Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8187 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 9:13 PM
66 online now:
AdminAsgara (Asgara), Coyote, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Faith, jar, NoNukes, nwr, Percy (Admin) (9 members, 57 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,087 Year: 29,928/28,606 Month: 1,657/3,328 Week: 433/674 Day: 76/70 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 286 of 323 (526126)
09-25-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


Except that your definition of fraud is the same as mistake.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 287 of 323 (526134)
09-25-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:32 AM


Re: In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
While that is true, your interpretation is based on your religious views, rather then the empirical evidence. You keep calling mistakes frauds because it supports your religious views that reject evolution. Looking at the actual circumstances, all of them were mistakes. Especially the National Geographic incident as they posted a correct detailing their mistake.

Fraud is when you deliberately pass off something you know to be false as the truth. Nothing you have cited so far in any way resembles that while you yourself have passed off what I personally know to be frauds. The soft tissue and coelacanth for instance as I was there when you were informed of the truth. You have been informed of what is correct yet you pass of what you have been informed of as incorrect as the truth. That is fraud.

Fraud =/= Mistake. No dictionary will support you otherwise.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16227
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 288 of 323 (526143)
09-26-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:32 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

Hi Archangel,

If you use [thumb=300]http:⁄⁄upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg[/thumb]

Then it sizes the picture to 300 pixels wide to fit the forum page, allows you to click on it to see the details full size, and automatically centers the image.

You can also find out thinks like this by using the peek function on a post or in the reply copy.

Really RAZD? You mean all of those other bones which you didn't bother to post evidence of?

Curiously I did post links to some of it:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

quote:
To understand what we mean today by "Homo erectus", some history of paleoanthropological thought is needed. The first early human fossil found outside of Europe was the Trinil 2 fossil skullcap from the Solo River in Java, pictured to the right. The fossil was placed in the species Pithecanthropus erectus by its discoverer Eugene Dubois. Almost 40 individuals have been recovered from Java to this day, roughly equivalent to the number of fossils found at the caves of Choukoutien in China. The Choukoutien fossils found were originally assigned the species name Sinanthropus pekinensis. It was not until the 1950's that Ernst Mayr proposed that all of the specimens from these two roughly contemporaneous locales, along with others localities from Europe and Africa, represented a single species, Homo erectus. Since the 1950's, however, the early African populations of what Mayr termed Homo erectus have once again been split into a separate species Homo ergaster.

Homo erectus exhibits many features particular to the species, including a long skull shaped with thick cranial walls. The back of the skull is marked with a protruberance known as a transverse torus. Over the eyes is a large and prominent browridge, or supraorbital torus, which joins the rest of the frontal bone at a depression called the sulcus. Cranial capacities of Homo erectus average around 1000cc, which is far greater than earlier australopiths and even early Homo. The dentition of Homo erectus is nearly identical to modern humans, although the cheek teeth do remain larger, and the mandible is generally more robust.

The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).


Far from being a hoax, the original Java Man fossil is the type fossil for this species of hominid.

Question: do you know what the term "type fossil" means?

Do you have any idea why there is so much description of the minor morphological features that are used to describe the fossils?

Click on the link. You also have several additional names that a true skeptic would use to find more information about the fossils in question.

It also has links to more information.


http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/weid.html
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sulcus.html
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/ng6.html
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sang2.html

Note the discussion of comparative features between the fossils. You can also go to
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
for a hyperlinked page showing current thinking on hominid lineages, with Homo erectus shown as a cousin species, like neanderthals.

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.

First, because your cut and paste link referred specifically to this specimen, second, because it is the type fossil as it was the first one found, and third, because I supplied links to more information that a true skeptic could follow.

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?

The failure to follow where the evidence leads. If you had you would have found several examples of other fossils. If you are really interested in looking at the evidence then you will need to do what Ernst Mayr did and go to see the actual fossils. Of course you would need some kind of credentials to be allowed to touch these valuable specimens.

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.

It is amusing that creationists always seem to think that scientists regard artistic renderings as evidence or even valid representations of the finds.

My science doesn't create that image. That is an artistic representation. A picture made for media, by media people, not science or scientists. If you look at the journals that present fossil discoveries and discuss them in peer reviewed articles you will not see these pictures.

Rather you will see pictures like this:

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_boy

quote:
Turkana Boy or Nariokotome Boy is the designation given to fossil KNM-WT 15000[1], a nearly complete skeleton of an 11- or 12-year-old hominid boy who died 1.5 million[2] years ago in the early Pleistocene. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.

Turkana Boy is classified as either Homo erectus or Homo ergaster. The shape of the pelvis indicates that it was a male. Based on dental eruption and lack of any epiphyseal union of the skull, anthropologists Tim White and Richard Leakey determined the boy to have been about 12 years old.

Note how the age and sex was determined from the bones - something you denied could be done with the Pelycodus fossils. Notice how the bones fit the upright posture without being forced in place. Notice that this is an older fossil than the original find in Java.

And this is still just a fraction of the evidence we have for Homo erectus.

Enjoy.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


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 274 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 7:34 AM RAZD has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 126
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 289 of 323 (526210)
09-26-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
09-26-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

RAZD writes:

It is amusing that creationists always seem to think that scientists regard artistic renderings as evidence or even valid representations of the finds.

Are you actually admitting that this rendering:

is just for propaganda sake in order to humanize these apes for public consumption? Am I finally getting one of you to admit the dishonesty of your cult in doing any dishonest representation needed in order to convince the uninformed public at large that these bones represent actual human ancestors when they were nothing more that extinct apes?

My science doesn't create that image. That is an artistic representation. A picture made for media, by media people, not science or scientists. If you look at the journals that present fossil discoveries and discuss them in peer reviewed articles you will not see these pictures.

You are being dishonest again RAZD. No journalist sat down and came up with this rendition on his word processor and published it for public consumption. It was created by some paleontologist based on the actual bones from available specimens and released to the media for public consumption. In other words it is subjective propaganda since it doesn't reflect a realistic interpretation of this creature in any way. It is just more evidence of the dishonesty of this pseudo science in using modern marketing methods/visual aids in order to convince the general uninformed public who will accept this as a true and accurate rendition of this early ancestor of humanity. How you can overlook this fraud and excuse it is mind boggling.

Now, here we have your skeletal fossil of Turkana boy. A full scale representation which you post as validation for the artist rendition above.

Turkana Boy or Nariokotome Boy is the designation given to fossil KNM-WT 15000[1], a nearly complete skeleton of an 11- or 12-year-old hominid boy who died 1.5 million[2] years ago in the early Pleistocene. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.

Notice how in your ape skeleton, the pelvis sits directly on top of the hip joint, but not so with the modern human skeleton. So by what standard of accuracy or scientific legitimacy do you claim that evolutionists are seeking to discover the absolute truth rather than manipulating reality in order to serve their agenda? I mean, the rendition above is your sciences propaganda which claims to accurately portray this early ancestor of modern humans. But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.

Will you actually claim that this modern human hip joint model in any way resembles how the hip joint connects to the pelvis in your model which would allow it to stand erect as modern humans do, and as the artists rendition portrays? And can't you appreciate that this type of fraudulent representation is just one more example of what evolution does at every turn and regarding every single aspect of marketing itself as a proven science? It is painfully obvious to anyone that this extinct ape did NOT stand upright as your mythological pseudo science would have us believe in the propaganda you admit is produced for the manipulation of the uninformed public.

And why are you replacing an older fossil with the Java man fossil structure we have been discussing? Are these fossils interchangeable now? Just remember that if you can use it as evidence of more complete examples for Java Man, don't you dare come back to me with an argument that using it as evidence that Java couldn't stand upright is unfair since it's an older skeleton. You can't have it both ways and just use these interchangeably as long as they serve your propaganda purposes.

And while your at it, explain how they determined that Java Man had less body hair than Robin Williams yet seemingly walked around naked. Who determines this stuff? And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal? Rather than doing anything necessary to sell this false interpretation of science to an ignorant and uninformed public at any cost. How do you defend or justify this RAZD?

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 7:53 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 3:33 PM Archangel has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 219 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 290 of 323 (526211)
09-26-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Archangel
09-26-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
Archangel writes:

You are being dishonest again RAZD. No journalist sat down and came up with this rendition on his word processor and published it for public consumption. It was created by some paleontologist based on the actual bones from available specimens and released to the media for public consumption.


I'm assuming you have evidence for this claim? So, provide evidence that this was drawn by a paleontologist, or retract your claim.


I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 7:34 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11463
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 291 of 323 (526215)
09-26-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


Moderator Feedback
Hi Archangel,

If you would like to spend more time supporting your claim that Orce man is a fraud then that would be fine, but please keep the discussion grounded in evidence. When you're done discussing Orce man we can move on to the evidence for fraud surrounding the Coelacanth.

To everyone,

I'd like to encourage everyone to please keep the discussion civil, dispassionate, and focused on the topic. In particular, please avoid disparaging remarks about the other side as it encourages incivility, which is often the biggest barrier to open communication.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 126
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 292 of 323 (526217)
09-26-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Coyote
09-25-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Creationist wrong again
Coyote writes:

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.

Really? This is just too good to be true since you are obviously posting it as evidence that Orce is valid evidence of anything. If that is true, then why does the abstract open with this statement: IF it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, sounds to me like the jury is still out on this issue. Then it goes on to say this: 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. So which is it? Are early hominids the ancestors of modern humans, or were they actually humans as this description implies? Or is this just more misrepresentation which attempts to affiliate an allegedly, yet to date unproven transitional fossil with modern humans.

I mean, when I argue that these early hominids have no similarities to modern humans in any real way, you all come back with, well, of course not, because they are early ancestors and not actually human yet. But here it contradicts that and even implies that 780,000 years ago they utilized crude stone tools.

But here is the deeper question. We have various hominid fossil finds, all from distant antiquity and all from different parts of the world in various climates and ecosystems. And none of these ancestors could have had any contact with each other meaning they all evolved separately in what was a large and disconnected world at that time. But like funneling all of the extant communities into one common descendant, you categorize them as if they simultaneously and collectively evolved into what you like to call Homo Sapien Sapien until we see this all human end result all of a sudden just 40,000 years ago or so. We sure lost that brow ridge quickly according to normal evolutionary changes, wouldn't you say? And tell me what environmental changes occurred which precitated that evolutionary change, will you? Did the Sun change its location on the horizon so we no longer needed it to protect our eyes from it? After all, baseball caps and sun glasses are modern inventions.


And isn't it incredible once again how we became basically hairless right after evolving beyond the level of knuckle dragging apes according to evolution science created propaganda?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Granny Magda, posted 09-26-2009 11:48 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2009 1:49 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 12:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 293 of 323 (526248)
09-26-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Archangel
09-26-2009 8:54 AM


Creationist Wrong Again and Again and...
Hi Angel,

This is just too good to be true since you are obviously posting it as evidence that Orce is valid evidence of anything. If that is true, then why does the abstract open with this statement: IF it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, sounds to me like the jury is still out on this issue.

This is precisely what I have been telling you since Message 6, where I said this;

Granny writes:

This fossil has never enjoyed any sort of consensus on its origin and still doesn't. Can you show conclusively that it came from a donkey? No. Neither can any one else conclusively prove it to be human.

Science is not about absolutes, it is tentative. In this case, sensible folks are avoiding coming down on one side or the other with any great certainty. This is not a failing. It is an important part of the scientific method.

You on the other hand, seem to have been absolutely certain throughout this thread that the Orce "cookie" is from an equine. Not only that, but you know what kind of equine; a donkey. It seems to me that you have completely convinced yourself of this because it chimed with your religious notions.

No-one is telling you that Orce Man is absolutely definitely human. What we are telling you is that it is not definitely equine either and that there is evidence out there which is consistent with both interpretations. At this remove, it is not possible to draw any reliable conclusions, so we are not doing so.

Are you now ready to admit that you have no serious evidence that Orce Man is in fact a donkey? Will you admit that you as just as much in the dark on this as everyone else?

Will you admit that you have no evidence of fraud? That you rushed to judgement on this issue?

Perhaps you will show the maturity and strength of character to admit your error. I doubt it, but you never know...

Then it goes on to say this: 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. So which is it? Are early hominids the ancestors of modern humans, or were they actually humans as this description implies?

It says human, not modern human. Human is a Genus, not a species. It is referring to the genus Homo, of which we, H. erectus and several other human lineage fossils are a part.

There is no contradiction here, you have simply misunderstood the terminology.

Or is this just more misrepresentation which attempts to affiliate an allegedly, yet to date unproven transitional fossil with modern humans.

The only misrepresentation here is yours. You have made many claims which you are unable to back up. You admit that you have next to no info on Orce Man, yet you speak as if you had absolute knowledge that it was a fraud. That is what I call a misrepresentation.

The rest of your post strikes me as irrelevant to the question of whether or not hominid fossils are fraudulent or not. You are welcome to have your doubts about human evolution, but as it goes, your incredulity is not a matter of the slightest relevance.

Either show me the evidence of fraud or withdraw.

Oh and by the way, this picture;


Click to enlarge

is not by a palaeontologist. It's by this guy. He is not a palaeontologist, other than having an amateur interest. This was not not difficult to find out. You might like to try doing your own research next time you're thinking of casting wild accusations around at random.

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 292 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 8:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16227
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 294 of 323 (526290)
09-26-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Archangel
09-26-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

Let's deal with this first, Archangel:

Now, here we have your skeletal fossil of Turkana boy. A full scale representation which you post as validation for the artist rendition above.

No, sorry, read my post again: it was posted to show you that the hominid species Homo erectus was substantiated by many fossils, all of which demonstrate their hominid ancestry. This and the other pictures that I posted show homologies with the skull fragment, bones and tooth that were in the first find of fossils for this species, the fossil type specimen properly called Trinil-2 in science. "Java man" is the popular name and is often applied to the group of fossils rather than a specific specimen. As noted in What is fraud? Let's review the FACTS (Message 64), this validates the original find as being the first find of a new fossil species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

quote:
Sites in France, China, Vietnam, and other areas seem to indicate controlled use of fire by H. erectus, some dating back 1.5 million years ago. A presentation at the Paleoanthropology Society annual meeting in Montreal, Canada in March 2004 stated that there is evidence for controlled fires in excavations in northern Israel from about 690,000 to 790,000 years ago. A site called Terra Amata, located on the French Riviera, which lies on an ancient beach, seems to have been occupied by H. erectus. It contains the earliest good evidence of controlled fire dated at around 300,000 years BC. Excavations dating from approximately 790,000 years ago in Israel suggest that H. erectus not only controlled fire but could start fire.[23] Despite these examples, some scholars continue to assert that the controlled use of fire was not typical of Homo erectus, but only of later species of the Homo genus, such as Homo antecessor, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis).
...
Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of the Homo genus. It is generally considered to have given rise to a number of descendant species and subspecies. The oldest known specimen of the ancient human was found in southern Africa.
Homo erectus and its progeny
    * Homo erectus
o Homo erectus yuanmouensis
o Homo erectus lantianensis
o Homo erectus wushanensis
o Homo erectus nankinensis
o Homo erectus pekinensis
o Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
o Homo erectus soloensis
...
Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:
    * Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype), 
Sangiran collection,
Sambungmachan collection,
Ngandong collection
* China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian,
Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
* India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
* Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
* Tanzania: OH 9
* Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
* Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
* Turkey: Kocabas fossil[26]

The evidence of evolution is found in the bones, and the evidence of human behavior is found in the artifacts found with the fossils, not in artistic rendering.

Are you actually admitting that this rendering:
http://i319.photobucket.com/a.../Homo_erectus_Steveoc_86.jpg
is just for propaganda sake in order to humanize these apes for public consumption?

Curiously, I am unable to state anything more about your purported fraud claim in this regard, because you have failed to provide adequate citation of your source and the picture is posted on a personal picture website with no link to actual science.

No journalist sat down and came up with this rendition on his word processor and published it for public consumption. It was created by some paleontologist based on the actual bones from available specimens and released to the media for public consumption.

So you claim, yet it appears that YOU are hiding the source of this picture, as you don't provide links to the original publication of the picture, information of when it was drawn, by whom, when it was published, in what magazine.

Notice that all my pictures are referenced to sources and information about their origin, so I am not hiding anything.

I find it listed in wikimedia's picture library along with several other pictures of fossils for Homo erectus
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3A...
and when I click on the link it tells me

quote:
I, Steveoc 86, the copyright holder of this work, has published or hereby publishes it under the following licenses:

As Granny Magda notes Steveoc 86 is an amateur and not a scientist.

I've also made several google searches to find links to the picture and to Homo erectus renderings and have not found any evidence that this picture was published at all. Can you show that it was extensively disseminated as you claim?

Remember - to establish fraud by scientists you need to show (1) that the picture is false, (2) that it is intentionally false (3) that it is done and promoted by scientists rather than media, (4) that there is clear intention to deceive people with the picture into believing something that is not true and finally (5) that someone benefits from the deception.

This has still not been done for a single one of your fraud claims.

Here's another picture that may help you in the discussion of intentional deception:

http://commons.wikimedia.../File:Homme_de_Tautavel_01-08.jpg

quote:

The reconstruction was made on the basis of fossils from different places of Homo erectus. / Die Rekonstruktion wurde anhand zahlreicher Fundstücke von Homo erectus aus unterschiedlichen Erdteilen vorgenommen.

Again we have a picture posted by someone of a reconstruction in a museum, and the picture taker is not the author of the reconstruction (likely done by museum staff). The skeleton is a composite that is made up of scaled reproductions of all the fossils available from this single site, and showing how they still fit together in the same basic hominid pattern. Of course you can't have your little argument about the hip joint with this reconstruction as the pelvis is in red - which means that it is assumed (likely from other Homo erectus fossils) rather than modeled on an existing fossil from the site.

Is this fraud? No, for the intention is not to deceive but to show what the latest current thinking is about the fossil skeletons of Homo erectus, including a hip joint similar to the one found in Turkana Boy rather than what you have shown for Modern 21st century humans: if deception was the order of the day, would not the model show a modern hip instead? Remember that Turkana Boy comes from the earliest group of Homo erectus fossils in africa, and the ones in france could show new derived features.

Notice how in your ape skeleton, the pelvis sits directly on top of the hip joint, but not so with the modern human skeleton. So by what standard of accuracy or scientific legitimacy do you claim that evolutionists are seeking to discover the absolute truth rather than manipulating reality in order to serve their agenda? I mean, the rendition above is your sciences propaganda which claims to accurately portray this early ancestor of modern humans. But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.

Notice that Turkana Boy is 1.5 million years old, belongs to a different species from Homo sapiens that is regarded as being a cousin species rather than an ancestral species.

Notice that the knee joints demonstrate full upright posture and that the hip joints allow this posture as well. Notice that the overall proportions of arms and legs to torso also matches the human pattern rather than the chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan patterns.

Again, in evolution we expect homologous features to show different derived development in different species, but to show a trend from and ancestral species to an offspring or younger species. If you want we can also discuss chimpanzee pelvic and hip joint arrangements and compare the Homo erectus to them and human and see which is closer. Then we can look an the knee joints of these species to see how they show development for upright posture in Homo but not in Pan (chimp).

Here you have a picture I found posted on http://www.archure.net/music/neanderthalsong.html (cannot find original wikipedia file) to which I have added the previous picture of Turkana Boy, so you have a Neanderthal skeleton on the left and a Cro-Magnon (Homo sapeins) skeleton in the middle and Turkana Boy () on the right (roughly scaled to similar overall height):


Now it seems to these old eyes that the hip joint as seen on the left leg of these skeletons is very similar in position and location, and that it is difficult to compare the right leg due to parts missing from Turkana Boy. The knee joints in all three are very similar as well, and all show the similar arrangement necessary for full upright posture, and alignment that is NOT evident in chimps. It seems to me that there is less difference between these three skeletons than what we saw with the Coelacanth tails, where you claimed the two pictures were identical (Message 180):

The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day Cœlacanths have been caught, after that first one off South Africa. The second came from the Comoro Islands off north-west Madagascar in 1952, and a third in Indonesian Sulawesi in 1998. The evolutionist paleontologist J. L. B. Smith was unable to conceal his amazement at the capture of the first Cœlacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20


The tail of the living Cœlacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another.

Note that you have not yet replied to my rebuttal of this claim (Message 205):

They are NOT identical, look at the picture again: the rays on the tails are shorter on the modern fish than on the ancient one, and the central spine (notochord) extends beyond the tail rays in the modern fish, but blends in with the rays in the fossil. You have also excluded scale from the information provided - modern fish are around 4 times bigger than the ancient fossils. What you have are homologous structures that are due to common ancestry.

Any reply to that post in the near future? Or do you agree that your point is invalidated by the facts again?

And why are you replacing an older fossil with the Java man fossil structure we have been discussing? Are these fossils interchangeable now? Just remember that if you can use it as evidence of more complete examples for Java Man, don't you dare come back to me with an argument that using it as evidence that Java couldn't stand upright is unfair since it's an older skeleton. You can't have it both ways and just use these interchangeably as long as they serve your propaganda purposes.

Turkana Boy is older than the original Java Man fossil. Remember that Turkana Boy comes from early Homo erectus while still in africa and is 1.5 million years old, while Java Man come from Java after Homo erectus left africa and is 0.7 to 1.0 million years old:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/trinil2.html

quote:
Trinil 2
"Pithecanthropus I"

Species: Homo erectus
Age: 1.0-0.7 million years
Date of Discovery: October 1891
Location: Trinil, Java, Indonesia
Discovered by: Eugène Dubois

In 1890, he moved to Java, where his excavations brought him to the Solo River. In 1891, Dubois discovered a heavily mineralized cranium belonging to an early human. Many of the features were worn flat, but the shape of the cranium was distinctively long and the forehead was flat. A heavy browridge was evident, along with a distinct sagittal keel, visible in frontal and three-quarters view as a bony ridge passing lengthwise along the skull.

Because Java Man is younger than Turkana Boy in the evolutionary lineage of the species, it would likely exhibit more derived features for upright walking, and Turkana Boy represents an outer bound for traits comparable to .

And while your at it, explain how they determined that Java Man had less body hair than Robin Williams yet seemingly walked around naked. Who determines this stuff? And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal? Rather than doing anything necessary to sell this false interpretation of science to an ignorant and uninformed public at any cost. How do you defend or justify this RAZD?

Curiously, you are still confusing one artistic rendering with the evidence for evolution provided by the fossils. From the fossils we see homologous features that show a clear linear trend in their development from ancient fossils to modern ones. Where soft tissue is preserved we can sometimes detemine fur or scales or feathers, but nowhere in science are these features assumed without evidence.

The fact that Homo sapiens is covered with thin hairs is one of the small mysteries, and I have made my educated guesses regarding when and why this occurred, but I don't claim this opinion as fact, just a concept to be considered.

See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution if you want to see what I think happened.

Now if you want to discuss how reconstructions are made and by whom, we can discuss the neanderthal child shown previously, and see if this fits the definition of fraud - intentionally false information used to deceive people for a purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Dayn%C3%A8s

quote:
Elisabeth Daynès, born 1960 in Béziers, is a French sculptor. In 1981 she worked with the Théâtre de la Salamandre in Lille creating masks for the theatre. In 1984, she founded her own studio, Atelier Daynès, in Paris. Some years later, the Thot Museum in Montignac, close to the Lascaux caves, asked her to sculpt a life size woolly Mammoth with a group of hominids.

She has sinced specialised in reconstructing hominids from remaining bones. Her work is present at museums all over the world, like Musée des Merveilles in Tende, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, Transvaal Museum in Pretoria and Naturhistoriska riksmuseet in Stockholm.[1][2] In 2005 she created a life like model of Pharaoh Tutankhamun in a project with National Geographic. A close resemblance with the real Pharaoh is likely, even though traits like ears, nose tip, and colour of skin and eyes cannot be reliably reconstructed. [3]

I can't read the swedish, but this site has some interesting pictures of the process
http://www.nrm.se/download/18..../FaktaOmElisabethDaynes.pdf

Her website is http://www.daynes.com/en/home.php

This is a similar reconstruction to the child that you have seen a frontal picture of, seen from the side
http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/neanderthal-3.php

quote:
Reconstruction of a child Neanderthal based on the cast of the skull of Roc-de-Marsal discovered in Dordogne, France. He is three- to four-year-old.
http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/i.../neander3-1.jpg
This Neanderthal reconstruction can be seen in Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, France and in Stockholm, Sweden.

Here is one of the magazines that published pictures of the reconstruction:
http://www.archaeology.org/0611/index.html
On the Cover: This reconstruction of a Neanderthal child was based on finds in Gibraltar, which is believed to be among the last places where Neanderthals survived. (© Philippe Plailly/eurelios, Reconstruction Atelier Daynes)

quote:
Writers' Guidelines
ARCHAEOLOGY magazine is one of two publications of the Archaeological Institute of America, a 125-year-old nonprofit organization. The magazine has been published continuously for more than 50 years. We have a total audience of nearly 700,000, mostly in the United States and Canada. Our readership is a combination of the general public, enthusiastic amateurs, and scholars in the field. Publishing bimonthly, we try to bring our readers all of the exciting aspects of archaeology: adventure, discovery, culture, history, and travel.
Authors include not only professional journalists but professional archaeologists as well. If you are a scientist interested in writing about your research for ARCHAEOLOGY, see below for tips and suggestions on writing for a general audience.

Doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, nor does the reconstruction form part of the articles inside the magazine.

Here is a NEWS article about the reconstruction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm

quote:
Reconstructions of Neanderthal skulls add to growing evidence that the creatures were not close relatives of modern humans.

The distinctive features of the Neanderthal skull were established in early infancy - possibly even in the womb - say researchers in Switzerland.

Their conclusion is based on sophisticated computer graphics charting the cranial development of Neanderthals, from babyhood to adult life.

The findings support the idea that Neanderthals did not interbreed with early modern humans and contributed little or nothing to the present human gene pool.

'Sister' species

Christoph Zollikofer and Marcia Ponce de León of the University of Zürich used fossils to construct 3D virtual computer images of the skulls of Neanderthals and early modern humans.

Physical differences in skull development - such as the Neanderthal's receding chin and low, sloping forehead - were fixed by the age of two years, said Dr Zollikofer.


A modern human child (left) and the Gibraltar 1 Neanderthal child (right)

"Most of what makes a Neanderthal and what makes a modern human is already present in the infant," he told BBC News Online.

This suggests that Neanderthals were a separate "sister" species from modern humans.

"We don't see any evidence of gene mixing at all," he said. "But we can't prove this."


What we are looking at is the most accurate information we have from the fossils, and there is no intent to deceive, even though these sources are not evolutionary scientists but media magazines.

Your claim that reconstructions are evidence of scientific fraud are not substantiated.

Am I finally getting one of you to admit the dishonesty of your cult in doing any dishonest representation ...
You are being dishonest again RAZD.
It is just more evidence of the dishonesty of this pseudo science ...
But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.

The facts still demonstrate that your opinion is false. Getting outraged with the evidence and insulting the messenger/s is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance and the futile attempt to make contradictory evidence go away.

Sadly your self-centered childish and biased railing, denigration and continual insult is completely impotent at changing the facts of reality.

And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal?

This is hilarious, after you claim a world wide conspiracy to suppress evidence, you now wonder how scientists cannot contain journalists from publishing whatever media-hype article they want to attract customers. How do YOU prevent the media from spreading falsehoods at every turn -- just look at politics and the outright lies that are "news" and ask this question again with a straight face. LOL.

Enjoy.[/hide]

Edited by RAZD, : granny - thanks

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : fixed a glitch

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


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 289 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 7:34 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13099
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 295 of 323 (526381)
09-27-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Archangel
09-26-2009 8:54 AM


Re: Creationist wrong again
I mean, when I argue that these early hominids have no similarities to modern humans in any real way, you all come back with, well, of course not ...

You are making false statements to us about what we say.

Whom do you hope to deceive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 8:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 126
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 296 of 323 (526424)
09-27-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by RAZD
09-26-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD to substantiate his claim
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

Here we go again. I point out general examples of widely dispersed inaccurate info which millions of uninformed layman see and just accept as accurate since they assume it is published because it's true, and you respond with excuses, justifications and examples of why your side is innocent of deceit or fraud of any kind.

Well I'm going to show that your own posted evidence is proof of universal fraud which is so matter of factly offered that you don't even see it anymore since you have drank all of the kool-aid and believe this stuff as just a matter of fact anyway. So let's get started, and i'm going to make this as much a pictorial process as possible in order to keep it visual and simple.

We will start with your model of Neanderthal child by your swedish artist:

and the comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing:

Before going further, I must comment on the empty space in the neanderthal childs skull as they imply that his brain doesn't utilize all of the available space in his brain pan. Can any of you so called scientists produce even one example of any type of animal in reality who's brain doesn't fill its skull? And doesn't such a rendition cause your common sense bells to go off to the tune of cookoo clock? The fact that it doesn't is what concernes me the most about evolutionists. With that said, let's move on.

Let's now look at a couple of neanderthal skulls for raw comparisons to just imagine the level of accuracy in the artists renditions of these APES, in my opinion.

and here's another one:

May I ask how your swedish model maker or the artists rendition which you posted as evidence reflect the massive brow ridge which defined the strong features of the actual Neanderthal skulls, as compared to the softer more human impressions which your artist renditions portray. I realize your renditions are children and will allow for that. But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense. The point I am making here is that much of this info you posted is created for public consumption by common uninformed layman which never think any deeper than accepting this stuff as evidence which is founded in truth and fact when it is nothing of the sort. They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.

I mean, it not only misrepresent the origins of human beings, it misrepresents the history of the Apes these fossils actually represent in reality since they have no true relationship to human beings at all according to my interpretation of the evidence.

For an additional example, here's a link to an article with an artists rendition of neanderthal man next to the partial skull remains from a bashed in find, evidently. I post it for the creative license it takes and for the massive assumptions it presumes based on the very limited actual evidence it started out with. Here's the image first:

And here's the article from the Japanese Times which I don't post for its scientific value, but for its exposure to the general uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news288.htm I realize that you will come back to me and ask how the evolution community is guilty of fraud when it is an independent magazine which prints the story by itself. But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested" It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull. Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."

The relevant point once again is that you can't have it both ways. You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false and unproven info to the general public as they release this drivel to non scientific magazines while simultaneously claiming that they can't be held responsible for what these magazines print. It isn't as though every one of these articles end with a disclaimer by the scientific community denying any and all responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the information being published.

NOW, here's another example of fraud which occurs with the approval of this so called scientific community. Here is the complete fossil record for Lucy, the once famous so called missing link.

And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.
My only question is, are you kidding me??? What is so incredible is that your community is serious about this rendition and in your collective mind, you aren't trying to kid me since you accept this as an accurate rendering of this fossil record. But the back story which goes along with it is where the fraud comes into play as you actually affiliate this fossil as a human ancestor at all. The fact is that all that is required to determine that any primate bones found anywhere belong to the human family is their discovery, PERIOD. No real or true evidence is required at all because what happens is that evolutionists first determine from appearance where in the fictional line of evolution that specific ape or gorilla will best fit and then they date it accordingly and place it there in their timeline of human evolution. And then they declare that one more link in the puzzle of human evolution has been filled in.[/hide]

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 3:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 298 by mark24, posted 09-27-2009 12:08 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 300 by greyseal, posted 09-27-2009 12:34 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 302 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 8:31 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 297 of 323 (526430)
09-27-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM


One Issue at a time
Archangel, you have failed to finish commenting on Orce man as requested. Before you gallop off to the next issue please finish with a previous one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 298 of 323 (526435)
09-27-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
Archangel,

But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense.

What, like apes, & even some people you mean?

But the back story which goes along with it is where the fraud comes into play as you actually affiliate this fossil as a human ancestor at all.

But it's not deliberate misinformation, ergo it's not fraud.

They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.

It's not fraud because there is no deliberate falsehood being perpetrated. It's undespicably not fraudulent.

I mean, it not only misrepresent the origins of human beings, it misrepresents the history of the Apes these fossils actually represent in reality since they have no true relationship to human beings at all according to my interpretation of the evidence.

What you said was no more fraudulent than the people you asert are frudulent. But judging your above comment by your own standards makes you "despicably fraudulent"!

Annoying isn't it?

uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, no fraud is evident.

But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested"

This is 100% accurate, so no fraud was perpetrated. Anthropologists did suggest...

It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull.

Again, 100% accurate, no fraud here!

Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."

Ooh, what a liar! No fraud here, this is broadly true.

You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false

Yes, I can deny it. You have provided no evidence that falsehoods have deliberately been perpetrated.

And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.

An artists impression based on fossil evidence is fraudulent? I think not. No-one has deliberately perpetrated a falsehood here, either. No fraud once again.

The problem, Archangel, is that you don't have the slightest clue as to what "fraud" means, do you? Somebody "getting it wrong" in your opinion does not constitute fraud.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4851
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 299 of 323 (526436)
09-27-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Archangel
09-26-2009 8:54 AM


Re: Creationist wrong again
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 8:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 300 of 323 (526437)
09-27-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM


Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
Archy, may I take it you have admitted defeat in the case of Orce man? And that your attempts to say it is "a fraud" (when it is not) who's "wide acceptance" (although you say information on it is so impossible to find because of the evilotionist cabal who control teh internets have deleted it all, despite the fact you've been shown pertinent, correct, supportive evidence against this wild claim of yours) has furthered the cause of evilution, have totally failed?

And so you don't run and hide, what you do is bluster and crow about another non-fraud. How sad. (Archy, please, you've also been told how to resize pictures. Take the ruddy advice).

"artists rendition of a neanderthal child" - er...yes? You just thought you'd ejaculate that one up there, eh? Ok, fine, but...not a fraud. WHY is it a fraud? You were shown, patiently and slowly, what "fraud" meant. Why you bothered putting the picture there is beyond me - RAZD already put it so much neater.

"comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing" - er, yes? It's a comparitive drawing - do you even know what that means? Did you even bother checking what the drawing was about? do you have any shred of reason WHY you think it's a fraud? Are you, perhaps, a master of comparitive anatomy?

No, I didn't think so.

Stop parroting stuff back that you clearly do not understand, saying it says something that it clearly does not.

Oh, wait, I see - finally - you think that the adults had a big monkey mono-brow and the children did not...and that makes the ARTISTS RENDITION OF A CHILD a fraud?

oh noes, you has founds us outs! quick! alert the black helicopters, we'll have to erase THAT from teh intarwebs too.

Didn't you notice, dear sir, the skull picture RAZD linked of a child? the URL is http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/i.../neander3-1.jpg and it quite clearly has no monobrow.

Of course, you'll bluster and shout and send more piss and wind our way, but it won't change the fact you're dead wrong. again.

Now, the japanese times article I'm going to say, again, doesn't appear to be a FRAUD. It's an artists' rendition of a real skull - the missing parts have been filled in using basic anatomy, symmetry and software. It's an artists rendition. You can call it innacurate if you want, it's not meant to prove anything - the fact the skull is in pieces tells us that neanderthal man was pretty violent...or do you have a good reason to doubt that?

The article says that they've got good reason to believe that humans (and neanderthals) were similar enough that they were pretty violent as well as pretty warm and loving.

Or...do you doubt that?

I mean, I've got a couple of world wars I could point to, and of course your favourite book the bible wherein it describes murder, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sacrifice, incest and more...and unless you've never said to your parents "I love you" or had them say it to you, I'm pretty sure you've also seen the warmer, loving side of human life.

so, again, WHY is it a fraud?

Now your lucy spat is pathetic. Shameful even. Didn't you know that there are far more than just one example of "Lucy", otherwise known as Australopithecus Afarensis?

Oh, say what? You didn't?

Well now you do.

Whoops, I guess that's not a fraud either.

Perhaps you don't like the artists' reconstructions?

Well tough nuts, bub, that's not a fraud. "artistic license" perhaps, but...it's not meant to be definite, just what we currently think based on the best information we have. That's not a crime, and it's not deceit, and it's not fraud.

You lose again.

So, ready to accept defeat a second time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2009 12:45 PM greyseal has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014