EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

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

Darwin.org writes:Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation.

Archangel in Message 145 writes: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.

Archangel in Message 72 writes: Yes it is. Because they both can't be right. If evolution is correct and true, then the bible is a lie, and conversely, if the bible is true, then evolution is the lie. There can be no compromise regarding the opposing foundations upon which each belief system stands.

Archangel in Message 165 writes: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.

Archangel in message 153 writes:Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science

Archangel writes: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

Archangel writes: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?

Archangel writes:based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word

Archangel writes: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

NARRATOR: By an almost unbelievable coincidence Xu Xing had found not another Archaeoraptor, but the counterslab of the National Geographic specimen. Yet as he moved up from the tail to the pelvic region there was something very mysterious. The pelvises of the two fossils should have been identical, but they were completely different. The Archaeoraptor's was small and damaged. The new fossil's was large and intact and showed two hind legs which were very different from the Archaeoraptor's. It made no sense. He compared them again. The photos of the Archaeoraptor showed a clear fracture between the tail and the pelvis which didn't exist on the new fossil. As Xu Xing studied the two specimens an awful realisation dawned on him. There could only be one explanation. Somebody had glued a different head and upper body onto the tail of the National Geographic specimen. It was a fake. Xu Xing emailed National Geographic in Washington.XU XING: I'm very sorry to tell you that I am now 100% certain that the fossil you have is a composite made from more than one specimen.NARRATOR: The news of the fake came as a thunderbolt to National Geographic. Could it be that the most popular educational magazine in the world had got its facts wrong? The magazine had never faced such humiliation in its 113 year history.BILL ALLEN: My first reaction was not necessarily disbelief, but... Wait a minute. It was disbelief, it was total disbelief.LEWIS SIMONS: Allen was beside himself. He was furious, he was livid, he was hurt, he was angry in ways that, that are almost unimaginable because it wasn't as though they just buried this somewhere in the back of the publication. It was a big, important story and now he's been told you've been had.

Archangel writes: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!!!

Archangel writes: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!
.....
But 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.

Archangel writes:So your claim of victory in closing this thread will NOT stand as long as I'm around.

Doku writes:I know that some members have treated you somewhat harshly, but you must understand that there are probably dozens of identical topics like this one on this forum and elsewhere. These members have become jaded and callous to your arguements because they have heard every claim you have made, rebutted them only to have the participant do exactly what you have done. Sometimes when I am bored, I go through and look at some of the older topics to see what kind of stuff was discussed there.I have tried not to do this to you. I am fairly new to discussions/debates like this one, but i am quickly realizing what the more experienced members have already learned.
If you feel you are being outnumbered, it is possible to have this discussion with only 1 or 2 people to respond to. I would really like to see you stick aroundOne last thing: Is your posting here on EVC in any way related to a class you may be taking?

Archangel writes: Yet when I finally do respond to his alleged evidence and rebut it, it gets placed in this peek place which I don't understand at all what that means.

Coyote writes:You are, in effect, looking at the blue sky and claiming that it is pink.