Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[The Barbarian]

[marke]

[The Barbarian]

[marke]

[The Barbarian]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

[marke]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.

[The Barbarian]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?
[/quote]

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.
[/quote]

Austin's rejection of God's creation isn't what makes him a liar. There are many honest creationists. Austin had so little confidence in his error, that he lied to make it more credible.

[marke]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.
[/quote]

Austin's rejection of God's creation isn't what makes him a liar. There are many honest creationists. Austin had so little confidence in his error, that he lied to make it more credible.
[/quote]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.

[Jose Fly]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.[/b]

This is the sort of thing that fascinates me about creationists. Earlier after I pointed to Dr. Francis Collins as an example of a Christian who accepts the reality of evolution, Marke said we can't trust Collins because of some nonsense about COVID.

But now Marke is saying Austin's dishonesty in one area doesn't mean he's wrong about something else.

I swear creationists just throw out whatever argument they think they need at any given time, with no regard to anything they've said previously. Just one ad hoc argument after another.

It's almost like they're not really thinking as much as they're just believing.

[marke]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.[/b]

This is the sort of thing that fascinates me about creationists. Earlier after I pointed to Dr. Francis Collins as an example of a Christian who accepts the reality of evolution, Marke said we can't trust Collins because of some nonsense about COVID.

But now Marke is saying Austin's dishonesty in one area doesn't mean he's wrong about something else.

I swear creationists just throw out whatever argument they think they need at any given time, with no regard to anything they've said previously. Just one ad hoc argument after another.

It's almost like they're not really thinking as much as they're just believing.

Marke: If Collins accepts evolution myths then it is not because he lied about Covid that he is wrong about evolution.