Dead/Toys

And now for something completely different. Sort of.

Dr. James White gave me a birthday present. Sort of.

On a broadcast of "The Dividing Line" starting at about the 34 minute point, he mentioned a video that describes how the Toy Story movies and the TV series The Walking Dead appear to be the same story. I am uncertain of the exact video he talked about, but this one looks like a good possibility:



Dr. White pointed out that things can indeed seem similar, you can find parallels if you want to find them. Of course, you need to ignore the dissimilarities for your "theory" to hold together. His application was different, but his "gift" to me was the inspiration for this article.

Edit: I forgot to add that I mentioned this selective data and that people see what they want to see to a physical therapist. She said it happens in the medical field as well, that only some things are presented, but other factors are ignored.

I have been asked if I know about cladistics. Yes, yes I do. It is an effort by the Evo Sith to find similarities and ignore differences so they can affirm evolution. It is illogical. Geologist Dr. Tim Clarey wrote in an article for the Institute for Creation Research:

Cladistics: An Attempt to Circumvent the Facts

Paleontologists have tried to get around the fossil "problems" by employing a new system of classifying organisms called cladistics. This system describes organisms on the basis of sister-group relationships between organisms. Cladists classify extinct and extant organisms on equal footing without regard to time, and in the process, unknown or missing transitional fossils become conveniently dismissed or eliminated. 

The problem with cladistics is the arbitrary choice of what constitutes an evolutionary novelty. An evolutionary novelty is an inherited change from a previous pattern or structure that makes an organism unique. Choosing evolutionary novelties creates particular problems for extinct organisms because only morphological features are available for comparison. The choices are made based on expert opinion, or in the words of Henry Gee, "persons qualified to judge the evidence." Gee further explained, "The danger for scientists is that they will come to believe the hype, that they are indeed secular priests in possession of the truth with a capital T, the 'truth that can be known'. But such truth is expressly unscientific [falls short]." The reason many fell for the Archaeoraptor hoax was their belief in their own hype, regardless of the poor science involved. They believed so strongly that birds evolved from dinosaurs that all evidence to the contrary was ignored or brushed aside as unimportant. They became "priests," preaching their own version of "science."
— "Dinosaurs vs. Birds: The Fossils Don't Lie"

I think this gets right to the point rather well, and it emphasizes what many creationists have been saying (as I have), that people have their presuppositions and see what they want to see and discard the rest. That seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the frauds and bad science in the parade of your alleged evolutionary ancestors, clinging to Haeckel's fraud, and for the humiliating folly of "junk" DNA. Cladistics and its ugly adopted sibling, homology, are guns that shoot backwards. The real science refutes evolution and affirms creation.

Here is an in-depth look at cladistics by Shaun Doyle:

Cladistics is the premier method used for determining evolutionary relationships in biology. The results of cladistics analyses, tree diagrams called cladograms, are often used as demonstrations of evolution. Though cladistics was developed by and for evolutionists, it still fails to demonstrate evolution, let alone biological reality. Evolution is still typically seen as the theoretical justification for using cladistics in paleontology, so the conclusion of evolution merely begs the question. Cladograms only demonstrate a nested hierarchy of biological characters; they tell us nothing about what produced the pattern. Evolutionary cladistics also depicts a simplistic view of biological change and fails to deal with pleiotropy within organisms. These problems were recognized by some evolutionists over 30 years ago, but their criticisms largely fell on deaf ears, most likely because their comments were used as ammunition by creationists. Many problems of phylogenetic inference that cladistics claims to solve still remain largely unsolved, such as distinguishing between homology and homoplasy. Perhaps the largest problem, however, is the illusion of evolution that cladograms and the language used to describe them give to the public. They both create the illusion of a resolved genealogy despite some cladists’ disavowal of any strict genealogical connotations.

You can learn a great deal by finishing "Cladistics, Evolution and the Fossils".