EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

WOW, the sanctimony exhibited by you pseudo intellectuals as you repeatedly insist how right you are at a rate of your 116 combined posts to my 30. Here are all of my arguments in all of my posts which most have yet to be responded to with any substance at all, or rational evidence that anything you defend regarding evolution is based in a solid foundation of proven evidence. And if the foundation is faulty, then so is the house which is built upon it.Unless you're ready to produce this overwhelming evidence that spontaneous life appeared magically around 3.5 billion years ago leading to common descent and all of the crap that follows that term. Also, no comment on the Miller video questions I asked? No interest in defending that experiment which is held up as the best evidence of spontaneous life appearing from non life? Even when I give you the experiment which your most fevered proponents hold up proudly as evidence, you refuse to comment in defense of it by answering my very valid and common sense questions.All I get in response are 10 or 12 more angry and insulting posts which attempt to change the subject by insulting me, and more of your inane obfuscations. So here you go, I proudly repost the links to my posts in case anyone garners the nerve to actually respond to them ON POINT. EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines. Evolution Fraud and Myths

But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about.

Still no specific evidence in response to my queries I see. Just personal attacks as everything on topic which I offer is ignored out of hand. OK, let me offer another example of the massive assumptions which survive as facts for decades before evolution is unceremoniously forced to face reality and admit their error as they back pedal once again, and disregard yet another allegedly well established claim which they have relied on in order to gain further public validation with what turns out YET AGAIN to be a decades long established FRAUD, when all is said and done. Yes folks, it's called the C—lacanth: An Example of a False Intermediate Form of life which was said to have thrived some 410 million years ago during the Devonian period, was regarded by evolutionists as a powerful intermediate form between fish and reptile. It had been mysteriously erased from the fossil record 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, and was believed to have become extinct at that time.19 Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung. Speculation regarding the C—lacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct.

​

The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day C—lacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first C—lacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20 So, is the fossil specimen actually 140 million years old as claimed by evolutionists for so long? You still believe it is, don't you? You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods. Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it.. So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community? Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word. I mean, must I post another time lapse video for you deniers of reality?Now come on back and attack me once again rather than actually deal with the massive inconsistencies, contradictions and assumptions your so called science makes until of course reality hits them square in the face. Explain to me about the evidence which is beyond my ability to comprehend since I hate science.
http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.phpEdited by Archangel, : No reason given.

What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY.It is precisely facts like those which evolutionists tend to ignore, conveniently forget about and purposely dismiss out of hand. The frauds which have survived for so long before being proven false by new discoveries have all been originally supported, endorsed and defended from within this fraudulent and self supporting closed community which has a specific agenda which goes much deeper than the pure science it holds up as a mask to cover and hide its true goal of erasing the creator God from the equation for how life came to be on Earth. This is evolutions agenda and represents why I and other believers must stand against what it and its proponents represent. And really peepul, aren't you embarrassed about taking a very serious charge of fraud regarding this much defended falsified evidence by your community, and making an argument over semantics regarding the usage of the word JOURNAL? How can you in good conscience ignore the damning evidence revealed in the fraud itself? "Archaeoraptor" is actually being defended by evolutionists on other threads in this very forum as we speak.

​

Does that not embarrass you and make you reconsider where you are putting your intellectual efforts at all? Will you spend a lifetime defending a lie without ever looking critically at the evidence you rely on in accepting this man made philosophy?Edited by Archangel, : add content:Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Of course I do. Now go ahead and reveal the trap I have just been duped into ignorantly walking into. I welcome it! Show me how sharing 98% of our DNA with chimps means we must be genetically related to them through common descent, and then prove it. And of course according to this link we are also related to the mouse, right? WRONG!!! OF MICE AND MEN / Striking similarities at the DNA level could aid researchJust for the sake of argument, let us imagine if man was genetically unique to all other creatures in creation, how would we absorb proteins and enzymes or amino acids when consuming foods, vegetables and fruits? Because even those have genetic similarities to all animal life. Have you considered the self perpetuating symbiotic relationship in the chain of life when evolution theory thrives on survival of the fittest and relies on one organism out competing all others as it fights for survival? Have you no appreciation for the conflict your shallow philosophy endorses in light of how reality works?

I marvel at how evolutionists can twist and misinterpret what is said by me in order to make sure you ignore the meat of the point that's being made. I didn't say at all that Nat Geo is a peer reviewed publication. What I said is that many of the scientific discoveries they report on have been peer reviewed which is true of the frauds being discussed here. It isn't necessary for the magazine to peer review anything they publish when they understand it to have been peer reviewed by others in the scientific community.

Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact. Didn't they say Coelacanth was a true intermediary animal and even described a partially developed lung with drawings of it crawling out of the Sea on partially developed legs/fins which were evolving from life at sea to life on land? On what facts were these claims based? Had not a living animal been discovered to still exist in its unchanged form, this fraud would still stand today as hard core evidence of this alleged intermediary animal which is in fact nothing of the sort.Evolutionists are good at one thing only, and that is at justifying false assumptions once discovered, making excuses in order to avoid taking responsibility for their frauds and refusing to take consider that it is their own so called science which is the problem here.I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?

1) Why is it that evolutionists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence?2) Why are evolutionists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system?3) Why do evolutionists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue?4) Why do evolutionists continue to insist that a spiritual/supernatural event which Creation was, must be defined and explained through scientific means when they can't even prove the first stage of the process of life beginning, which they insist occurred spontaneously?5) Why do evolutionists copy and paste volumes of so called evidence when none of it is evidence of anything since it is all based on faulty and prejudicial interpretations by people with a preconceived agenda to insure that their profession of choice survives all scrutiny.

Hi Granny,
My quote in the OP regarding the Orce fossil was a direct quote of the claims made in the source I linked to. So I needn't defend it any further than that. But since you insist on repeating your question incessantly as if you have me by the short hairs or something, Let's see what your oracle or evolution, Talk Origin says about it. Interestingly, it still doesn't acknowledge that it's a fraud, but in usual fashion for evolutionists, it just makes excuses and obfuscates any knowledge of a fraud.Creationist Arguments: Orce ManHere's another mention of it by T.O.CC021: Orce ManSo once again, even though huge segments of the evolution community are profusely apologetic and accepting of the fraud this manufactured evidence represents as you all here have disavowed any faith in its authenticity, here is TO refusing to admit without compromise that its a fraud. Nice job trapping me as we once again see the inconsistency within your own community regarding how fraudulent evidence is treated by different segments of it.

I must be to expect this crowd to show any objective consistency in what it defends or rejects regarding this pseudo science. Didn't you ask me to document where evolution used the Orce evidence to further the validity of the theory in order to show that it rejected it as nothing more than a fraud? That was the reason for your repeated question wasn't it? To show that evo didn't stand behind that evidence as valid since it was so questionable? Yet now, you now turn 180 degrees and defend T.O.s refusal to come right out and admit it is what it has been determined to be by so many. Which the original quote I posted makes very clear but which you also went after me about as if I was saying more than that. Here is the quote from my OP again in its entirety. Now keep in mind that all they have is a skull fragment. You tell me how from a skull fragment which is so small it can't be identified as hominid or equine, they were originally able to construct drawings that said it was from a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago? Tell me what factual deductions that bone fragment gave them which made that possible if you will because I'm just too mentally deficient to get it. Especially since they can't even determine if it's human or animal for certain. It boggles the mind, yet it is my mental acuity which you question? Not at all. Hollywood does that in many movies and I love the plot lines. But when it is dishonestly passed off as science and attempts to say that is my ancestry when my ancestry is one of being descended from the King of Kings, then I find that lie to be offensive and degrading.We are not descended from animals and how you can find that uplifting just shows how little you respect your place in this world as its Apex life form. And according to your bogus science, we became that Apex life form by evolving to this position over only the past 130,000 years out of the 4.5 billion years of the process of evolution which has been taking place on earth.Time wise, it is like saying that we were apelike barbarians until 11:59:57. And only in the past 3 seconds we evolved to the status of gods when one compares our technological, creativity, imagination and intelligence quota as compared to every other animal on earth. Not to mention our recognition of and sensitivity to the spiritual realm which no other animals which have we allegedly evolved from, practice or even recognize in any way, shape or form. Can you explain these inconsistencies to this mentally defective ignoramus greyseal? Cuz I just don't get it!!! And keep it simple if you can. I don't need pages of evo talking points and propaganda, just plain and simple explanations which make sense.

Since Percy is allowing you to speak to me in your sanctimonious and condescending tone, apparently that is now allowed. So let me explain my issue with the opposition here. Just because You all continue to reject everything I say with insulting retorts and ignore all of the arguments I have forwarded as if I haven't supported anything I have claimed, it doesn't mean that you are right or that I haven't supported my claims. It just means that I am outnumbered by around 10 to 1 and you all use the same cowardly tactic of not debating at all, but just insulting me when you cannot legitimately refute the my arguments which you have all ignored for the most part.I see no reason to jump through hoops for people who are obviously too ignorant to comprehend my arguments and evidence the first time I offer it which is why I refuse to repeat myself for you or say the same things using different words. Feel free to read my posts on this thread, but I'll be darned if I'm going to respond to your demands when you have ignored every argument I have made here as if it was non existent in its content.The simple fact is that your religion of evolution is a false man made cult. And you can't even explain HOW the life you assert began spontaneously actually came into being, nor WHEN or WHY it occurred. How, When and Why, 3 pretty important components if you are actually building a science for life upon it. So come back to me when you have the foundation upon which you build evolution established and we'll talk. Until then, all you represent is a man made myth which was built upon the bones of long dead animals, and nothing more.Only in the minds of ignorant idolatrous evolutionists could they take a shard of bone and from it create the Orce Man, or take a pigs tooth and build Nebraska Man, or soak a modern era skull in tea, add a jaw to it and call it Piltdown Man, a fraud which lasted 5 decades and furthered the lie which evolution represents to this day. And only after these and other examples could people like you attack me as if I'm the one committing the fraud. Like I have always said, without the delusions of ignorant men, the fraud of evolution could never have survived Darwin's initial folly.

The only rational response I can offer to this personal attack is, SURE YOU ARE!!! You just lack any and all spiritual insight. But you are most definitely an ignorant fundie, and your religion is the man made cult of evolution. At least my fundamentalism is founded in Gods eternal truths. So feel free to look down on me as I welcome the condemnation of your ilk. It only strengthens my resolve to never compromise the truth I know for the lies you propagate.

You see Granny, this question which has been repeated ad infinitum by you and your cohorts is a perfect example of your blatant dishonesty and disingenuous debating style. It also reveals your sides cockiness and sanctimonious belief that you can con us by insisting that I answer a question you know cannot be answered from any source on the web since you have done the required searches yourself and know it has been erased from the on line journals, so the info no longer exists on the net. Which just confirms the power of this cult. Of course I posted the excuses T.O. offers regarding Orce Man, and am still told that I must defend that evidence of evolutions refusal to actually admit the misrepresentation you all have admitted to right here on this thread since you're demanding evidence that evo supported it as valid. Evolutionists can't even remain consistent within the same debate regarding their dogma as they speak out of both sides of their mouths depending on which post you are on at the moment.

As usual, attempting to reason with an evolutionist is a wasted! effort. See ya...

Bull pucky! I fared just fine even though I was outnumbered at better than 10 to 1. And here's my empirical evidence of that!Participants No.
Posts Member's
Posts
Archangel 45 Archangel Posts Only
Dr Adequate 27 Dr Adequate Posts Only
Coyote 18 Coyote Posts Only
Peepul 12 Peepul Posts Only
Percy 12 Percy Posts Only
ApostateAbe 10 ApostateAbe Posts Only
Huntard 10 Huntard Posts Only
bluescat48 9 bluescat48 Posts Only
dokukaeru 9 dokukaeru Posts Only
Coragyps 8 Coragyps Posts Only
Granny Magda 8 Granny Magda Posts Only
RAZD 8 RAZD Posts Only
obvious Child 7 obvious Child Posts Only
AdminNosy 6 AdminNosy Posts Only
greyseal 6 greyseal Posts Only
Admin 5 Admin Posts Only
Bluejay 5 Bluejay Posts Only
hooah212002 5 hooah212002 Posts Only
Modulous 4 Modulous Posts Only
PaulK 4 PaulK Posts Only
Tanndarr 4 Tanndarr Posts Only
Adminnemooseus 3 Adminnemooseus Posts Only
Hyroglyphx 3 Hyroglyphx Posts Only
Lithodid-Man 3 Lithodid-Man Posts Only
Arphy 2 Arphy Posts Only
AdminAsgara 1 AdminAsgara Posts Only
caffeine 1 caffeine Posts Only
cavediver 1 cavediver Posts Only
dwise1 1 dwise1 Posts Only
jacortina 1 jacortina Posts Only
JonF 1 JonF Posts Only
Malcolm 1 Malcolm Posts Only
mark24 1 mark24 Posts Only
Parasomnium 1 Parasomnium Posts Only
slevesque 1 slevesque Posts Only
Son 1 Son Posts Only
tuffers 1 tuffers Posts OnlyBut tell me, what empirical evidence did any of you present? Absolutely none. All you ever offer are subjective interpretations of observations which are based on massive assumptions founded in preconceived conclusions which is all that your pseudo science is based upon. So don't be claiming any undeserved victories here my lost and deluded friend. Especially since all you did was sit back and heckle throughout this fiasco, as most of your buddies did. What I gave you were dozens of questions based on deductive reasoning which not one of you could answer so you resorted to the tactic of claiming I didn't support my arguments with empirical evidence. The fact is Coyote, I made no claims at all regarding how life began other than stating my beliefs in passing. What I did was ask you to prove the basic foundation upon which evolution is founded. And that request alone has brought the lot of you down on me in your irrational tirades, rants and personal attacks on me since you are completely incapable of defending that which you claim is a legitimate science.And WHY IS THAT? Because you know you can't answer any of the challenges I put to the philosophical cowards that evolutionists, secular humanists and atheists are. Is this statement supposed to make sense in the real world regarding anything I have said? Because it only makes sense to me in context of what you claim to be factually true regarding the cult of your religion. Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.