|
Author
|
Topic: Lucy and Secular Humanism
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 4 of 64 (178755)
01-19-2005 9:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by berberry
01-19-2005 2:30 AM
|
|
Bump for Tom
When you make assertions you are expected to back them up, Tom.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by berberry, posted 01-19-2005 2:30 AM | | berberry has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Bump for Tom
You have made assertions Tom. You have yet to support them. Are we to take it that you, in fact, can not support them? That you actually know nothing about the subject?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 01-19-2005 9:27 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 8 of 64 (179090)
01-20-2005 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by berberry
01-20-2005 7:34 PM
|
|
Making it easy for Tom
Perhaps rather than actually expecting Tom to support what he says (it is clear he hasn't a hope), we could just ask him to give the source that he got those ideas from? Let's make it as easy as we can eh?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by berberry, posted 01-20-2005 7:34 PM | | berberry has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Thanks for the response.
You have referenced a site talking about the nature of Lucy's ability to walk upright. However, you said:
berberry, How is putting human hand of a chimp, educating children. If you want to educate the children put chimp hands on chimps. They are lying to the children. kjv Genesis 1:27 says were created in the image of God. When you put human hands on a chimp fossil, your lying to the children, its not sober science. Its an outright lie! P.S. These museum curators should be promoting accurate representations of these chimps. If they refuse to, federal funding should be cut. How does the site that you referenced support your accusation of apparent fraud? Let's get that out of the way first shall we? Perhaps you just misread the reference you gave. ABE I've looked into the reference you gave and the sources they reference. When you have finished with the discussion of the above then we will discuss your reference in detail. It seems there is something being done that is rather misleading there. You may with to research it further before others jump on it. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 23:35 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2005 11:25 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 35 of 64 (218089)
06-19-2005 4:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
06-19-2005 4:49 PM
|
|
Heackel's Drawings
There are a lot of items in your post. I don't have time for all now and will leave some for others. The web site did NOT have Heackel's drawings as far as I can tell from the drawing and the captioning. The site also specifically noted that Heackel fudged his. How is that evidence of lies? Exactly what is wrong with what that site posted. That site, not Heackel's drawings which were discredited a long time ago.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 4:49 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 5:11 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 45 of 64 (218115)
06-19-2005 7:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by randman
06-19-2005 5:11 PM
|
|
Fudged Drawings?
Instead, they present new, fudged drawings, but try to get away with that by claiming they were based on Haeckel's fudged drawings. In exactly what way are these drawings "fudged"? What would you change to make them "correct"? What principle are they portraying that is incorrect?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 5:11 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 1:54 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 48 of 64 (218134)
06-19-2005 9:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
06-19-2005 5:32 PM
|
|
Re: Heackel's Drawings
The evidence is faked. You cannot get around it. There were actual photos posted on the same thread which clearly show the drawings used were inaccurate. Please refer to those photos. I seem to have lost track. Could you describe the inaccuracy please? What exactly is being lied about? That is, what is the claim that is being made that is inaccurate? The old idea of Heackel's has been discarded for a long time. What is it that is being put forward as your "lie" now?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by randman, posted 06-19-2005 5:32 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 49 of 64 (218135)
06-19-2005 9:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by randman
06-15-2005 1:42 AM
|
|
Neanderthal
Precisely how is this image of neanderthal flawed? The nose is broad, there are brow ridges the forhead is not tall. Is there something wrong with any of that? What is the source of this image? Who is responsible for it? What information is it based on? In what way does it deviate from the input information?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by randman, posted 06-15-2005 1:42 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 53 of 64 (218293)
06-21-2005 2:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
06-21-2005 1:54 AM
|
|
Re: Fudged Drawings?
Compare the following to the faked depictions on the following link. The chick (and pig) for instance are totally different than the faked drawings "based on Haeckel's drawings" of the web-site you used in an argument. Just look at the different images. The chick and all of the embryos are articifially made to look similar, put into a shape that is not at all reflective of the shape they actually are during that stage. There is no pig on the pictures you post??? You should also supply your source. What stages of development are the drawings and what stages are the pictures at? What are the changes that have been made to (for example) the chick and the human that are a problem to you. You'll have to point them out since I don't see them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 1:54 AM | | randman has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 56 of 64 (218300)
06-21-2005 2:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
06-21-2005 2:17 AM
|
|
Re: Fudged Drawings?
As far as to the changes, I suggest you read the links I supplied. There is no need for an amateur analysis. The fact Haeckel distorted embryos in his drawings is well-established. I suspect you are fairly well aware of that, but choose to be unreasonable here, but maybe you really are unaware that Haeckel faked his drawings? I am aware of that. That is not what is being discussed here.
Funny though that you did not demand he post his source. Could that be because he was defending your claims on that thread? I have no idea where they came from so how could I ask previously. Part of assessing the drawings accuracy would require a comparison of ages of each. That will require the source. Since you don't know the stages nor are prepared with an analysis you have yet to back up this particular one of your accusations. You were also asked about the details of the neanderthal reconstructions. You have yet to answer.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:17 AM | | randman has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 60 of 64 (218344)
06-21-2005 8:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
06-21-2005 2:29 AM
|
|
Re: Fudged Drawings?
Yes, I have to agree. The drawings are false, using them is deceptive. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2005 08:24 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:29 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 61 of 64 (218345)
06-21-2005 8:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
06-21-2005 2:56 AM
|
|
Fuged skulls
The only source here is answersingenesis. With this degree is difference I would expect there to be some mainstream publications on it. Do you have another source? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2005 08:31 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:56 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2