EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Its all they have. The actual data doesn't support their beliefs. There would be little left on those websites. See No. 1, above. There is no such mechanism in creation "science" similar to what is found in real science. Creation "science," actually a form of religious apologetics, exists only to support religious belief. Because creationists reject scientific data (see No. 1, above) there is no standard against which to judge the accuracy of any statement or claim other than whether it supports religious belief. See Nos. 1-3, above.But all of these falsehoods and misleading statements don't alter the consuming public's acceptance of creationist websites because the authors and readers of those websites want only to support religious beliefs (i.e., religious apologetics).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Probably my last post on this subject: Your points have been refuted, but those refutations have been ignored. After several times posting the same refutations, some folks may have lost patience. Your posts had content, but that content was refuted multiple times. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. Some folks choose to disbelieve it for religious reasons, but that makes it neither a religion, false, nor a cult. This has been explained several times: the study of origins is separate to all but creationists. It is in its infancy, but I don't doubt that someday some pretty decent theory will develop to explain the how, when, and the why. Science has a pretty good record of explaining things. And genetics. And geology. And a bunch of other related fields. And that is all woven into a pretty good theory, which has withstood tests and challenges for 150 years now. Some folks don't accept the theory because of religious beliefs, but that doesn't lessen the empirical data nor the theory. Actually the theory of evolution is doing better and better with each year that passes. More and more predictions are made and successfully tested, and more and more data comes in which supports the theory. As has been pointed out, we have rejected the several mistakes and the hoax that was Piltdown and are the stronger for it. If Piltdown had been real it would have been a major problem because it didn't fit with the rest of the data! The theory of evolution--or rather the particular details of hominid evolution--is stronger without Piltdown!Anyway, that's all for now. Stop by again sometime.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If you would have presented empirical evidence you would possibly have fared better.What you gave us was belief unsupported by empirical evidence.And belief without belief is simply empty.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not all interpretations are equal.Some agree with the majority, or all of the evidence. Others contradict that evidence.Your failure to see and acknowledge the evidence that contradicts your interpretation does not make that evidence go away.You are, in effect, looking at the blue sky and claiming that it is pink.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So if it is not on the web and free it isn't real?Have you tried a good university library, or the technical journals that are on the web but only available for a fee?Claiming that you can't find something on the web (for free) does not mean it doesn't exist.Try a good university library--you'd be surprised what you could find in there. Articles and journals providing support for the theory of evolution probably take up many floors, and that's just the recent ones.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Immunospecificity of albumin detected in 1.6 million-year-old fossils from Venta Micena in Orce, Granada, SpainAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1997 Aug; 103(4):433-41.

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

​

Immunospecificity of albumin detected in 1.6 million-year-old fossils from Venta Micena in Orce, Granada, Spain - PubMed

Hmmmm. No mention of donkeys here; that skull fragment exhibits hominid albumin. Perhaps the creationists crying "fraud" are behind the times, eh?And this search took about ten minutes, most of it looking for a source that included the abstract without paying a fee.A good university library will have that article available for your perusal. There are a lot more articles out there, but this one is sufficient to make an ass of those claiming Orce is a donkey.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In your whole post you failed to address the presence of human albumin in the Orce skull fragment.Here once again is the abstract of the article I linked to:

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

Please address this one point and leave all of the other topics for other threads.Of course, if you'll admit you are wrong on Orce we can move on to other of your so-called "frauds" if you like.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The abstract that I linked to is quite clear, but you are (deliberately?) misreading it. That's probably the only way you can get it to come out your way. Lets go through it line by line (not that this will do any good):

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982.

An introductory statement, providing a little background to the forthcoming article.

If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized.

This is a statement of a problem, and an introductory statement. This is not a conclusion! This sentence clearly sets up the problem that is to be addressed.

Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene.

Additional data, providing some background.Summary to date: There are stone tools of an early age and a skull fragment has been found. There is controversy over that fragment.

Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid.

A direct statement of the problem that is being investigated in this article.

Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA).

A statement of the methods used.

Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils.

A summary of the findings, that the skull fragment has biological materials matching humans, not equines.

These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

A conclusion: this finding supports the human nature of the skull fragment, which, as well, is supported by the presence of early stone tools.In no case does this article support your position that the skull fragment is a donkey. And in nothing that you have posted have you supported your contention that this skull fragment or its treatment was fraudulent. The initial estimate was that it was human and that is what this current article found. It looks like those paleontologists claiming it might be a donkey were wrong, along with all of the creationists who gleefully jumped on that claim and ran with it. And who won't admit they were wrong.I've noticed that many creationists act as if their arguments, even those picked up from creationist websites of dubious honesty, are inerrant. Many of those creationists are reluctant to ever admit an error, no matter how much evidence is presented to them that they are wrong.I hope you aren't among that group.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This thread has failed to document a single example of fraud by evolutionary scientists which has led to general public acceptance of the theory of evolution.Nothing but the usual creationist misrepresentations, refuted thousands of times already, but dusted off and presented once again in an effort to fool the gullible.Creation "science" as usual.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.