Undermining long-held paradigms

Someone has been lying to you. The Heidelberg jaw has not been demonstrated to be a fraud.Here's a piccie, by the way. Heidelberg on the left, modern H. sap. on the right. Nor, by the way, is it particularly cited as proof of anything except that there were once people with really big jaws. Someone has, at least, been misleading you. Haekel's drawings were faked to support a theory which was non-Darwinian and therefore false. The creationist claim that there was fraud in any, let alone all, the experiments done on the peppered moth is vicious and malevolent lie against persons in many cases still living, and you should be ashamed of yourself for reciting this slander without taking the trouble to find out if it's true. Someone has been lying to you. Ramapithecus has not been demonstrated to be a fake.I think what has confused creationists on the subject is that Ramapithecus (note spelkling, it'll help you look it up) was once thought to have been an ancestor of modern humans; in the light of futher evidence from the fossil record, however, is seems that it wasn't. This is of course a far cry from demonstrating it to be a fraud. Piltdown Man was indeed proved to be a fraud - by real scientists, please note - which is a good thing too, 'cos it would have been a massive inexplicable anomaly in the history of human origins.You guys ought really to argue that it's genuine, but that Evil-utionists are hushing it up 'cos it doesn't fit their theories. Someone has been lying to you. Java Man has not been demonstrated to be a fraud. On the contrary, subsequent, more complete fossil finds have shown that the bones found are an example of Homo erectus. Yes, I'm sure that you could keep this barrage of vicious, baseless slander up all night.What do you suppose it says to an onlooker to discover that so many of your allegations of fraud are themselves fraudulent, and that the only two actual frauds you've mentioned contradict conventional scientific wisdom?

No. I guess the chief difference is that evolution actually happened, hence all the evidence for it. This is why it is supported by scientists of all religious views and none. Then scientists would cease to support it. This has not, however, happened. You don't say what you're talking about. Can you be specific?---Could you also learn the difference between the theory of evolution and the history of evolution? This is downright painful to me, like hearing someone sing out of tune. You might at least make an effort to know what you're talking about. So might the idiot journalist who wrote the story in the OP, if it comes to that.---I notice that you have not retracted your libelous statements. C'mon, surely a creationist can display integrity once without having an apoplectic seizure?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Should", according to what? Not the theory of evolution, which makes no such prediction.Not according to the history of evolution: as has been pointed out to you, science has long known of mammals of this size from this period."Dog-sized"? The article says the size of a cat, which is much more precise. Dogs come in all sorts of sizes. I begin to see how creationist nonsense is born.And ... herbivores? Herbivores? Are you under some sort of religious vow to be wrong about everything? The small early mammals were mainly insectivores. I'm not sure that any early mammal herbivores are known (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).It is interesting in this connection to note that modern mammals classed as insectivores, such as shrews, will in fact kill and eat small reptiles.---Still no word about your slanders over the peppered moth, et cetera, I see. You'll find the word "integrity" in any good dictionary, and the words THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS in any Bible.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Personally, I have no idea. But perhaps you could enlighten me. What is the Creation Science explanation of why (non-avian) dinosaurs are extinct and crocodiles are not?Cheers.

No. Because this is a stupid lie and has nothing to do with real paleontology.You have been informed on this thread, again and again, that early mammals were more than "five inches long". This is well known to real scientists. When you recite bizarre lies about this fact, everyone reading this thread knows that you are not telling the truth.As for your drivel about "herbivores", you are sitting right there at a computer connected to the internet. It would have taken you five seconds to learn that the early mammals were insectivores. But you couldn't be bothered. OK, you're incredibly lazy. You couldn't be bothered.So someone who could be bothered (me) informed you that the early mammals were insectivores.And you continue to pretend that they were herbivores.You are now deliberately lying to someone who knows this to be the case.If the ninth commandment means nothing to you, it may have some significance to the other readers of this thread. When you lie and lie and lie and know that you are lying, don't you realize how this discredits creationism? Couldn't you build your case on something --- anything --- which is not known to be a halfwitted lie?No, you can't. Because creationism itself is a halfwitted lie.Don't you people have a shred of a conscience?---I note that you have still not apologized for spreading your foul lies with respect to the peppered moth, et cetera.Do you have no decency?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, I hope I pass.NJ has been informed that science says that early small mammals were insectivores. When he pretends that conventional wisdom is that they were herbivores, when he knows this to be false, he is lying.It may be insulting to point this out, but it is also a fact.

I have no complaints. If NJ is allowed to expose himself again and again as a halfwitted filthy disgusting liar who drivels out his pathetic filthy lying trash as a substitute for argument, and I am allowed to say so, that's fine by me.My worry was that the moderators might object to my pointing out that NJ is a stupid disgusting halfwit liar. If I am allowed to say so ... again, that's fine by me.

This is again a very obvious lie. Could you not argue for your point of view by telling the truth?Oh, yeah, you can't, can you?

"Name me a cheesecake that links birds to both wheelbarrows and the number 9."An avian dinosaur (or "bird") is not a link between amphibians and birds, nor between reptiles and birds. There are, however, many fossils forms linking non-avian dinosaurs to mnodern birds, which is the line of descent which is actually claimed.This is the apparent paradox of creationism --- that you guys manage to be obsessed with scientific subjects which you are also not interested in, and fixated on aspects of biology which you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about.