Originally Posted by Sinyalan
obvioulsy you dont believe in creationism.
So unsa man diay imong suggestion kung asa ta gikan? sa unggoy? nya nahimong sinyalan,ahahahaha!!!
mas lisod man cguro na sabton kaysa creation.
Results 61 to 70 of 1839
-
01-06-2008, 08:44 AM #61Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
-
01-06-2008, 09:31 AM #62 Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
Lisod sabton ang usa ka butang if: Originally Posted by IdontCare
a) bugok ka
b) your mind is closed to the scientific method
-RODION
-
01-06-2008, 09:34 AM #63Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
Originally Posted by rodsky
korek!!! aNG pangutana kasabot ba ka kung unsa ng scientific method, toink!!!
-
01-06-2008, 09:42 AM #64Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
Yes science is not in the business of finding God. Originally Posted by Sinyalan
Nya ang sabot nimo is that i am using science to prove God? Asa man? pakita kuno. Kutaw nas pod imong utok sa? hahahaha.
ang akong gibuhat noy kay nigamit ko ug science to disprove your "scientific data kuno" against biblical facts. i hope makasabot naka ani oi.
nya kaning osa ni second motion dYUN, utro pod wa kasabot. maayo jud pareson ang duha.
Originally Posted by brownprose
psst..mangayo ra ko ug scientific data kay modayun man mo ug quote sa science so natural mangayo ko ug scientific data,tsk tsk, di man puede nga quote quote kunohay mo pero wa diay mo kasabot,hahahahaha.
so far tanang scientific data nga imong gipakita ako mang gitubag ug mga scientific data pod,then di man ka mo padayun ug discuss mobiya man ka dayun. tsk tsk, it only mean nga WEAK imong data.
-
01-07-2008, 10:56 AM #65 Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
Hahaha...ur funny. I think you believe in the wrong science dodong! Get real! Originally Posted by IdontCare
-
01-07-2008, 11:02 AM #66Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
i believe in the wrong science? hahahahaha! Originally Posted by brownprose
-
01-07-2008, 11:13 AM #67Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
naa ra imong correct science ay...ako pang post ha.
by Dr Carl Wieland
April 11, 2000
It’s official—Archaeoraptor can now be called the “Piltdown Bird!”
Just as the notorious “Piltdown Man” of England was composed of fossils of two different creatures, so the much-touted “missing link” between dinosaurs and birds, Archaeoraptor, is now officially regarded as “a combination of at least two different animals.”
National Geographic, the magazine responsible for the most sensationalized and lurid touting of this alleged “missing link,” appears to be on a face-saving exercise after (as previously revealed on this website) it appeared highly likely that their prize creationist-busting specimen was a fake. This fossil was the centerpoint of an article which was so lurid and sensationalized as to be roundly attacked even by some evolutionary colleagues! National Geographic had even gone so far in their triumphal gloatings as to depict a baby T. rex with feathers!
Presumably still smarting from the egg on their faces, the National Geographic Society has officially endorsed the findings of a panel of scientists which have confirmed the nonlink, composite status of the so-called “Archaeoraptor.” However, they have never apologized for the misleading drawings and statements in last year’s article, which would have misled millions. In fact, they defiantly end their website announcement about all this with:
“Regardless of this week’s conclusion, most scientists have been convinced for some time that birds descended from small, meat-eating dinosaurs. They base the theory on a wealth of fossil evidence from many locations around the world.”
There’s not one word about the many evolutionists themselves who have pointed out the fatal flaws in the “dino-to-bird” theory, which includes at least one member of the panel whose findings they have just endorsed!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAA PA AY correct science nimo ay...
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560
1 November 1999
OPEN LETTER TO:
Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
PRaven@nas.org
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Peter,
I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.
With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature.
Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas “will later name” the specimen identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer any need for him to do so.
Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen “accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon,” the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists—that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.
Sloan’s article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have been illegally exported and that “the Czerkases now plan to return it to China.” In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.
There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message. Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning offered for sale outside of China are contraband.
Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.
Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.
More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.
Sincerely,
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Ph. 202-357-33212
FAX 1-202-633-8084
email: olson.storrs@nmnh.si.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
01-07-2008, 11:19 AM #68 Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
How pathetic! Well...i can understand you kay creationist fanatic man diay ka. By the way, kara-an na kaau ni dodong and as i have said DON'T BITE a lot kay mapangag ka... Originally Posted by IdontCare
Read this up para malamdagan ka hehehehe...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...20_raptor.html
-
01-07-2008, 11:23 AM #69Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 600
Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
NAA pa ay...imong correct science
by Ian T. Taylor
The latest in a series of swindles concerning the evolution of man has recently been exposed by the European press. This article reports details not likely to be announced in the popular press and shows that the pattern for this type of deception has been consistent over this past century.
The adventure began in 1971 when a hunter named Dafal reported the discovery of a Stone Age tribe of men, women, and children living in the thick rain forest of Mindanao, an island of the Philippines in South-East Asia. Dafal had informed Manuel Elizalde, the Presidential assistant on National Minorities under the then Marcos government. 'Manda' Elizalde had in turn contacted National Geographic magazine in Washington with an offer of exclusive rights to the story of the century where a deputation from this age would meet with men still living in the Stone Age.
The prospects were considered significant enough to engage the attention of NBC television, by which the event could be brought to the US television audience rather than confined to the National Geographic readership. For his part in the deal, Elizalde was assured of a prominent place in this historic venture, and he confidently expected that the kudos would raise him above a rather minor governmental post. In any case, there was the $50,000 that NBC had paid him for exclusive rights.
So it was that in December, 1971, the North American television audience was treated to a unique jungle meeting between the Presidential assistant and some naked dwellers of the Stone Age. The National Geographic special ‘The Last Tribes of Mindanao’ will have been fixed in the memories of millions of viewers. However, the story needed a follow-up because to this point the meeting had simply been in the jungle and no one actually knew where or how these Tasaday people lived.
It was left to Dafal to gain the confidence of the tribe chief named Balayem, who eventually took his new-found friend to the tribe’s cave deep in the jungle. But the tricky question was, How do you get the National Geographic and NBC team to the cave? The thick jungle and uneven terrain made it totally impossible to cut a landing strip for a plane or even a helicopter. Besides, as Elizalde explained, the entire territory must be protected against loggers who would come and exploit the forest once there was a foothold.
It was decided to send in a small party headed by Dafal, who would build a temporary landing pad for the reporters on top of a tall tree near the Tasadays’ cave. Very soon a stick and rattan platform was precariously lashed to the top of a truncated tree. Seventy-five feet below lay the jungle floor, so steeply sloped that it was only just able to support mature trees.
The Alouette 3 helicopter hovered while its passengers climbed down on to the platform, then down the tree. This was the strange doorway in time by which the adventurers made their exit from the Space Age and passed into the Stone Age to meet those whom ‘evolution’ had supposedly left behind. They were met by Balayem, who led them to the cave. Here they spent two days filming life in the Stone Age.
The Tasaday people, naked except for a slim genital pouch for the men, and a grass skirt for the women, lived off the jungle. They knew nothing of agriculture. They had stone axes like the oldest tools of the European Paleolithic and they learned to use the fire drill, a device from ‘pre-history’. By whirling a wooden rod back and forth between a man’s palms, a spark could be nursed into flame with dried threads of vegetable fibre.
Prophecy
Working through two interpreters, fragments of information emerged. There were 24 in the tribe; they all had names; half the men had wives, but there were not enough women for the others; they did not share wives. They had lived in the cave as long as they knew and their ancestors had lived there before them. Strangely, they remembered a prophecy from their ancestors which told of an outsider who would come and love and protect them and lead them out of darkness. That saviour was recognized in the person of ‘Manda’ Elizalde.
Although there were no professional anthropologists on the team of reporters, it was agreed by all that quite contrary to some scholars’ beliefs, these Tasaday people were not innately murderous as our hominid ancestors supposedly were. There were gentle, and affectionate. However, apart from this one fact every other expectation of what Stone Age man was like seemed to have been wonderfully fulfilled. Clearly, the tribe must be protected if the were to learn the deal with a dominant Westernized Christian culture. Accordingly, President Marcos himself later declared the entire territory a reservation, off-limits to outsiders.
The story was duly reported in the August 1972 issue of the National Geographic magazine (142:21
and gave spectacular visual reinforcement of the textbook descriptions of the Stone Age, all in glorious Kodachrome. Darwin’s ascent of man had once more been confirmed, and not a word more was heard of the Tasaday people—until April, 1986.
At the fall of the Marcos government early in 1986, the truth about the Stone Age tribe began to leak out. A Swiss journalist, Oswald Iten, investigated the affair and reported it in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung (84:77). The three-page story appeared in the weekend issue for April 12–13 under the banner headline ‘Steinzeitschwindel’—or ‘Stone-Age Swindle’. It was indeed a swindle. Both National Geographic and the NBC television network had been taken in hook, line, and sinker by the ‘gentle Tasadays’.
It turned out the masterminds were Elizalde, whose motive was self-aggrandizement, and Dafal the ‘hunter’, who saw an opportunity to make some easy money. Dafal and the other Manubo Blit people—Tasaday was an invented name— lived in the village on the other side of the hill from the cave. They were slash-and-burn farmers who lived a free and easy life, with a little hunting more for fun than for necessity. Of course, they wore clothes like anyone else, and Oswald Iten’s newspaper photos show some of the wives wearing rather trendy Levi’s shirts.
The caper had involved just two or three families who were persuaded, at first somewhat reluctantly, to remove their clothes and act like Stone Age people—living in the cave for a couple of days for the benefit of the American visitors. It had been necessary to rehearse with stone axes and the fire drill a little beforehand, and the most difficult part was to adopt the vacant star of the Stone-Ager ‘as human intelligence was just beginning to emerge.’ As the National Geographic photos show, they managed this part of the act quite skillfully. The business with the helicopter and landing platform was ingenious and allowed the visitors to be taken to the cave without becoming aware of the pathways and village on the other side of the hill. Of course, the interpreters were in on the swindle, while the ‘prophecy’ was felt to be a nice touch giving the affair an attractive sense of mystery.
With their usual efficiency, Reuters wire service carried the news of the hoax to every major newspaper on April 13, the day the story broke in the Swiss newspaper. The following day was a ‘no news’ day, but on April 15 the US bombing of Libya occupied the news media’s attention. As far as this author has been able to determine no North American newspaper picked up this juicy news scoop on April 14 or since, with the result that the public had been left with the lie. (Editor’s note: this article was written in December 1986)
Confession?
Certainly, it must be an embarrassing moment for National Geographic, and one would hope that they would make a full confession to their readers—but that expectation has a pious ring to it. The European news media, perhaps less concerned with National Geographic’s sensibilities, have somewhat gleefully carried the story.
Just how is it that National Geographic, having highly qualified—perhaps over-qualified—editor and some of the world’s best photographers, were taken in by this hoax? The answer, in a word, is preconception. National Geographic is so totally committed to the theory of evolution, and the evolution of man particularly, that the Tasaday story, which appears to support the theory, was picked up and reported uncritically.
The Tasaday affair is not the first occasion that the West has been taken in by the East. The Margaret Mead story is a classic case of a young researcher with a preconceived idea who went out to look for evidence. Of course, she found it. Her preconception was that the Judeo-Christian ethic imposed upon adolescents’ discovery of sexuality conflicted with a natural biological necessity. Going to a culture essentially free from the Judeo-Christian influence, she questioned a small number of adolescent girls of Samoa who quickly caught on to what the American visitor wanted to hear.
They told the 23-year-old Mead the most far-fetched stories of a happy society with ‘free-love under the palm trees.’ None of it was true. The ‘research’ was an instant success among those who wanted scientific license for immorality, and the moral standards of North American life have steadily declined since. Mead published her work in 1926. The truth was only disclosed some 50 years later, but by this time it was too late—premarital *** is the norm, trial marriages are commonplace, and divorce is rampant.
Anthropology, and specifically the study of man’s origins, is an exercise in finding evidence to support a preconceived idea, but on every occasion there is a consistent pattern of deception. The ‘evidence’ such as the Tasaday people, or Mead’s findings in Samoa, is brought forth to the public with great fanfare. Years later, the truth leaks out. The ‘evidence’ is shown to have been a misinterpretation or even an outright hoax, but very rarely does this become news and the public is left with the lie. When examined closely, the entire evolutionary edifice is built upon this type of imaginary evidence which has been forcefully planted in the public mind.
A few examples other than the well-know Neanderthal, Piltdown, and Nebraska frauds will further illustrate the point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Krao Farini: the ‘Missing Link’
This is one of the forgotten pieces of ‘evidence’ today, but the pattern of deception conformed precisely to those already described. This curious case was of a rare condition consisting of an abnormal development of hair over the whole body of a young female. The girl, Krao Farini, was born in Burma. At about six years of age she was exhibited at the Royal aquarium, London, in 1882. Newspapers gave the opinion that this was a case of atavism, or reversion to a low ape-like ancestor. The popular Scientific American for 1883 (48:247) promoted this view by quoting from a German correspondent, but the widely circulated English Mechanic report later in 1894 (60:429)—was more forthright, and titled their article ‘Krao Farini: The Missing Link.’
The general public had little choice but to believe that some kind of living ‘missing link’ had been discovered in the jungles of Burma. The truth of the matter was reported in the more obscure pages of the British Medical Journal for 1883 (1:2, where it was pointed out that it was simply a rare case of hypertrichosis universalis. Far from having lived a wild life in the jungles, Krao’s mother was actually employed at the court of the King of Laos, while Krao herself was a very intelligent child who became fluent in English, French, and German.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Children born with a ‘tail’
This is a favorite piece of ‘evidence’ which seems to be trotted out in the popular press every decade or so. The most recent was reported in the North American newspapers as ‘Child born with a tail’ in May, 1982, but the facts were more soberly reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (306:1212). Even though the medical profession is careful to point out that the phenomenon is not a tail and contains no bones, but is rather fatty tissue known as a caudal appendage, the popular press still prefers to leave the impression that an evolutionary throw-back has occurred.
These few examples relate to the origin of man, but there are many from other fields in which the popular press has uncritically accepted the word of the scientist and deceived the public. It should be quickly added that not all scientists are deceived. Usually only a handful are—those with a particular commitment to a preconceived notion. These are deceived first before they deceive others, which is a far more effective way of convincing others than by deliberate deception. Although each case of deception may be dismissed as inconsequential, the discerning mind will see that the cumulative effect has been highly significant. On each occasion the lie has been left in the public consciousness as long as possible so that each will overlap and reinforce the next.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tsk tsk tsk...bahalag sensationalize kaayo basta mo support lang sa ilang view dawat dayun.
di na tarungun ug investigate basta mo supporta lang sa ilang views e feature dayun sa magazine,toink. Mura man nagduwa ni sila ug SA MASAKPAN LANG GAME. tsk tsk.
-
01-07-2008, 11:33 AM #70 Re: Is Creationism Scientific?
Padayon sa imong gibati dodong, kay nabasahan na na namo sa www.answersingenesis.org. Hey u better search for more kay karaan na kaau na imong data dodong..the people would be so happy to see your "Labor of Love" nga updated heheheh...
Happy Hunting!
Advertisement
Similar Threads |
|
Posting Permissions
|