Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 12:21 AM
183 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 179 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,729 Year: 18,552/29,783 Month: 497/2,043 Week: 49/386 Day: 0/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member (Idle past 745 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 yet responded

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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 137 of 323 (525226)
09-22-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


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.

Hi Archangel. Do you have any evidence that the examples you raised in the OP had a significant contribution to what public acceptance evolution has? Who do you think the culprits are? The media? A small group of scientists? The whole scientific community? Liberal professors trying to convert people to atheism? Who? Why? I am genuinely interested in what evidence you have regarding this topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 138 of 323 (525239)
09-22-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


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 ...

This is, of course, not true. And I cannot imagine whom you can possibly hope to deceive by claiming that it is true.

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.

The link in your OP was filled with lies and nonsense. This gives you no basis on which to discover whether we'd accept reality.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 139 of 323 (525242)
09-22-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:19 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
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 ...

This is a peculiar falsehood for you to come out with, since we know, and you know we know, that the only reason you've heard of Gargett, whose name you have not yet learned to spell, is that you found his views expounded and discussed in a scientific paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 140 of 323 (525253)
09-22-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Creationist nonsense
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.

As we can all read what he wrote, we know that you are not telling the truth.

Again I ask you --- whom do you hope to deceive?

It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon.

What nonsense you talk.

What off-topic nonsense you talk.

If you wish to be wrong about this, you should start a new thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 745 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 yet responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3157 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 142 of 323 (525259)
09-22-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


One more time
The internet is chock-full of pictures of neanderthal burials, I find it strange that you complain that there are none, evidently because the one source you looked at didn't have any. Paleolithic technology is a fascinating subject and I only know a little about it, but I know enough to say that it can't be summed up in a little dismissive post. I bet Coyote could talk about it for days on end...or until the beer runs out, which sounds like a good time to me.

But back on topic: even if we concede that the current understanding of neanderthal funeral practice is wrong, you claim fraud on the part of the scientific community studying them. You say that they are deliberately lying for some unexplained purpose.

There's a huge jump to go from someone getting a question on a test wrong to accusing them of cheating. If they're wrong then that will eventually come out, but to accuse them of cheating you damn well better have some evidence that's better than I don't like the answer.

Can't you see the difference in those two positions? We can disagree on interpretations and then wrangle arguments about who is right, but if you start from the position that your opponents are liars then there's no place to go. You've painted yourself into a corner where you have to prove a vast global conspiracy and all you have to back it up is vague (and incorrect) assertions about the nature of science and the current state of knowledge of all manner of distantly related fields of study. You simply cannot live up to the standard of proof that you are demanding of others.

Does that make you a fraud, or just someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 143 of 323 (525260)
09-22-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Archangel
09-22-2009 6:10 PM


Your ban is lifted for less than an hour ...

This is, of course, not true.

... and you write 3 posts which contribute nothing more to the debate than calling me a liar again.

It is very difficult to debate with you without pointing out that some of the things you say are false. Most of them, in fact.

As to whether you are a "liar", I am willing to entertain the conjecture that when you write this nonsense you actually believe it yourself. Stranger things have happened. I once met a guy who thought he was Jesus.

But even if you are successfully deceiving yourself, I would advise you that you stand no chance of deceiving anyone else.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 6:10 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5363
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 144 of 323 (525265)
09-22-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:19 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
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.

It's a freakin' review article that appears to be a chapter of a book, Angel! Every freakin' page has citations of the primary literature, which is precisely your "documented evidence" - and I'll bet many of the references do have photos! I'm 85 miles from the closest university library, and the boss might not like me taking tomorrow off to go dig this stuff out....

And you appear to have not noticed that Pettitt, the author of this review, takes Gargett's opinions very seriously. Pettitt seems just as interested in the "real science" as you are, Angel - or perhaps even a little more interested.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 745 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.

http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm 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
http://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 yet responded
 Message 148 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 7:57 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 146 of 323 (525277)
09-22-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


RAZD, for example, has went to GREAT lengths to refute ALL of your claims, 2 or more times, extremely eloquently. You just fail to: a) realize it or B) understand what he is saying since you say things like:

in Message 132

Archangel writes:

Notice how this allegedly scientific thesis with all of its scientific jargon......


shows you are in over your head and don't understand enough "scientific jargon" to have a valid opinion. Would you take my words serious if I said something like "well that jeebus fellar ain't real cuz i caynt understand them jews and the way they talk. If they wasn't telling lies, theyd talk so's I could understand 'em"

You have had your claims slammed to the ground by someone showing you how either a) science showed it was wrong and admitted mistake...LONG ago (while you and other Creo's hold onto the same story as if science still believes it to be a backbone of Evolution or b) a non-scientist purported the claim, and you and other creo's still hold onto it as if science believes it as a backbone of Evolution.

Let me ask you this: YOU, Archangle, somehow become a defendant in a homicide case. The case against you is almost insurmountable: how can you prove you were innocent? DNA? Blood samples? fingerprints? or would you just hope god shows the heathen justice system in a miracle?

How about all of these convicts who have been locked up for decades, only to finally be set free due to DNA evidence, proving them to have been wrongly convicted. These same methods are used today in Evolution.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2407 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 147 of 323 (525278)
09-22-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-22-2009 7:32 PM


Hi Archangel

Again you are doing a great job, so just want to let you know that another YEC is reading your debate. I would jump in so that it lessens the amount of posts that you have to debate, but I've sort of got my hands full, in my debate in Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution - Transitional fossils and quote mining. Although many of the arguments are the same, so maybe we should both stick to one thread. Anyhoo, come past and have a read if you find the time.

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.
Yip, this is why debates on here never really seem to get off the ground. They don't even want to admit that they have a worldview which they think is supported by the evidence. This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins.
Ah well, I'm just hoping that one day i will come across someone who wants to discuss, which worldview is supported by the evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 7:32 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by hooah212002, posted 09-22-2009 7:59 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 8:18 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 177 by Peepul, posted 09-23-2009 9:05 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 148 of 323 (525279)
09-22-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-22-2009 7:32 PM


Go ahead and look at that graph again there Arch. You see that little segment in yellow, with words? Yes, the one that says "THIS IS THE ONLY SEGMENT COVERED BY ORGANIC EVOLUTION"? Does that segment include abiogenesis?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 7:32 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 149 of 323 (525280)
09-22-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:55 PM


This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins.

No. YEC have no evidence. The only thing you ever bring to the table are PRATT's against evolution. There IS NO evidence FOR biblical creation. There is faith and belief...that is all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:55 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 150 of 323 (525286)
09-22-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:55 PM


Yip, this is why debates on here never really seem to get off the ground. They don't even want to admit that they have a worldview which they think is supported by the evidence. This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins.
Ah well, I'm just hoping that one day i will come across someone who wants to discuss, which worldview is supported by the evidence.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:55 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018