EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Instead of whining about me, do you think you could produce a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of evidence to support the rubbish in your OP?... I guess whining about me is easier.

Your pretense that only "secular humanists" defend evolution is, of course, untrue, and your daydream that one day we will learn that you were right is a fantasy contrary to all known evidence.

We have already debunked the miserable fraudulent crap that you quoted in your OP.The other false statements in your hysterical ravings are off topic. If you wish to scream deluded nonsense about anything else, that would belong on another thread.

This is, of course, untrue.

I have only your word for this, which most likely means that this claim is another creationist fraud.No-one claims that tetrapods were descended from coelancanths, but from other lobe-finned fish.Here, by the way, is a photograph of a lobe-finned fish crawling about on the land. It's called a lungfish, can you guess why? And here's some video.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why do you scream halfwitted falsehoods about evolutionists instead of even trying to defend the fraudulent crap in your OP?

Actually, you do need to defend the fraudulent creationist nonsense you quoted. Merely quoting it is not enough. They also don't acknowledge that a giant winged pig ate New York. Nor do they admit without compromise that they are a race of super-sentient marshmallows from Rigel 7 who have voyaged to Earth to eat our beach umbrellas.I wonder why not. It is not actually inconsistent for all scientists to unanimously agree that it is not a fraud.

Uh ... they were "apish-looking" compared to us. They had big brow ridges, massive jaws, virtually no chin, a protruding face, and robust bones. They're not transitional, they're a sister group.If you are an example of the "public eye" you speak of then it's not the fault of biologists that you don't listen to a darn thing they say.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Please quote one scientist --- not a creationist bullshitter, but a scientist --- saying that it was a fraud.Or stop making false statements with no basis in reality. Your statements about the bone fragment are derived from a known creationist bullshitter talking nonsense about what a journalist wrote in the Knoxville News-Sentinel.If you want to know the reasons why it was suggested that it was human, and the reasons why it was suggested to be not human, what you would need would be some sort of peer-reviewed scientific publication.Why don't you go and look for one?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You have a great future ahead of you preaching to ignorant fundies. Even reading your rantings on the internet, one can almost see the flecks of spittle forming at the corners of your mouth.But we are not ignorant fundies; we require facts rather than hysteria and bile; and if you're not going to try to justify the nonsense in your OP, then you're wasting your time.

It's funny how when religious people want to talk smack about some concept, they always pretend that it's a religion, as though that's the worst thing you could say about an idea.Now me, when I want to disparage creationism, do I go about pretending that it's a science? I do not.---Now, would you like to try to justify the nonsense in your OP, or would you rather do your brimstone preacher act again? It's funny, but, as I've pointed out, it serves little purpose.

So, you have no evidence of fraud in the case of the Orce fragment.Thought not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, you've very nearly figured out our little secret, so I guess it's only fair to tell you the rest.Yes, we control the internet. It's a big job, but someone has to do it.But you have erred in your guess at what we do with this power. What we actually do ... promise you won't tell anyone? ... is we use it to delete all the good creationist arguments, leaving only the ones that are palpable nonsense. By these subtle means, we hope to give everyone the impression that creationists are a bunch of ding-dongs.And that is why all the creationist arguments on the internet are unsupported by the evidence. It's not that we remove all the evidence supporting creationist arguments --- instead, we remove all the creationist arguments supported by evidence, leaving only the creationist arguments that are blithering nonsense. Cunning, eh?So, for example, the only reason our all-powerful cabal allowed you to read the gibberish you quoted in your OP was that it's clearly garbage of the rankest and most stinky variety. You will never get to see any of the good creationist arguments, because the only surviving copies of these are kept in a secure vault at World Evolutionist Headquarters. (I'm not allowed to tell you where that is, let's just say it's an underwater volcano in an "undisclosed location".)Of course, sometimes some smartass creationist will persist in posting a valid argument even after we've deleted it a few times. Then we have to send goons round to his house to have him whacked. Fortunately we have lots of goons. Evolutionism is a big cult, and, as you know, we're all thoroughly wicked, and always up for a bit of murder if that'll conceal The Truth. Or, indeed, just for the heck of it.Don't worry, though --- I think we can guarantee your safety. You are presenting exactly the image of creationism that we wish the world to see.Well, I must go now. I have truths to suppress, goats to sacrifice, and the paperwork just keeps on piling up. I've asked and asked for more minions, but sometimes I think the Budget Department are even more steeped in evil than the rest of us put together.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's not so much the topic dying, as a pet topic being put down. It's a tired old topic, it's in pain and suffering, it doesn't so much live as twitch occasionally and whine ... it's kindest that it should die.

This demonstrates one of the more peculiar aspects of the paranoid mind. I've noticed it in "9/11 Truthers", too.You see, the thing is that he supposes, as demonstrated not just by this post but by the whole tenor of this thread, that there has been a great big enormous and all-but all-powerful effort to con people into accepting evolution.And yet when he encounters any particular person who does, in fact, accept evolution, such as Granny Magda, he doesn't suppose that Granny has been duped by the conspiracy. He supposes that she's part of it. While supposing that there's this huge conspiracy to fool everyone, he can't believe that any particular person has been fooled by it. In his view of the world, there are no dupes, there are only shills.He has a fantasy that all the evidence that he's right has been destroyed by an evolutionist cabal. But he can't believe that the destruction of all the evidence that he's right is the reason why Granny Magda thinks that there's no evidence that he's right: even though that would be a perfectly adequate explanation. No, he also believes that she is part of the internet-controlling cabal and is a knowing party to the purging of the evidence.This is exactly the same as what I see with the "9/11 Truthers". On the one hand, they suppose that there has been a plot so devilishly clever as to fool almost the entire world --- but on the other hand, if you tell them that you think that Bush was not behind 9/11, they immediately accuse you of being in the pay of the CIA.In both cases, the nuts suppose that there is a vast, intricate, and cunning conspiracy to fool people into accepting some proposition --- but if anyone says that they accept that proposition, then the nuts immediately conclude that that person has not been fooled by that conspiracy, but rather that they are part of it.There are no dupes, there are only shills. And thus the conspiracy theorists manage to believe in an all-powerful world-spanning conspiracy to deceive people which they also apparently believe has not, in fact, deceived anyone at all.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.