No, Portillo, we do have the evidence that you were not telling the truth. Just because you don't have the ability to understand that you were telling porkies, does not change the fact that you were certainly not telling the truth. Other people can see exactly where you have have been twisting reality, because we can point at the exact place where you did the deed.
Your perception about what you think to be true does not change facts. You were not communinicating verifiable facts to people. You did the opposite.
To refresh people's memories, this excursion into confusion between lying and being wrong began with Portillo's Message 349 where he apparently repeated a claim that he'd made before and that had been rebutted before.
Portillo claimed that scientists were engaging in deception by periodically announcing they'd found the missing link, when in reality it doesn't exist. But the hugely divisive field of human origins brings no honor upon itself, ruled as it as more by personality and ego than by evidence with the resulting exaggerated claims that imply greater certainty than is possible, and they only invite this confusion on the part of that portion of the public that remains skeptical of evolution.
That being said, it is one of the most frustrating things at a discussion board when one encounters someone who stops arguing against rebuttals to his position, then after a brief while simply reintroduces the position into the discussion as if it had never been rebutted. I can't think of anything that has driven me more crazy than this kind seeming dishonesty. Our expectation is that someone who is being forthright will, when reintroducing a point, set the context and say something like, "Some who don't agree have argued that...", instead of just putting it out there like the point had never been made and rebutted before.
But there is another side to this, and that's that it is most often the case that rebuttal wasn't perceived as rebuttal because it wasn't understood, and I think that's the case here. In my experience most creationist lack of understanding or misunderstanding is extremely persistent. Those who remember Bolder-dash will recall that he never understood any argument about the non-random nature of evolution, and for him it as if the rebuttals to his claims that evolution was random had never been made.
Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that there isn't enough time left in the universe to persuade them otherwise. Anyone know anybody who believes in magnetic bracelets or astrology or ghosts or any of that stuff? Ever succeeded in convincing them these things are hokum? Doesn't happen often, I'm sure. It helps to keep in mind this natural human intransigence that we all have.
But there is another side to this, and that's that it is most often the case that rebuttal wasn't perceived as rebuttal because it wasn't understood, and I think that's the case here. In my experience most creationist lack of understanding or misunderstanding is extremely persistent.
This comes down to an age old debate about Creationists.
"Are they Evil or just stupid?"
You are of the camp that they are just stupid. I disagree. I think they are profoundly evil. While clearly some (most) are likely both evil and stupid, it's simple impossible for me to believe that someone able to operate a computer is incapable of understanding such basic sentences as:
"Scientists don't call it a missing link, the news media does. They just want to sell stories, so they use that title a lot."
There really aren't that many SAT words in that statement. For EVERY CREATIONIST on EVERY FORUM to get this wrong EVERY TIME would require more coordinated stupidity than is capable.
No, they are denying things because, to them, doing harm to children through the propagation of ignorance is their highest calling.
Put simple, they *** because they are bad people who want to do harm - evil.
You can't repeatedly make the same errors in the face of evidence without knowingly being dishonest.
If I remember correctly, the practice of knowingly asserting falsehoods in a debate goes by the name of "arguing in bad faith."
It's possible that Portillo actually hasn't understood that the facts he's used to support his position have been refuted. He could ask for a clarification, but that hasn't happened, and I think that any reasonable person would have to admit that the evidence has been explained clearly enough. Or Portillo could have rebutted with either a clarification of his own position or additional supporting evidence, but that hasn't happened either.
So I'll also have to agree that he's arguing in bad faith, which essentially means that the debate is over.
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. -Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. -Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill
Portillo...just so you know, I agree with your post 349.
In the case of humans Ardi, although not the missing link, is proposed as an intermediate. Ardi is now being refuted by some reasearchers as not being in the human line.
This is the sort of thing you can see and I can see, and it happens often.
I can see no rebuttal at all to your post. I see some talk about what a kind is, some questioning some statistics, another suggesting your family are illiterate, another suggesting to not pay attention to news headlines. These are not rebuttals.
Here is a rebuttal to the ignorant evolutionists totally unaware of the garbage bin of evo delusions past, and prepared to follow the flavour of the month like sheep to the slaughter.
"Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."
The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism," Wood and Harrison note. Some extinct primates, such as Oreopithecus bambolii, evolved outside of the human line but nevertheless possessed similarly hominin-like traits, which, the authors write, "encourage researchers to generate erroneous assumptions about evolutionary relationships." http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=was-ar...
"However, Kirk, Williams and their colleagues point out that short snouts and deep jaws are known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage. They further argue that Darwinius lacks most of the key anatomical features that could demonstrate a close evolutionary relationship with living haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, and tarsiers)."
So above we see that really evolutionary researchers themselves in their rebuttal of Darwinius as a human ancestor have confirmed that human traits have evolved multiple times and is not necessarily anything to do with human lineage, as I have asserted.
The thread is about the human line and human ape intermediates not being around. Evolutionary bla bla bla is not a refute to either of us. Any so called support for TOE could be delegated to the garbage bin of delusions at any time. This is not just headlines, This was research put up in 2009. Then boofheads have the hide to swear at you when it is they themselves that are ignorant.
The study reconsiders the evolutionary relationships of fossils named Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus, dating from four to seven million years ago, which have been claimed to be the earliest human ancestors.
Ardipithecus, commonly known as 'Ardi', was discovered in Ethiopia and was found to be radically different from what many researchers had expected for an early human ancestor.
Nonetheless, the scientists who made the discovery were adamant it is a human ancestor.
"We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology.
"But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible," he added.
Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships.
They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features.
After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead.
If ones beliefs being contradicted by the facts means someone should give up their beliefs then you should not be an evolutionist.
Evos have one belief "It ll evolved", the rest is delusion, wish and hope listing.
The evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villee, E. P. Solomon, and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged suddenly on Earth-in other words with no evolutionary ancestor before him-by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record."
This might be too far of an aside, but if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did we get here? I know the answer is God did it, but how? Did we just magically appear fully formed one day? There's no way that could work...