Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-18-2018 8:49 PM
193 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 192 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 838,657 Year: 13,480/29,783 Month: 926/1,576 Week: 138/303 Day: 29/53 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 271 of 323 (526067)
09-25-2009 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:32 AM


Another failure by Archangel
Hi Archangel, let me see if I can help you understand your problem.

But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.

The problem is that you don't offer any alternative interpretation that works, that explains all the evidence to the same degree of completeness or more than the current scientific one.

If you can't do this THEN YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: YOU HAVE A FAILED EXPLANATION.

The fact that you absolutely FAIL to provide an interpretation that explains, for instance the sorted and ordered structure of foraminifera deposits, leaves you with simply saying that you don't believe that the layers are sorted and ordered, which IS denial, and when you then FAIL to answer when provided with evidence that this is the case, THEN the only thing apparent from your position LEFT is your denial.

References from The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Message 185
Message 187 (the denial)
Message 217 (no answer)

I have provided evidence contrary to your assertions on several occasions, and in each case you have FAILED to provide any kind of alternative interpretation that explains all the observed evidence.

(hidden portion) Here you also prove my point by posting the photo evidence of Java Man so proudly, as if a skull cap 2 femurs and a tooth is evidence of anything at all that would add up to a life size figure of a primitive man.

Which is denial of the evidence, because this ignores the fact that these fragments match and correlate with many other fossils from the same location found later, AND from similar fossils found in other sites, AS I NOTED IN Message 64:

quote:
So how is this a fraud or a hoax? At first it was tentatively accepted by some and not by others. More fossils - 40 different individuals from Java and more from other sites - have since been found that conform to it, they validate the find, and there is no deception here: the evidence is available for anyone to evaluate.

So, no, it is NOT just a skull fragment, 2 femurs and a tooth that add up to the evidence of Java Man as a type specimen for a hominid in the family tree, it is the correlation of these fossils with the rest of the Homo erectus, the part of my post that you ignored and FAILED to refute. Once again this leaves you with the apparent position of denying the evidence of the fossils, not in denying the interpretation of them OR providing an alternative explanation.

But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.

You also absolutely FAIL to demonstrate how the scientific interpretation is poorly constructed or improperly arrived at, thus you don't challenge the interpretation, you don't provide an alternative, and you deny evidence that is contrary to your assertions.

But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.

Curiously, the points I made in Message 64 still stand, uncontested by any counter argument or by counter evidence or by an "alternative" interpretation that explains the evidence.

Thanks for validating Message 254.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM RAZD has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 272 of 323 (526075)
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


Admin/Percy writes:

So keeping this in mind, let's focus on just one thing, the evidence for fraud concerning Orce man. Is there evidence that Orce man is a fraud? If so, please describe it. Please try to avoid hearsay evidence.

You can respond to this message, but address your response to the other participants. Now that I'm moderating I'm just trying to channel discussion onto productive avenues. I'm no longer a participant.

Tell me Percy, did you just miss my previous comment when I said that nothing AT ALL can be found online, either for or against Orce Man in any journals at all? If so, why would you repeat a request for info you know can't be produced?

I'll tell you what, you waste 3 hours finding anything on line which supports it as a valid discovery in order to refute my claim that it has been determined by scientists who were actually involved with determining its authenticity that it was a donkey skull bone. Go on, and while you're at it, answer me this; if it is valid evidence then why has it been erased from all journals and sources for review and as evidence of its veracity as a discovery? Can you answer that? Or produce any evidence in support of Orce Man? Cuz I can't find anything on it except for what I posted explaining the process it went through within years of being found when scientists rejected it as valid.

I mean, why is it that evolutionists will take a single pigs tooth and build a complete human being around it proving they have incredible imaginations and powers of extrapolation, yet when something as obvious as all of the existing evidence regarding a claimed find is erased from public exposure and scrutiny, you have no powers of deduction to actually perceive that the powers that be have erased it because it is unsupportable as evidence in the furtherance of the evolution agenda. In other words Percy, if it was accepted as valid by the scientific community, would it be impossible to find anything on it beside the TO links which just asked questions but offered no evidence or confidence in its authenticity at all? Now let's get real and stop asking me to produce evidence for something you know can't be proven on the web, and start using some of that common sense you pseudo scientists claim to possess.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 8:27 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 8:43 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 283 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2009 9:21 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 273 of 323 (526077)
09-25-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


quote:
that nothing AT ALL can be found online, either for or against Orce Man in any journals at all

So obviously it's of supreme important in supporting the ToE, right? Or, perhaps it has nothing to do with supporting the ToE, and you erred in including it as a fraud that contributes to the public's acceptance of it.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:20 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:55 PM subbie has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 274 of 323 (526078)
09-25-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by RAZD
09-25-2009 6:55 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
RAZD writes:

Which is denial of the evidence, because this ignores the fact that these fragments match and correlate with many other fossils from the same location found later, AND from similar fossils found in other sites, AS I NOTED IN Message 64:

Really RAZD? You mean all of those other bones which you didn't bother to post evidence of? You know, evidence that the other bones found were actually from the same exact species or that they offered a combined skeleton when put together? That evidence that you never posted and evidently expect me to accept on faith in the honesty and accuracy of your same scientific community which will construct a missing human link from a pigs tooth. So by what standard of evidence do you claim the failure is mine RAZD?

And if the other evidence in the area was more complete than this photo evidence, why didn't you post a photo of it rather than this skimpy example which offers nothing worthy of building a complete specimen of.

TO BE PRECISE, THIS IMAGE REFLECTS ONE FEMUR, ONE SKULLCAP AND ONE TOOTH


Click to enlarge

By what standard of evidence does your science create this hairless image? Show me the pelvic fossils which show it stood perfectly upright as this projects. Prove it was hairless yet it wore no clothing to keep warm.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2009 6:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 12:13 AM Archangel has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 275 of 323 (526079)
09-25-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


The limits of creationist research
...stop asking me to produce evidence for something you know can't be proven on the web...

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 276 of 323 (526081)
09-25-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


Hi Archangel,

I'm only trying to bring some structure to the discussion. So we've established that there is no evidence that Orce man is a fraud, so let's move on to the Coelacanth. Please describe the evidence that the Coelacanth is a fraud.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:20 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Admin has responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 277 of 323 (526084)
09-25-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by subbie
09-25-2009 8:27 PM


subble writes:

So obviously it's of supreme important in supporting the ToE, right? Or, perhaps it has nothing to do with supporting the ToE, and you erred in including it as a fraud that contributes to the public's acceptance of it.

More moving the goalposts yet again. Here's the point subble, I wasn't posting it as evidence of its importance in proving evolution is valid since I don't believe evolution is valid. I was posting it as evidence that Orce Man was a fraud which for the few years before being exposed as a donkey skull fragment by that very science you place your hope in, did contribute to the volumes of frauds which are accepted as valid as we speak.

But I can assure you of this, which my post you responded to made clear, if your pseudo science had any faith in its authenticity at all, it would be front and center in their arsenal of proof that Orce Man represents a transitional example of human evolution. Of that you can be certain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 8:27 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:10 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 278 of 323 (526087)
09-25-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Admin
09-25-2009 8:43 PM


Admin writes:

Hi Archangel,
I'm only trying to bring some structure to the discussion. So we've established that there is no evidence that Orce man is a fraud, so let's move on to the Coelacanth. Please describe the evidence that the Coelacanth is a fraud.

On the contrary, I have made my assertion that it's a fraud and I stand by it based on its absence from the transitional record of evidence which evolution holds up and just expects us to accept like ignorant sheeple. So how about you disprove my claim by showing that Orce is in fact not a fraud as I have claimed it is, all along! Or don't debates work like that around here. If Orce was valid, it would easily be found in your literature. The fact that it no longer is held up as evidence proves my point that it was in fact a fraud. If the discussion on this shard of bone ends now, that is the only reasonable deduction to take from your combined inability to defend it authenticity here and now.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 8:43 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:18 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2009 9:34 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 286 by obvious Child, posted 09-25-2009 11:13 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 09-26-2009 8:35 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 279 of 323 (526088)
09-25-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:55 PM


quote:
More moving the goalposts yet again.

You shouldn't use adult phrases that you don't understand. I'm not trying to move any goalposts. I'm trying to address your contention that Orce man was responsible for public acceptance of the ToE. What you need to explain now is how that is possible if you can't find any evidence of such contribution.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:55 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 280 of 323 (526091)
09-25-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


quote:
The fact that it no longer is held up as evidence proves my point that it was in fact a fraud.

Oh dear, you're really having vocabulary problems, aren't you?

In order to prove that it was a fraud, you need to show two things. 1. It was falsely held out as evidence of evolution and 2. those who did so knew it was false. The fact that it is not now held out as evidence doesn't prove either of those things. If you think it does, you need to explain why.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 281 of 323 (526092)
09-25-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:55 PM


Creationist wrong again
...as evidence that Orce Man was a fraud which for the few years before being exposed as a donkey skull fragment by that very science you place your hope in...

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

American 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9292161?ordinalpos=3&i...


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:55 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 8:54 AM Coyote has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 663 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 282 of 323 (526093)
09-25-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by subbie
09-25-2009 9:10 PM


MORE CONDESCENSION FROM THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS:
subble writes:

You shouldn't use adult phrases that you don't understand.

Hey junior, I'm 56 years old. 8 years your senior. Now that you have been properly corrected, I expect you to refer to me as SIR from here on. Got it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:10 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:22 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 283 of 323 (526094)
09-25-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


Just Because You're Paranoid...
Hi Angel,

It seems that the evil-utionsist conspiracy hasn't wiped you from the internet yet.

Tell me Percy, did you just miss my previous comment when I said that nothing AT ALL can be found online, either for or against Orce Man in any journals at all?

You are wrong. Again.

quote:
Lowenstein J. M., Borja C. and García-Olivares E.

A skull fragment (VM-0) from Orce, Granada, Spain, dated palaeomagnetically at about 1.6 Myr, is thought by some palaeontologist to be hominid, while others maintain it is equid. If hominid, it would be by far the oldest evidence ofHomo in Europe. Immunological studies on residual albumin in this fossil were carried out independently, and with different immunological methods, at the University of California, San Francisco (radioimmunoassay), and at the University of Granada, Spain (enzyme immunoassay). Other fossils attributed to hominids also studied wereVM1960 from Venta Micena, andCV-1 from Cueva Victoria, Murcia, Spain. Undisputed equid and bovid fossils from the same deposits and dated to a similar period as the Orce skull were also analyzed. Our results showed that species-specific albumin can be detected in 1.6 Myr-old hominid, equid and bovid fossils. The albumin from the Orce skull fragment and fromVM-1960 was immunologically closer to human albumin. These findings support the contention that theVM-0 andVM-1960 are hominid and that members of the genusHomo occupied southern Spain 1.6 Myr ago.


Source

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

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.


Source

Now these are just abstracts. You have to pay for the full articles. Nonetheless, they do exist. Your paranoid delusions are just that; delusions.

I'll tell you what, you waste 3 hours finding anything on line which supports it as a valid discovery

They took me about five minutes to find. Perhaps you are on dial-up. Really bad dial-up.

Go on, and while you're at it, answer me this; if it is valid evidence then why has it been erased from all journals and sources for review and as evidence of its veracity as a discovery?

It hasn't. You just made that up. Hope this clears up your obvious confusion there.

Cuz I can't find anything on it except for what I posted explaining the process it went through within years of being found when scientists rejected it as valid.

Or to put it another way, you heard the claim, couldn't back it up with any of that pesky evidence stuff, but decided to believe it anyway.

Tell me Angel, if you can't find any evidence online or anywhere else that Orce Man is a donkey bone, why are you so insistent that it is a donkey bone?

Myself, I don't know whether it is a human bone or an equine one. I just don't know. I don't have enough information. You on the other hand, seem to believe that your contention that Orce Man is equine is beyond question. You seem to believe this despite clearly admitting that you have no evidence for it. That is no way to go about approaching knowledge and it is no way to conduct oneself in debate.

You then go even further and make serious accusations against the professionals involved in this find. You claim that it was a fraud. Of course, you have no evidence of this - you have admitted as much - but you still see fit to throw out these accusations.

You say Orce Man is a donkey - you can't even show us evidence that it was equine.

You say that Orce Man was a fraud - you can't provide evidence of that either.

You say that Orce Man has been used to promote evolution and yet you freely admit that it is barely even present on the web.

all of the existing evidence regarding a claimed find is erased from public exposure and scrutiny, you have no powers of deduction to actually perceive that the powers that be have erased it because it is unsupportable as evidence in the furtherance of the evolution agenda.

Okay... So there is little info on Orce Man on the web. Conclusion: the evil evo's deleted it!

There is also little info on the web about my theory that Jesus was in fact a fifty foot tall purple rabbit from the planet Susan. Conclusion: Evil anti-Jesus/rabbit conspirators have hidden the evidence!

Here's an alternative conclusion: Orce Man is just really, really obscure. There's little material out there because no-one gives a shit.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. On the other hand, sometimes, that's exactly what it means. They're not out to get you Angel. You're just being paranoid. Maybe you should get out a bit more.

Now let's get real and stop asking me to produce evidence for something you know can't be proven on the web, and start using some of that common sense you pseudo scientists claim to possess.

You brought it up Angel. This is your topic. You brought up Orce Man. You made a series of claims about this fossil which you now find yourself unable to back up. This is no-one's fault but your own. No-one forced you to base your argument on unsubstantiated points - you did that all on your own.

Now grow up and stop blaming everyone else for your own bad arguments.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 284 of 323 (526095)
09-25-2009 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:20 PM


Re: MORE CONDESCENSION FROM THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS:
All you have done is prove that reaching the age of 56 doesn't ensure you will be able to use adult phrases properly, Pops.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 285 of 323 (526097)
09-25-2009 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


This just gets funnier.

I have made my assertion that it's a fraud and I stand by it based on its absence from the transitional record of evidence

So you claim that Orce Man is used to promote evolution.

You also claim that it is absent from evolutionist records.

Huh? Tell me, are you ever troubled by cognitive dissonance?

which evolution holds up and just expects us to accept like ignorant sheeple.

Excuse me, but I believe it is Christianity that refers to its faithful as a "flock".

So how about you disprove my claim by showing that Orce is in fact not a fraud as I have claimed it is, all along! Or don't debates work like that around here.

No they don't. Generally, if you make a claim, you are the one who is expected to provide evidence for that claim. If I claim that Jesus was a giant purple rabbit, it's up to me to prove that. It's not anybody else's responsibility to disprove it, at least not until I have provided some kind of pro-Jesus-bunny evidence for them to refute.

You have provided us with nothing to refute, just an empty claim, a lot of hot air and a very bad attitude.

If Orce was valid, it would easily be found in your literature. The fact that it no longer is held up as evidence proves my point that it was in fact a fraud.

No, it means that scientific literature aimed at the non-specialist tends to concentrate on what can be proved to a reasonable degree of confidence. They do not concentrate on finds which can't be verified. This does not prove a fraud.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018