we do recognize that evil exists (fact of life).

"He has every right to take that life back"

You're sick in the head you know that?, seeing as it's x-mas I'll refrain from my usual response to such remarks...

You fail as a human being, just so you know.

[Stianchez]

@Seymour13 Bullshit? First you claim God's action is evil, which you have no basis to claim. On atheism, it's your subjective opinion against God.

Why is your subjective opinion the right one and not God?

Oh here is proof of your switching again. "The destination isn't relevant... The whole GOAL of this life is to choose whether you follow Christ or not, if you want to spend eternity with God or not. How is getting the right reward not relevant?

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

Fine, since you insist, one more comment.

"First you claim God's action is evil, which you have no basis to claim"

I think you're confused; you're the one that has to make a convincing case for justifying aforementioned atrocities (which you haven't), I don't have to explain the inner workings of "don't fucking kill good/innocent people" to someone so lacking in the morality department that that person has to have it explained to him in the first place.

(cont.)

[Stianchez]

@Seymour13 Not a single person is innocent, we are all sinners. By destroying the canaan, not only did God stop child sacrifice, rape of women and horrible moral acts he also save children from going to hell. He made sure you and I have a fair chance of choosing whether or not we want to follow Christ.

So tell me, how is it evil to stop people from killing innocent children and raping women?

You condone rape and the killing of innocent children? Is this the morals you pursue?

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez Actually Christians are the ones who condone rape and killing of innocents. Just look at history there were 8 crusades and over 100 other holy wars where christinsanes killed each other, musliars, nonbelievers, and other people they failed to convince. Christinsanity is a personal problem where the christian can't force their opinion on to someone else so the christinsane becomes psychotic and kills.

[Stianchez]

@GodKillerAtheist

Because there were crusades, does that mean all christians are bad? So I might aswell say you're all followers of hitler and stalin who killed more people in the history of man kind than any other regime? Just in the 20th century has atheistical regimes killed more people than all of religion together ever

I like your reasoning skills

past of others that killing babies was wrong <-- Where do you get the wrong from?

I dont see you complaining over shark rape

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez its funny you bring up the two most famous. Christians hitler the catholic and Stalin the orthodox christian. Atheism isn't a moral code its the belief that Theists such as yourself refuse and fail to produce any evidence for your claims of gods. We nonbelievers the ones you failed to convince usually use modern morality or subjective morality.

[Stianchez]

@GodKillerAtheist If you claim hitler and Stalin were christian, you need to take some history lessons, hitler and stalin ran atheist regimes, and you can see by their testomnies and their action they weren't christians. Pretty obviouse. Hitler mein kampf is based of Evolution. The arian race must prevail.-

So, I find it interesting that you avoid my question. Both my previouse in stopping rape and sacrificing of innocent children, aswell as the one above.

Shark rape?

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez Let me ask you two questions about Hitler and if you can refute them You can go right back to believing he was an Atheist when we all know the Nazi party was in fact a right wing socialist evangelical party.

Question #1 Why did every Nazi belt buckle say Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) If the Nazi's and Hitler were Atheists?

Question#2 When did Hitler state that he disbelieved there was a god? We see him with the pope and attending church Even the swastika is a christian cross. Explain!

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez The facts is it doesn't matter who was an Atheist because Atheism isn't a moral code. It's like saying everyone who likes the blue fruit loops are evil and should be shot. Your logic is very flawed and using a dictator to say Atheism is evil is the same as me saying Christianity is evil because all the priests are pedophiles. I bet I can find way more raped children from your cult than dictators against it. =)

[Stianchez]

@GodKillerAtheist ... Then why on earth do you bring up the crusades? Where in the bible does it tell you to do go Jerusalem on a crusade?

.. It was you who were argueing like this not me... hello?

You just stated basically that your own logic is flawed...

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez Now Stalin may have been an Anti-theist but he never said that he was an Atheist. In fact we see no evidence that Stalin ever stated dogmatically that he didn't believe in God. What we see is him and Hitler invokeing the word "God" on several occasions.

Do pray tell why someone who doesn't believe in something would invoke god? So far your argument is "They killed a bunch of people so they're atheists". BAD ARGUMENT! Not that it even matters if they were, because they were dictators

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez BTW I have a copy of Mein Kampf sitting on the shelf. It's not about or based on evolution whatsoever it's based on racism you know like your religion. BTW did you know that the KKK uses the book of Romans in your fools book to justify slavery and racism?

Lets see through your fallacy. Even if there was anything in his book about evolution that doesn't make evolution wrong. Sadly you're way too stupid to understand the reality and usefulness of common sense.

[Stianchez]

@GodKillerAtheist Read my last reply to you, and you never read the book I take it.

He uses evolutionary model to promote the arian race, and to knock of the jews and black people because they are closest to ape....

Saying im stupid, when you're the one who freaking debunks your own logic... brilliant...

Im done, this scoffer had enough of my attention.

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez ", I find it interesting that you avoid my question. Both my previouse in stopping rape and sacrificing of innocent children, aswell as the one above.

Shark rape?"

I answered your question with an argument against your moral code that says you should starve children to death.. So why do you believe it's more moral for children to starve than their mother to steal some food? Dogmatic morals blind you so much you can't even see the answer when I give it to you twice.

[Stianchez]

@GodKillerAtheist No, you refuse to answer my question. You blame God, for the cruelty of men. Narrowing God down in a material world where short term happyness is the goal is not the view I hold.

Not only do you give an answer which is not in line with a biblical perspective, you dont even asnwer my questions. I already said im done with this scoffer, so unless you bring some honesty to the table, dont expect any replies back from me.

Sincerely goodluck.

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez If you're not smart enough to understand I've answered your pathetic trollish question twice than you're not smart enough to understand it a third time. And why would I blame something I don't believe in? Are you so stupid you confused me with someone else?

Yes bring some facts and honesty to the table some real meat and maybe you'll have an argument for your invisible wizard you fail to provide any evidence for.

Yep you'll need more than good luck son. Waiting! forever waiting!

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez it's also funny how you feel your cult is against child murder so let me help you see the evil of your primitive dogmatic morals. With a common story that happens every day.

A woman has only two options steal food for her starving childern or let them die. By your morals she should let them starve slowly to save her soul from sin.

So why do you support starving babies?

[GodKillerAtheist]

@Stianchez "how is it evil to stop people from killing innocent children and raping women?"

obviously mentally disturbed Christinsanes such as your self would have to ask a mentally healthy Atheist nonbeliever. So I'll tell you since you're so morally deprived. We learned from our past and the past of others that killing babies was wrong. Not only does it currently put you in prison for life. It hurts others unnecessarily. This goes against the evolution of a modern society.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

All you've been able to come up with is a variation of might makes right; "If your life is taken away, which is given to you freely by god and kept alive by God. He has every right to take that life back".

Murdering an innocent is already known by every moral person to be an utterly evil act, no way in hell would a god (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) condone or commit such an act.

(cont.)

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

Nor would such a god be so utterly lazy or incompetent to even suffer the death of a single innocent by his hands while taking out truly evil people.

I'd let these sink in if I were you: watch?v=Puyykf3FwmU (start at 6:11 or skip to the next one) & watch?v=0vYKZe_Svno.

"Bullshit?"

Yes, all I did as far as "switching" is concerned I merely listed 3 cardinal sins god would be guilty of if the biblical theology were to be correct, that was by no means my main point.

(cont.)

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

The crux of the issue was the supposed atrocities, and I'd say I've been pretty consistent.

"Why is your subjective opinion the right one and not God?"

Because any moral person knows that it is wrong to take an innocent life (regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife and if so where that person ends up going) and such a person would never adhere to a might makes right based authority.

(cont.)

[Sc0ttPrian]

@GodKillerAtheist down with a-theist world ;) get it? some day, they will understand.. though, the chances are quite slim.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

"Please explain how going to heaven is a "horrible" action"

The destination isn't relevant to that point, just the fact that he'd end the life of innocent ppl is bad enough, heaven be damned.

He doesn't have that right (I'd really advise you to watch the vids I linked).

Btw I won't PM you as this was my last response.

Thx though, you've made my faith in humanity take yet another nosedive.

"hell ain't eternal"

Ah, so you're one of the "make your own christianity" ppl, fine with me.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

[Sidenote]

Guess that covers sloth and wrath already, and there's plenty examples of his pride in the bible aswell, oh and let's not forget all the innocents he supposedly killed, it seems like god is quite the sinner...

Sorry but even if I believed that the christian god exists, I would never be able to worship him (or the biblical jesus for that matter as he supported slavery, stoning unruly children, thought crime and self-mutilation).

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

And no moral person can be happy in heaven knowing that ANYONE at all (especially someone they love) is in hell for all eternity.

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

[Sidenote]

That said... did you even watch the vid you suggested?

And if so, how did you manage to stomach the whole thing?

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

Just because god gave ppl some time to change their act doesn't make the (imaginary) genocide that followed any less horrid, as a matter of fact it changes absolutely nothing since he still carried out the mass-murders.

Also, this god has no justified basis for moral authority on which to claim that his standard is the right one and that everyone must obey (though he can do w/e he wants and no-one can stop him since he's supposedly omnipotent).

(cont.)

[Seymour13]

@Stianchez

(cont.)

Either god dictates morality; in which case morality is not set in stone but subject to his every whim, or morality is set in stone; in which case god doesn't dictate morals but is instead subject to them.

Meaning that god either (1) changes what's moral to suit his own fancy whenever he wants to do (or order) something that's considered a sin (like mass-murder), or (2) he has sinned aswell while committing those atrocities.

God's sins: sloth, wrath and pride.

(cont.)

[jcchurch]

Job 39:10 God says to Job, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" I guess you take this as evidence of unicorns too. This book is a narrative fiction. It has God and Satan talking to each other like old friends having a friendly wager. The God of Job is completely indifferent to the concerns of humans. The Book of Job is the most problematic book of the Bible.

[Stianchez]

@jcchurch I think I already told you, the meaning of the word Unicorn was different before than now. The unicorn is a rhinosaurus. It describes a 4 legged animal with  horns on its head. What does that sound like to you?

Just because you have an inability to distinguish past from the future. Everything isn't the same now as it was before.

[jcchurch]

@Stianchez Actually, in this passage the unicorn is mostly likely an aurochs, which would have been native to the region where the passage was written. Why are you accusing me of not being able to differentiate between past and present? I accept uniformitarianism, gradualism, cyclic drift, and evolution, and each of these require an understanding that things change over time. It seems that you already have an idea of these things, and thus we are not far apart.

[Stianchez]

@jcchurch We're pretty far apart I can tell you that.

[jcchurch]

In the Book of Job, God destroys Job's property, kills his children and physically abuse him. When Job demands answers from God (which seems almost too kind in this case), God then verbally abuses him. I don't like God in the Book of Job. God is a jerk (harsher words will get me banned from this channel). I think the Book of Job is a good example of why the Hebrew God should be rejected and the God-concept should be questioned.

[TChapman500]

Evolution does not stand up to the evidence!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Except that it does entirely, everything in these videos has already been debunked on TO and stupid dinosaur lies.

Quit confusing your willful ignorance of evolution for it somehow not being the best and only theory for the explanation of biodiversity, you'll save yourself some embarrassment

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation Do you mind giving specific pages that have this "evidence?" So far, we've been the only ones that have presented any evidence, but none of the counters have presented any, just ridicule. Your second paragraph was a complete ad hominem.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Which claim do you want refuted?

It wasn't an ad hominem because it wasn't in place of any rebuttal, it was appended to it and it wasn't a personal attack because I was recommending you educate yourself, which is always helpful.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "Which claim do you want refuted?" Just give some evidence that those artifacts are unmistakably NOT carvings of dinosaurs.

"It wasn't an ad hominem because it wasn't in place of any rebuttal, it was appended to it." You have presented no rebuttal.

"I was recommending you educate yourself" Why do you say that I am uneducated?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Which carvings? Try being specific.

I've pointed out that everything in this video series has already been refuted

Because you still seem to think that evolution is anything other than the sole scientific explanation for biodiversity

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "Try being specific." Okay, the stegosaurus carving on the butist temple.

"I've pointed out that everything in this video series has already been refuted" You've (and others) have said that on many videos without providing any evidence.

continued...

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 When the other carvings are shown, it's made clear that the 'plates' on the back of the stegosaurus are in all of them meaning they're part of the decoration not the subject.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "Because you still seem to think that evolution is anything other than the sole scientific explanation for biodiversity" Let me be blunt with you. I don't think, I know, that evolution is NOT the only scientific explanation for biodiversity. In fact, evolution cannot even come close to explaining it.

continued...

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation I'll even go as far as saying that evolution hinders the growth of scientific knowledge.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 You would because you're scientifically illiterate.

We would not have modern biology if not for evolutionary theory.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation Modern biology has been hindered by evolutionary thought. It doesn't take long to find something like medical treatments that have been discontinued or reinvented because of their evolutionary foundation. You claim I'm scientifically illiterate for rejecting evolution, but you have not provided any evidence for evolution that is not either highly disputable, or illegitimate.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 This is what I was referring to when I was asking you if you noticed you were literally wrong about everything. If there were no mechanisms of descent with modification then homology would be meaningless, it's the basis of everything from paternity to testing to cancer treatment experimentation in labrats.

I've provided literally mountains of evidence, you attempt to dismiss them out of hand. Chromosome 2, for instance, puts common descent beyond any reasonable doubt.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 I don't know if you've noticed a trend here but every single thing you post is demonstrably wrong every single time. Reposting it doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation You've given no evidence that these posts are demonstrably wrong, so I have no reason not to repost it. Plus, there are so many lies that are presented as evidence for evolution (Heackels' embryos or some derivative, and vestigials to name a few) that I cannot trust an evolutionists claim that what I post is wrong.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 I already did, the 'plates' on the carvings back were decorative.

Haeckel's embryos aren't used and would you care to venture a guess who debunked them?

We have photomicrographs of embryos nowadays that showed more than Haeckel ever thought we'd see. What explanation would creationism give for human embryos having tails or whale embryos having legs?

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "I already did, the 'plates' on the carvings back were decorative." Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university. And they (or some derivative of them) ARE still used. [discovery(.)org/f/7711]

Most of the "real photos" are not photos of human embryos. The ones that are, are misrepresented. /watch?v=eTA5zm9jYDQ

continued...

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 farm3.static.flickr(.)com/2254­/2105750205_1d4aa689d3.jpg

The plates are background decoration, they're in every carving

'Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university'

Exactly, nothing to do with creationists. His embellishments were exposed by his own colleagues

Yes, the real photos are human embryos showing pharyngeal pouches and vertebrate tails.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "The plates are background decoration, they're in every carving" That's not even close to what it looks like from that photo.

"Yes, the real photos are human embryos showing pharyngeal pouches and vertebrate tails." [creation(.)com/images/fp_arti­cles/2004/202embryo.jpg] Top row are the "photos" you refer to, bottom row are the actual photos.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 That's exactly what the photo shows, the carving below it has the exact same decorative plates.

Wrong, this is the full progression of human embryological development

rohan.sdsu(.)edu/dept/phil/all­Stages.gif

The tail is clear up until 50 days.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "rohan.sdsu(.)edu/dept/phil/al­l­Stages.gif

The tail is clear up until 50 days."

I cannot trust that this is not another case of fraud.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation ...It doesn't really matter if the drawings (or the derivatives) are not used anymore. The fact that they were used for more than a century after being exposed as fraud says that evolution cannot be trusted! Also, the fact that you claim that they are not used anymore, when they obviously are and you've been informed that they are, is even a stronger case that evolution cannot be trusted!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 So your argument is that 'Even though they aren't used because they were shown to be wrong we shouldn't trust the people who showed them to be wrong' ?

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation My argument is this:

Even if they are no longer used, the fact that they were used at all, knowing full well that they were frauds, is cause to question evolution's integrity.

Also, if you read what I've said carefully, I said "if they are not used anymore." They are still used and I have given references that show that they are still used.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 Except they aren't used and haven't been since the early 1900s for anything other than historical perspective.

So you've set up a catch-22 in your mind in order to reject it either way. If they use frauds then they're untrustworthy if they admit they were frauds and stop using them then they're untrustworthy

Why not just admit you don't want to educate yourself on biology?

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation No, what really happened is that they knew they were frauds, used them anyways as evidence, then after they were exposed to the public as frauds, claimed that they were no longer used, despite being informed otherwise. The document I referenced to you is dated 2011 and shows that they are, indeed still being used as evidence. [discovery(.)org/f/7711]

If it was the case that they are used for a historical perspective, I'd accept that. But that's not how it is right now.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 No, they knew they were frauds so they were removed after being exposed by other evolutionary biologists, mind you. 

No, they're not being used. Any textbooks they do remain in is for historical perspective purposes only, because as I've pointed out, the direct evidence from photomicrography overwhelmingly supports evolution.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation Well, my source does say that a good portion of evolutionary biologists acknowledge them as fakes, but it also says that they are still used as evidence for evolution. Check pages 13 and 14 of my source. You have done nothing but prove the point that the document I referenced makes.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 You seem to keep missing my pointing out that they're not used for evidence and haven't been since the early 1900's

The only source in that pdf regarding the '50 books' they're still used in from Science doesn't seem to actually list any modern books they're still used as evidence in.

Funny that the Discovery article wouldn't mention them either. I mean apparently they're in 50+ books still in publication, but not one warrants a mention?

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation 50 books? Not sure where you got that from. However, this document [evolutionnews(.)org/Discovery­Institute_2011TextbookReview.p­df], which is more recent, evaluates 22 of the books that are used and that (a majority) do use the fraudulent drawings (or derivatives) as evidence.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 From the very source you linked to, which you apparently did not read.

Also, that link doesn't go anywhere.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "From the very source you linked to, which you apparently did not read." I overlooked it when I read it the first time (sorry). I found it and the footnotes it referenced, which you seem to have ignored.

There seems to be a bug with the link system. Try this: [evolutionnews(.)org/Discovery­Institute_2011TextbookReview(.­)pdf] Also, copy the link into Notepad++ to ensure that there are no hidden characters (as seems to be the case often with long links).

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation [christiananswers(.)net/q-eden­/edn-c024.html] Scroll down to "The Truth about Human Tails." Why keep using the tail as "evidence" for evolution when it has such an important function in both the development stage, and post-birth stage?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TChapman500 It doesn't matter if it's been co-opted for a different function, it is unequivocally a tail in human embryos just as we unarguably have a pseudo-gene for a primate tail.

[TChapman500]

@TheScienceFoundation "It doesn't matter if it's been co-opted for a different function, it is unequivocally a tail in human embryos" [discovery(.)org/f/7711] page 16.

"just as we unarguably have a pseudo-gene for a primate tail." First off, the claim of it being "unarguable" is false. Secondly, give me a source for this "pseudo-gene."