The Ape Man: Truth or Fiction?

You have made a number of assumptions and have yet to provide us with a single reference or textbook to support your claim.Do you have anything at all or is it just feeble-minded drivel?

Before we go down that side-street can you provide the name of any textbooks that support your tale that N-man is or was being told as truth?I mean, you are not talking out of your hat based on some creationist website are you?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 12:34 PM

you are still dodging the question and not debating in good faith.Look at the title of your thread - please provide evidence of your assumption?Can you name one book?

em.. that's not what you said at all - you said that science at one time taught it as the real thing - you have failed to produce any evidence to back this claim. Well because that's true - you can prove that is not the case by producing the name of a science text book or research paper that said it was. Entirely faulty, science was never caught with it's hand in the cookie jar - it never believed in Nman to start with, popular magazines did - do you understand the difference. How many more times do you have to be told this?I ask again - produce a science textbook that claimed this fraud was real. Total strawman as this myth was shot down by the scientific community at the first post.PRODUCE A TEXTBOOK THAT SAYS THIS WAS REAL.

with relevent citations to say where the material has gone from? or just straight cut'n'paste or copy out like a robot? em.. yes but when we just copy something word for work and don't acknowledge the source it is called plagiarism - it is considered a dishonest practice.I take it you never went to university?Take this test - might help you understand what we are talking about -http://www.essex.ac.uk/plagiarism/Test.htm Can I ask you a question - are you presenting any material of your own or are most of your posts in this "format"?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 03:54 PM

no no no.Come on Nothing, you started the thread - you still have failed to back your assumption that a) N-man was taught in schools as fact as evidenced by b) a source such as a textbook.You need to answer those claims first before you go off and try to discuss something else.Do you think that we are going to allow you to do that?remember your own words: If you can't support this claim you just need to say "I can provide no evidence to support this claim".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:20 PM

I have done it myself lots of times!So well make the question nice and simple: Do you have any sources at all to back up your claim or do you withdrawn it? Actually how far are we going with this? The author of the thread has failed to provide any evidence to support his premise, how about he had another ten posts to at least present some evidence or the plug is pulled?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-11-2004 08:30 PM

this is all smoke and nothing to do with the question that you posed.you said: I would ask AGAIN - do you have any evidence to back this, anything at all that you can present to us?

thanks for that - so we are still left with our central question:Nothing - can you provide ONE source to back your claim? if not I reckon this thread is a busted flush and is done.

Ned - but it would nice for him to acknowledge that rather than dodge the question!

just a few pointers for you -Some of the threads on here get quite technical, that's true - however quite a few are more general debates about viewpoints and outlooks.If you want to get involved in technical discussion, you really need to make sure you know what you are talking about (and I don't so I don't!).It's really tempting just to cut and paste from a creationist or science site but generally you will be exposed with-in a few posts. Even worse because many of the creationist sites are dishonest to start with, it's quite easy to spot (and frankly like old jokes - we've heard them all before!).Charles

Ok - just as a general point - we don't tend to take too much notice of what people say on videos and the like. Those can be off the cuff remarks or editted to be taken out of context.The best source for information is generally peer-reviewed journals. Producing a decent paper is a difficult process and the author will try as best as possible to make a very strong case for their claims or viewpoints. For an article to get into a peer-reviewed journal, an article will have been checked and critiqued by a number of experts in that field before it is printed. If it's not upto scratch, then it will be send back for corrections/alterations or out and out rejected.It is one of the reasons that creationists are not taken seriously, most don't even attempt to get their material printed in peer-reviewed journals. Ask yourself why.

could you just outline for me - what actually evidence is contained in a couple of popular science magazines?

Nothingness - you are not still cutting and pasting from creationist sites are you? Have you not learnt yet that they are full of crap - all the goodness removed. Don't you realise that we have seen most of this stuff before? however in the words of the song... let's go around again!The debating rules of this site say that if someone make a challenge you need to back your claim up-My challenge is this:Please provide a quote from Dr.Spoor where he uses the term CONCLUSIVE. little clue - you may struggle to back back that claim..... Oh and I suspect the paper you want is Spoor F., Wood B.A., and Zonneveld F. (1994): Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion. Nature, 369:645-8.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-18-2004 12:55 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-18-2004 12:56 PM