Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 90 of 323 (524925)
09-20-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
09-20-2009 8:21 AM


Re: falsehoods, denial and delusions
RAZD writes:
The question is why you posted something - copied and pasted not just a link - that you think is false? If it is false, then it is not evidence of truth, no matter what it says, and presenting it as a true argument is false.
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that? It is the only way to debate false outcomes. First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2009 8:21 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2009 10:20 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2009 10:54 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 97 by Meddle, posted 09-20-2009 10:56 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 92 of 323 (524927)
09-20-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by bluescat48
09-20-2009 9:24 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
bluescat48 writes:
If your hypothesis is correct, then apple should stop trying to improve the Macbook because it has been proven to be the best so it doesn't have to be modified, altered, rebuilt, redesigned etc. No matter what occurs in any scientific endeavor, there is always chances that something is missing, which is why all scientific theories are tentative and subject to change if better data is obtained.
My post 89 deals with this argument in the clearest terms possible. For you to even raise it as an issue shows that you are grasping at straws and have nothing valid to respond to my arguments with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 09-20-2009 9:24 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2009 10:34 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 103 of 323 (525021)
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments. You people are so dishonest that you will call the science which led to these computers we are all using, engineering rather than the pure science they represent. You either forget or just are in denial to the fact that only around 6 or 7 decades ago computer science was completely theoretical. You have completely ignored the examples I gave about the many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, and are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers. None of these results are based on guess work or hoping they are right before manufacturing begins on a final drug. They know through solid science and testing what to expect before patenting, copyrighting and trademarking these drugs for public consumption. Why do you think the list of warnings on the labels are longer than the description of what the drug does for its user?
Again, not true at all. Not with real science anyway. Real science is absolute and comes to absolute conclusions based on what we know at the time. This doesn't mean that what we learn in the future wont add to that knowledge, but what we learn in the future shouldn't nullify the science of the past. For example, just because 2 years from now scientists will discover a new medical application for a refined process of a new property in the Blow Fish Toxin, that in no way nullifies the current drug or drugs which have been refined from that deadly poison in its natural form but is currently helping people in a refined form.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.
In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth with no basis in fact at all.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world. The fact is that evolution cannot even agree on the foundational principles upon which it is built starting with the age of the earth and the universe we inhabit. And my argument which has only been responded to with excuses is that until the foundational beliefs regarding the origin of life on earth are absolutely determined and known, then it is impossible to build a realistic explanation for the process itself.
In addition to these problems, you all seem oblivious to the fact that in just determining the age of the earth come numerous theoretical applications which are all determined by our very limited ability to interpret them, and that how one theory affects, or is affected by another is well beyond our ability to judge at this time. You seem oblivious to the fact that these unknowns can completely undo the results you will sit here and defend as accurate to the death when you know nothing for certain at all.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths, when it is you who are steeped in believing in magical processes which you couldn't prove are real or accurately applied if your life depended on it. Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales. Or that Dawkins, one of your atheist heros, speaks of the possibility that life arose from aliens implanting their genetic material here in order to overcome the impossibility of the spontaneous life problem. But it is we who are deluded. Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2009 8:19 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2009 8:30 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 107 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 8:50 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 108 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-21-2009 9:00 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2009 9:25 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2009 12:43 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2009 8:49 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 104 of 323 (525022)
09-21-2009 8:07 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 9:14 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 114 of 323 (525079)
09-21-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2009 9:25 AM


Re: God complex
This is an interesting post and raises provoking questions which haven't been dealt with yet so it is worth responding to. I am just so sick of the repeated party line which continues to get repeated in every response.
Archangel writes:
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions
Hyroglyphx writes:
Precisely, which is why it is a mystery that you hold on to a failed belief that employs vague and brief bible verses as a credible source, especially when they don't stand up to scrutiny.
The whole creationist doctrine is suspect from the start because it uses the bible as its foundation, rather than just compiling the data and making a determination after. Creationists glean their answers before, and should anything circumvent Genesis, they throw it out as inadmissible. That's NOT science, Arch. That's manipulating science.
The reason why this is a worthy point is because it digs into what motivates intelligent people like me to reject what appears on the surface to be valid science in favor of what the bible says occurred. And here is my answer to you:
The fact is that neither theory can be proven to be absolutely true. It takes in my opinion, more faith to accept evolution than it does to accept intelligent design as the more rational answer for how we came to be. But the most obvious reason that the Genesis account is more rational than evolution is simply because the question isn't a scientific one. The answer to the question of how and why humanity exists is a solely spiritual question which is why you are spinning your wheels perpetually, in your attempt to answer it scientifically. I have the brains to properly compartmentalize the question and make this distinction where as evolutionists obviously don't.
No, there are plenty of Christians who aren't given to creationist nonsense. Creationists are the problem, not Christians.
Technically I am not a creationist. What I am is a fundamentalist born again believer who readily admits that there are many questions raised in the bible which it doesn't clarify or give the back story to, so there are many important questions I am fully prepared to wait until I get to the other side for answers to. It is well known that the Genesis account is what happened account of creation, not a how it happened other than to make clear that my heavenly father "spoke creation" into being. Only MAN whom He made in His image was He personally hands on so to speak in creating us from existing matter.
So it isn't important to me to attempt to prove how God created everything other than to say that He did because His word says He did and since no matter what you believe, you must believe it on faith, then place your faith in God rather than Man who's false religion of evolution forces you to make MAN the center of the universe rather than the God of all creation who is worthy of all praise and worship and glory. Amen...
Archangel writes:
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales.
Hyroglyphx writes:
The reality is that NO ONE knows definitively what happened before planck's time, including you. It may be philosophically easier to insist that a God must have created it all, but then we then rely on a series of infinite regressions.
To be specific, Planck's time was prior to this alleged big bang some theorized occurred 14.5 billion years ago according to cosmological estimates, which actually place it somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago. That's quite a margin of error range for such a precise science, don't you think? And then it is estimated that the earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago and after 1 billion years of cooling time, finally and only then did life allegedly spontaneously appear from the primordial ooze. Unless it was planted here by hitching a ride on a comet or asteroid from some alien world which was cosmically transported here.
Of course that theory doesn't explain how the genetic matter/proteins/enzymes survived the massive cataclysm which ejected them from their original planet, or how they survived the millions of years, or longer during their journey through space, or how they survived the violent cataclysm when the Comet or asteroid they were riding on hit the earth that many billions of years ago. And I'm the guy who's just innorant enough to ask these questions to the derision and great despair of people like you who really don't want to consider them valid or necessary before accepting your myths whole cloth.
For if God is eternal, then why couldn't our universe have been spawned by another universe with a totally different set of physics?
There very well might be other universes with different laws of physics guiding them. And I will have you know that I firmly believe that there are as many universes beyond ours as there are suspected galaxies within our universe, and that is suspected to be millions. And I know this because the bible speaks of eternity as never ending, forever and a day. Our 1 universe doesn't define eternity, since in some finite amount of time its end could be reached. So I believe that just as there are untold numbers of solar systems in our galaxy, and untold numbers of galaxies in our universe, there are also untold numbers of universes which make up all of eternities time and space. So accuse me of rejecting evolution if you like. But never accuse me of not appreciating the expanse of the time and space we inhabit. And nothing I believe means that the universe must be billions of years old because I realize that my God could have spoken another new universe into existence yesterday.
All we know is that the data we do know and understand points to the cosmological fact that the universe did in fact come in to existence billions of years ago. That is based on observations.
With all due respect my friend, balderdash and poppycock!! You are again speaking of the calculations of mathematical theorems which are based on the the accuracy of our interpretation of observing cosmological THEORIES like "red shift", the "speed of light" and "gravitational forces" in space. we have based our conclusions on estimating the impact "dark matter" has on all of these forces when dark matter itself, as well as "black holes" which is also a theoretical force which has never been actually seen or specifically identified are applied to calculating the age of the universe. But with all of these theoretical and unknown variables, we have estimated the age of this universe we inhabit as if anything we have concluded is accurate in any way. So tell me again? On what foundation of fact do you claim that we know for certain that the age of the universe is billions of years old?
Are you getting my point here? In one paragraph I have listed five theoretical applications which contribute to our beliefs in what you assert to be factual contributors to how we date the universe, yet you must admit that if we have any aspect of even one of those theoretical observations in error, then the complete results derived from their combined use could be off by incalculable degrees of error. Yet you claim it to be a fact.
The Hubble telescope has done more to refute creationist claims than almost anything else, aside from Darwin. How is that nearly ALL of science is at odds with your belief, yet somehow everyone else is wrong? Ponder that deeply.
I chuckle at this because when the government announced around 2004 that it was going to abandon the Hubble due to its age and not go back up to upgrade and repair it, I was involved in petitioning them to save the Hubble. You still don't get that just because humanity thinks and see's in the linear, likened to a time line, that doesn't mean that is how or when God created it. Just because we can measure the distance light travels in a specific amount of time, that doesn't mean that is the only way to measure or observe light.
Edited by Archangel, : to correct terminology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2009 9:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2009 2:34 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2009 3:12 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:57 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2009 5:12 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 09-21-2009 6:55 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 120 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 7:09 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 121 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 7:24 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 122 of 323 (525124)
09-21-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
09-21-2009 4:57 PM


Re: you represent consistent inconsistency
Huntard writes:
I know this is off topic here, but this is just plain wrong Archy. Planck time wasn't before the big bang, it was between T=0 (the actual "big bang", which occurred to current understanding about 14.5 billion years ago) and T=10-43.
Oh gee, stupid me. I said it happened prior to the big bang when you are saying it allegedly occurred simultaneously to it. And I'm just plain wrong, yet you didn't see fit to comment on or correct Hyroglyphx in referring to it in response to my mentioning the belief that life spontaneously appeared 3.5 billion years ago. I mean, he was only off by between 11 and 16.5 billion years or so, according to current understanding that is. At least you guys are consistently subjective and prejudice against those you disagree with.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 09-21-2009 4:57 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 09-21-2009 7:57 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 125 of 323 (525137)
09-21-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tanndarr
09-21-2009 7:24 PM


Peepul writes:
Archangel,
you are a good reasoner and for that reason I really hope you stick around in this forum.
Thank you Peepul, I have enjoyed the exchanges to a point, but there is only so much which can be said to the same hard heads about this subject. I only came here because one of your members who is a true child emotionally and intellectually challenged me on another forum that these evolutionists would crush me here, and destroy my arguments. As it turns out, their defense of evo is no more substantial than his was on the other forum. I have seen clearly that here he is relegated to nothing more than a yes man who is too afraid to actually share an opinion for fear of looking stupid. As wrong as they are, at least some here actually defend what they believe while others just continue to make it about me like this other poster who couldn't defend evo always does.
Peepul writes:
But I disagree entirely with what you say here. I don't know why you think evolution is a fraud and evolutionists are not interested in the truth - that's what they are generally interested in most of all.
In truth, I don't believe that the average pro-evolution layman is dishonest as much as deceived. It's those who create and promote the frauds as they force the most innocuous observations into flowery tales of these discovered bones having been buried with ceremonies and heartfelt send offs as if they found a diary written in shakespearian english. It's enough to make me gag. They create scenarios which never took place regarding the bones of long dead animals and attribute them to human evolution just because the animal these bones belonged to was apelike.
Tanndarr writes:
I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:
Why are you just repeating what I said using different words Tannbarr? What makes something you say correct but when I say it, it's wrong? Here is how I said it in post 103.
Archangel Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.
In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth with no basis in fact at all.
Real science which is built upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world. The fact is that evolution cannot even agree on the foundational principles upon which it is built starting with the age of the earth and the universe we inhabit. And my argument which has only been responded to with excuses is that until the foundational beliefs regarding the origin of life on earth are absolutely determined and known, then it is impossible to build a realistic explanation for the process itself.
I just expanded on and clarified the fact that although true science is based on a factual and unchanging foundation, evolution isn't because there is no factual foundation upon which one can build. That is what you are missing. The foundational science upon which true science rests doesn't change EVER. Only the advances add to its original content. I made that very clear and stand by it since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 7:24 PM Tanndarr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2009 10:43 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 127 by Tanndarr, posted 09-21-2009 11:00 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 128 of 323 (525157)
09-21-2009 11:49 PM


This comic defines the reverse evolution which has taken place in our education system, which has created minds which are so dumbed down they actually believe they are advanced in their thinking. It's ironic really.
http://www.chrismclaren.com/...2007/08/cartoon-evolution.gif
And don't worry, I'll respond to your posts tomorrow, but I can only take so much of what you offer per night.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 6:38 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 130 of 323 (525196)
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Coyote writes:
Who told you that? Some preacher? Some anti-science creationist website? Your "common sense?"
In any case you, and they, are wrong. You just have an extremist anti-science position because you don't like some of the results of science.
Why don't you let scientists decide what is and what is not science, eh? They're qualified, and you have demonstrated that you're not.
There you go again attempting to imply that I am anti-science because I reject the methodologies used and abused by this so called evolution science which is the only science specialty I reject. And only because it doesn't follow the prescribed and proven methods for arriving at the truth. For example. show me the scrutiny and quality of the peer review process used to verify the claims made about the tool making and burial practices discovered for Neanderthal. And confirm for me that it wasn't just a procedural process of rubber stamping an outcome which this self policing community didn't give because the conclusions agreed with their preconceived notions?
And what would that "foundational science" be? Physics? Phlogiston chemistry? Is it based on earth, air, water and fire or some such? Do the positions of the stars make any difference?
No? Well, how about the scientific method. Perhaps anything that follows the scientific method is science whether creationists agree or not.
The claim made in the past few years about "true" science, in a further effort to discredit the evolutionary sciences and any other parts of science that creationists disagree with, is inherently dishonest. All science follows the same methods--and no, laboratory repetition is not required; that is a creationist lie.
No it doesn't. Evolution science attempts to answer questions it is ill-equipped to answer in any way since we don't currently possess a platform by which to observe the necessary natural phenomena with which to perform the required experiments to prove when and how life allegedly spontaneously appeared from non life these guestimated 3.5 billion years ago. In other words, here are the steps of scientific methodology:
The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
There are no real or verifiable experiments to run which prove the predictions made which can come to the conclusions which evolution assumes and presumes in its stated belief system. Everything it claims and has claimed for a hundred years now are preconceived notions which it (the science) has no hope of proving through experimentation. It can also be said with confidence that the original hypothesis was never formed based on original observations which pointed to life spontaneously appearing out of primordial ooze 3.5 billion years ago. All of that is based on nothing more than pre-conceived assumptions which evolution has gone on to support with any conglomeration of evidence they can create to prove that which their agenda requires.
There is no scientific theory about the first life; there are competing hypotheses which are seeking evidence. Perhaps one day we will have a true scientific theory.
Then you finally admit that I am absolutely correct in my absolute claim that nothing you base your preconceived notions on regarding evolution are real or currently provable in any way. Then where is the argument? Evolution is based more in the wants/desired outcome of evolutionists rather than any rational observations or facts which lead to provable experiments which have any hope of verifying what what you continue to keep insisting is a true science which follows the accepted scientific methods required for real and true scientific results.
But that's better than what you have; you have a religious belief that doesn't need or want evidence.
Since I have clearly proven my point above, and you have actually agreed with me that you have no hope of currently proving anything about our origins which you claim are true, you have by default admitted that everything you believe regarding this theory of evolution is based on nothing more than faith in the men who's unprovable/untestable/unverifiable research you rely on. Therefore, my faith in a personal and infinite God who is much more reliable in every way than finite man who has no better a perspective than I, myself do; then how can you question the preference to trust His word over the unprovable fables of men with absolutely no eternal perspective at all? I'm relying on the creator of everything as you rely on fallen man.
But what do origins have to do with evolution anyway? Evolution works just as well with 1) life from the proverbial warm pond, 2) life from a comet, or 3) Old Man Coyote or some other deity creating it.
Here is where you not only embarrass yourself but sacrifice all credibility that you actually respect the scientific method which you claim evolution follows. It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon. That is why it is so disingenuous for evolution to attempt to separate itself from abiogenesis in debates like this when challenged by people like me, as you then must acknowledge that humble beginning when dealing with the original random mutation which led to the theory of common descent via natural selection. It all starts with the appearance of spontaneous life from non life according to evolution, whether you want to connect the processes or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 11:33 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 11:56 AM Archangel has replied
 Message 134 by dokukaeru, posted 09-22-2009 1:55 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 140 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:59 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 135 of 323 (525223)
09-22-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Coragyps
09-22-2009 11:56 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Coragyps writes:
http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/neanderthal_dead.pdf does that very nicely, thank you very much. It's a critical assessment of bunches of possible Neanderthal burials,
From the introduction in your posted link, and I quote:
It is probably fair to say that most scholars accept that some Neanderthals received deliberate burial after death, and that such burials appear not to have included grave goods or any other form of elaboration visible in the archaeological record. Gargett, however, (1989; 1999) has argued that we have no one convincing example of burial. Whilst a number of surveys over the last two decades are generally favourable to the notion, reviews tend to make generalisations of the 􏰑Neanderthals did bury their dead􏰒 variety. Such a generalisation over Upper Pleistocene time and space may not be justified, and certainly merits closer inspection.
It also say's in the abstract that This article demonstrates that Neanderthal mortuary activity was a real phenomenon that requires exploration and interpretation and examines the nature and extent of variability in mortuary behaviour. Like most of what evo does, it must interpreted based on evidence like this:
2.1 Fragmentary Neanderthal remains
The 􏰑archaic􏰒 skeleton of Skhl 9 may be the oldest burial known as yet (Stringer 1998) although it is conceivable that the Tabun C1 Neanderthal is as old as 120 ka BP (eg, McDermott et al 1993; Grn et al 1991) and in any case the dating of the entire Tabun sequence is a fiercely-debated issue (eg, Millard & Pike 1999) 1 . With the exception of the Sima de los Huesos sample from Atapuerca, it is only from the substages of OIS5 that near complete human remains are found on enclosed sites in Eurasia, and only from late OIS3 and OIS2 (ie, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic) that they are found on open sites. Prior to this, as Gamble (comment to Gargett 1989) has noted they are 􏰑truly bits and pieces􏰒. The existing database indicates that the earliest burials are of anatomically modern humans at the gate of Africa (Hublin 2000). For the Neanderthals specifically, with the possible exception of La Quina and La Ferrassie, all burials for which there is chronological data2 post date c 60 ka BP, ie, belong to OIS3 (Defleur 1993). For example, the Amud 1 skeleton has a terminus post quem of 50-80 ka BP3 andtheKebaraskeletonissecurelydatedto c 60 ka BP (Schwarcz et al 1989; Valladas et al 1998). Clearly a new depositional phenomenon came into play in OIS5, at least among early anatomically modern humans, which by early OIS3 was also practised by the Neanderthals. Despite caution about taphonomic factors this is usually taken to indicate the origin of formal burial.
Notice how this allegedly scientific thesis with all of its scientific jargon is rife with assumptions and interpretations which are based on nothing more than wishful thinking. No where is there any actual photographic or documented evidence of formal burials, and by that I mean photos of the archeological digs or seismic graphs which confirmed the earth density around the bones as compared to the variant earth in the area which proved an original burial had taken place at all.
Only to you evolution cultists do you accept it as evidence because you can read that somebody wrote that it occurred and only maybe, no less. And Garrett points out my precise concern.
Gargett (1989, 1999) has put forward a literature- based critique of Neanderthal burial based on sedimentology, stratigraphy and taphonomy. He drew attention to the 􏰑double standards􏰒4 applied to Palaeolithic research in that 􏰑􏰈it is simply assumed that 􏰈[anatomically modern] human
2 Before Farming 2002/1 (4)
remains discovered in an archaeological context were placed there purposely􏰒 (ibid 157) given that the criteria for recognition of purposeful burial were ill-defined due to the ubiquity of burial in later prehistory, history and the ethnographic present. With Neanderthals, as he notes, the proportion of fragmentary Neanderthal remains is considerably higher in the Upper Pleistocene record than for modern humans, which has led to the assumption that preservation of more complete Neanderthal remains which stand out is due to deliberate burial.
The trick is to find unbiased sources which are interested in pure science no matter where it takes them. Although Garrett is such a researcher, he finds himself disregarded by the scientific community which rejects his objectivity refusal to make unfounded assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 11:56 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:19 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 09-22-2009 6:35 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 151 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 8:30 PM Archangel has replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 136 of 323 (525224)
09-22-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Peepul
09-22-2009 1:28 PM


Peepul writes:
Archangel, why are you not addressing your original topic? The contribution of fraud to the acceptance of evolution is the topic of this thread. So far you haven't demonstrated any evidence that fraud has contributed to the acceptance of evolution. It's time to put up or shut up.
Sorry, but I am responding to the responses to my posts. It is your side which is going off topic and still has avoided responding to over 90% of the claims referred to in original link I posted which is full of frauds perpetrated by evolution over the decades.
And I totally disagree that I have failed to demonstrate my original point. It's just that I'm dealing with people who refuse to accept reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Peepul, posted 09-22-2009 1:28 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Modulous, posted 09-22-2009 2:39 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 5:07 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 142 by Tanndarr, posted 09-22-2009 6:25 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 146 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 7:53 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 160 by obvious Child, posted 09-22-2009 9:54 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 141 of 323 (525256)
09-22-2009 6:10 PM


Your ban is lifted for less than an hour and you write 3 posts which contribute nothing more to the debate than calling me a liar again. You didn't learn a thing I can see.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 6:25 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 145 of 323 (525274)
09-22-2009 7:32 PM


dokukaeru writes:
Please do not take this the wrong way, but you seem to have some ignorance as to what the theory of evolution is and what it says.
The ignorance is yours Joe, in assuming that I don't understand how evolution defines itself just because I reject how it defines itself. I refuse to allow it to speak out of both sides of its mouth as it attempts to control the debate by limiting my ability to ask deeper questions about its philosophy than it would prefer to be asked.
Evolution does not speak of the origins of life.
Really? Then explain this site which think nothing of combining the two studies into one reference point for discussion.
Evolution -- Abiogenesis -- Origin of Life They even have a neat little graph. Isn't that wonderful?
Now, according to the party line they proceed to formerly separate the two sciences as they discuss and consider them simultaneously as one is a continued extension of the other. The double standard persists so they never have to threaten the validity of evolution by admitting that they can't explain how life came from non life. That is why they must separate the two philosophies, so they don't start right out of the shoot admitting that the science of evolution is based on a foundation which is totally and completely unprovable.
And here is a video titled Evolution: Abigenesis, Miller Urey and Orgel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ZRHoawyOg
Although Millers experiment is interesting, please tell me on what actual science, knowledge or understanding he relied in choosing the base chemicals used in his beaker experiment? Or the temperatures required? Or the amount of voltage applied to the electric current which doubled for lightning? Also, can anyone produce any evidence that he had the chemical combinations and ingredient percentages correct? And if he did, why didn't reproducing the results also take a billion years or so as the original real time experiment took?

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:55 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 148 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 7:57 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 152 of 323 (525297)
09-22-2009 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 8:18 PM


define reprobate, then think introspectively
DA writes:
Are you two having a competition to see who can be the most flagrantly wrong?
Evolution is supported by the evidence, as has been proved by a century and a half of biological research, and of course anyone here will discuss this proposition with you.
Why you wish to pretend otherwise is mystifying.
More judgmental criticisms and drivel from the peanut gallery as he offers no evidence at all to the debate. If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 8:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 9:25 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1357 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 153 of 323 (525302)
09-22-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coyote
09-22-2009 8:30 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Coyote writes:
Creationists are interested in science; they are interested in destroying it.
The last thing they want is for science to come up with conclusions showing their religious beliefs are unsupported by empirical data.
Your false dichotomy of "true" science vs. "false" science is but one example of the anti-science attitude of many creationists.
Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science so I must again preempt my response by correcting your misrepresentation of my views. With that said, here's a reality check which goes against everything you believe, but is true anyway. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 8:30 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 9:22 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 157 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 9:28 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 9:42 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 161 by obvious Child, posted 09-22-2009 9:56 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 163 by Tanndarr, posted 09-22-2009 11:14 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 09-23-2009 1:42 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 171 by Huntard, posted 09-23-2009 1:51 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 172 by Parasomnium, posted 09-23-2009 3:14 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 173 by greyseal, posted 09-23-2009 5:25 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 176 by dokukaeru, posted 09-23-2009 8:38 AM Archangel has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024