I hate to have to tell you this, but you would make a fine case study in abnormal psychology.
Your elaborate belief system is impervious to logic, reason, and massive amounts of evidence that shows you are wrong.
That may seem fine to you, but that puts you so far out on the fringe that you couldn't see your way back to the mainstream with the Hubble.
I'm not going to engage you any longer on this thread. You have shown that you're not listening to anything we are saying, you're just repeating the details of your anti-science and anti-realism--and totally mythical--belief system. That those details have been explained to you as false has made no impact on you.
Your mind is truly closed, and I won't waste your time or mine with further evidence.
But you do have my pity.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Archangel, that is an eloquent sermon, and I am afraid that it will fall on deaf ears, in part because you introduced the sermon with a few seeming errors. Firstly, about the Neanderthals. It really should not be difficult to believe that there are signs that Neanderthals shared many qualities with humans, especially from your perspective. That is because the leading creationists say that the "Neanderthal" fossils are of humans. If you don't believe me, look at your own original post, your quote from NWcreation.net. Just as human as us! Secondly, we generally cannot name the scientists who discovered the Neanderthal fossils. At least I can't. I would have to look it up. Quiz an evolutionary biologist (who doesn't specialize in paleoanthropology) about the names of people who discovered of Neanderthal fossils, and he is likely to be slightly embarrassed that he cannot remember any names at all.
Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.
(emphasis mine)
What is it Archy? Just as human as us, or lower animals? Pick something and admit that you were wrong on one account. I think the fact that you're not answering these questions says enough.
THAT Archangel writes: No one has any actual or absolute evidence at all that neanderthal's are anything more than lower animals which is precisely what they were.
Archangel in message 1 writes: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.
Huntard writes:
What is it Archy? Just as human as us, or lower animals? Pick something and admit that you were wrong on one account. I think the fact that you're not answering these questions says enough.
Now that I have copy and pasted your precise accusation which attempts to assert that I said something in message 1 which I am now contradicting regarding my personal perspective, let me expose that it is you who is being duplicitous in your accusations against me. All I need do is quote message 1 for all to see that it wasn't me stating any facts I accepted as true in reality, but I posted the statement in question as evidence of evolutionist FRAUDS which have taken place. Yet, you attempt to attribute those frauds to me as statements of fact which they never were in any way. NOTE THE BOLDED IN THE QUOTED POST BELOW:
Message 1 of 80 writes:
What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved is exposed in this link which outlines many of them. But here's where the true damage has been accomplished, and that is that by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages of scientific journals, compared to the fraudulent discoveries press releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people saw and heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as around 12 layman saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that common layman never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like of one "fraud" which established evolution as a valid science in the national psyche.
Here's an initial excerpt of the human ancestral frauds as just an example of what this link documents.
Human Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manuntil it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
As is quite obvious to any reasonable observer, I wasn't posting that info for the truth of it in any way, but was posting it as evidence of the ludicrous claims this fraudulent science continues to make regarding the status of these bones of extinct primates which this pseudo science wants to now define as being relatives/close relatives of ours.
As is quite obvious to any reasonable observer, I wasn't posting that info for the truth of it in any way, but was posting it as evidence of the ludicrous claims this fraudulent science continues to make regarding the status of these bones of extinct primates which this pseudo science wants to now define as being relatives/close relatives of ours.
So, you were posting something you know wasn't true. That's called lying. Also, you were lying to further your cause, that's very disingenuous of you. But thanks for letting everybody know you are willing to lie to further your cause.
Archangel, I know you are trying to do the right thing, and I think to that end that you need to understand us. We take reason and the truth very seriously. To us, quoting a falsehood as if it is correct is no different (or hardly different) from the falsehood emerging from your own mind. Maybe you don't adhere to it, but that is the convention among us. When you quote the arguments used to support your position, then they become your own arguments. I happen to think that NWcreation.net has a better position than you seem to have--if given a choice between human and ape, it is much more likely that "Neanderthal" remains are humans, not apes. So, if we put all that petty nonsense aside, and you start to look at the transitional features of those skulls, then you may understand why we have the position that we do. If you have an objection, then I would be glad to hear it.
So, you were posting something you know wasn't true. That's called lying. Also, you were lying to further your cause, that's very disingenuous of you. But thanks for letting everybody know you are willing to lie to further your cause.
ApostateAbe writes:
Archangel, I know you are trying to do the right thing, and I think to that end that you need to understand us. We take reason and the truth very seriously. To us, quoting a falsehood as if it is correct is no different (or hardly different) from the falsehood emerging from your own mind.
Really AA? You can read my opening post HERE: EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: - which was quoted as evidence of evolutions frauds, not in agreement with evolution as my argument in that post makes painfully clear. Then you can accept Huntards accusation of my alleged lying, and your own observation that I am promoting falsehoods, then write your post as evidence that you take the truth very seriously? If you are so unable to recognize that I posted that link as evidence against evolutions validity, and the link itself is written to oppose evolutions veracity, then we are from completely different levels of rationale if you will condemn me as dishonest for posting links which defend my position that evolution falsely characterizes Neanderthal as having modern human traits.
Especially since nothing I wrote defended the position that I believed that neanderthals possessed human traits. I obviously posted that link as evidence of evolutions fraud, so how can you now argue that I was posting it in defense of neanderthals human traits? It just boggles the mind and destroys your credibility as an objective and reasonable person in my humble opinion. But this is the quality of reason I get from your side on a regular basis. The debate inevitably becomes about me and must deceptively attack my honesty since you can't convince me to accept the lies which your worldview represents.
Archangel, the reason people say you are lying is because the site you linked to support that neanderthal is "just human". Notice that their format is like that: first they tell what the fossil were supposed to be, then they tell what they REALLY were. In the case of the neanderthal, they first say that neanderthal was supposed to be an apelike being and then "RECOGNISED" to be just human remains (it's the "just a human/ape" argument that you use yourself). I think though that those arguments are secondary to the topic.
Just a remainder: you are supposed to FIRST FIND a fraud that is used or has been used to further public's acceptance of evolution. ONLY AFTER THAT, we can discuss whether those were really frauds. If you only find frauds, it is useless if they were not used to convince the public's acceptance. For example, I (and many others) have only ever heard of Piltdown man in this particuliar debate, which means that it couldn't have been used to convince the public SINCE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
I don't think anyone could argue with the position that the Biblical accounts are true as an article of faith, or that evolution is false as an article of faith, but that's not all you're saying. You're also claiming that the evidence for evolution is fraudulent or purposefully misinterpreted.
One of the things you keep saying about evolution is true, and that is about our degree of confidence in what we know. You say there are some things we cannot know with "absolute assurance," or that there is no "absolute evidence" for evolution. About this we can all agree - nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. All theories, indeed even all hypotheses, interpretations and facts, are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight. If you're seeking absolute certainty you must look elsewhere than science.
The degree of confidence we have in any scientific finding varies according to how compelling the evidence is. If it is very compelling, like that the Earth orbits the sun, then our confidence is high. If it is not particularly compelling, like that extreme dilutions of poisons are cures (homeopathy), then our confidence is low, and in fact we would in this case instead say that homeopathy has been falsified. Note that it hasn't been disproven, only falsified, and that the falsification can itself be falsified. Tentativity is rampant within science.
So when you ask for absolute assurances you're asking for something that science cannot provide. All science can do is build as compelling a case as possible upon the available evidence, and in the case of evolution that is what has been done. So if you believe the evidence is actually "indecipherable gibberish" then we'd like to understand what it is about the evidence that leads you to believe this. After all, if we don't understand how you're making your interpretation, how are we to be convinced? You have to give us your rationale so that we can incorporate it into our own thinking.
Look at it this way. Let's say I became convinced you were right and began trying to convince others. How many people do you think I'm going to convince if all I can say is, "There's this guy Archangel on the web who says because of what he witnesses in his daily life he knows that the Bible is true and evolution is false and fraudulent." That's not only not going to convince anybody, it isn't even science.
Which brings me to my last point, one that I think has been made a couple times already. This *is* a science thread, so we're supposed to be exploring and discussing the topic using a scientific approach, which means introducing, examining, dissecting and discussing the evidence.
It is perfectly clear that you regard one of the items of "evidence" you posted as a complete falsehood. You could have omitted it (you probably should not have used so long a quote anyway). You could have admitted that you did not consider it valid. You did neither.
Clearly you do not care if your "evidence" is true or false - in fact from other posts it seems clear that you do not care if you have evidence at all.
HI Archangel, still having trouble with common sense, rationality and logic I see.
Really AA? You can read my opening post HERE: EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: - which was quoted as evidence of evolutions frauds, not in agreement with evolution as my argument in that post makes painfully clear. Then you can accept Huntards accusation of my alleged lying, and your own observation that I am promoting falsehoods, then write your post as evidence that you take the truth very seriously? If you are so unable to recognize that I posted that link as evidence against evolutions validity, and the link itself is written to oppose evolutions veracity, then we are from completely different levels of rationale if you will condemn me as dishonest for posting links which defend my position that evolution falsely characterizes Neanderthal as having modern human traits.
The question is why you posted something - copied and pasted not just a link - that you think is false? If it is false, then it is not evidence of truth, no matter what it says, and presenting it as a true argument is false.
What is painfully clear is that you cannot honestly debate your own position, because you intentionally used information you yourself thought was false.
What is painfully clear is that you have dismissed, waved away and denied, mountains of evidence for evolution, made weak claims that creationist have different interpretations, and then failed to show how those different interpretations explain all the actual evidence.
What is painfully clear is that you are now denying the different interpretations from creationists as being valid. Now we can go to all the main creationist sites and document where they talk about neanderthals being human, and compile a list of creationist sites that you are also in denial of.
Curiously that leaves you with no argument other that your personal belief/s.
Hi Archangel, I don't think anyone could argue with the position that the Biblical accounts are true as an article of faith, or that evolution is false as an article of faith, but that's not all you're saying. You're also claiming that the evidence for evolution is fraudulent or purposefully misinterpreted.
Very TRUE. One aspect of evolution fraud is a preconceived agenda which will accept evidence which agrees with it without serious scrutiny as long as that evidence doesn't conflict with previously accepted dogma. They attempt to give an appearance of consistency at least, but often fail since new evidence causes them to revamp previously held beliefs. One example is that since the back story regarding Neanderthals allegedly human lifestyle of burying their dead with flowers, tending to cripples and even having rudimentary medical care perfectly compliments the proposition which evolution is building, so they have no motivation to scrutinize the veracity of this pretty story which is about as substantial as life existing on the SUN.
One of the things you keep saying about evolution is true, and that is about our degree of confidence in what we know.
Just to be clear, I have insisted how misplaced your confidence in evolution is. It was never stated as position I respect or endorse at all.
You say there are some things we cannot know with "absolute assurance," or that there is no "absolute evidence" for evolution. About this we can all agree - nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. All theories, indeed even all hypotheses, interpretations and facts, are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight. If you're seeking absolute certainty you must look elsewhere than science.
I keep hearing this excuse and justification for why evo cannot be absolutely proven or supported with facts, but I completely disagree with you as you say: nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. This statement is absolutely false as it applies to real science. Apple didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars in initial production costs without knowing that the science which went into the design of my Macbook is tested, proven science and reliable technology. The same can be said about the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the V type Harley engine and even the science which goes into making a flu vaccination. Manufacturing doesn't even begin until the veracity and reliability of the final product is confirmed through real time tests and retests.
Not so with evolution which makes outrageous claims which are then eventually shown to be false or blatantly fraudulent as they again push back the definition and re categorize major aspects of the theory. You have short memories where these realities are concerned. But it is undeniable that the evolution of 50 years ago is nothing like how evolution describes itself today. Real science isn't like that in the real world. Only evo demands such unscientific methodology. And I reject it in equally absolute terms.
The degree of confidence we have in any scientific finding varies according to how compelling the evidence is. If it is very compelling, like that the Earth orbits the sun, then our confidence is high. If it is not particularly compelling, like that extreme dilutions of poisons are cures (homeopathy), then our confidence is low, and in fact we would in this case instead say that homeopathy has been falsified. Note that it hasn't been disproven, only falsified, and that the falsification can itself be falsified. Tentativity is rampant within science.
Once again you are fallaciously comparing testable science with evolution as if they are at all comparable. Many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers. None of these results are based on guess work or hoping they are right before manufacturing begins on a final drug. They know through solid science and testing what to expect before patenting, copyrighting and trademarking these drugs for public consumption. Why do you think the list of warnings on the labels are longer than the description of what the drug does for its user?
So when you ask for absolute assurances you're asking for something that science cannot provide. All science can do is build as compelling a case as possible upon the available evidence, and in the case of evolution that is what has been done. So if you believe the evidence is actually "indecipherable gibberish" then we'd like to understand what it is about the evidence that leads you to believe this. After all, if we don't understand how you're making your interpretation, how are we to be convinced? You have to give us your rationale so that we can incorporate it into our own thinking.
Again, not true at all. Not with real science anyway. Real science is absolute and comes to absolute conclusions based on what we know at the time. This doesn't mean that what we learn in the future wont add to that knowledge, but what we learn in the future shouldn't nullify the science of the past. For example, just because 2 years from now scientists will discover a new medical application for a refined process of a new property in the Blow Fish Toxin, that in no way nullifies the current drug or drugs which have been refined from that deadly poison in its natural form and is currently helping people.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.
In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth.
Look at it this way. Let's say I became convinced you were right and began trying to convince others. How many people do you think I'm going to convince if all I can say is, "There's this guy Archangel on the web who says because of what he witnesses in his daily life he knows that the Bible is true and evolution is false and fraudulent." That's not only not going to convince anybody, it isn't even science.
Which brings me to my last point, one that I think has been made a couple times already. This *is* a science thread, so we're supposed to be exploring and discussing the topic using a scientific approach, which means introducing, examining, dissecting and discussing the evidence.
The problem with your premise here in claiming that you are attempting to discuss science when I am not is that I have shown right here in this post what true science does everyday in our world of workable technology as compared to what you take by faith as true in evolution since you all admit that the only absolute in evolution is that you must maintain an open mind in anticipation of the new facts which will completely negate, contradict and nullify the previous so called theoretical facts which will once again become passe in the future.
So it must be stated that I have no respect for the evolutionists definition of what true science is. Evo is a bogus and unprovable conglomeration of myths and fairy tales which have absolutely no basis in fact at all as far as real science is concerned. So since this is a thread where science is supposed to be debated, how about you share some which has actually gone through the true scientific process of testable and repeatable experiments with controls resulting in repeatedly consistent results, then please post them for discussion.
But don't criticize me for asking questions and for making demands of evolution which it can't satisfy. You people must learn that just posting verbiage and making unsubstantiated cut and paste claims without real and tested supporting evidence which will survive the test of time is NOT scientific evidence at all. It is just more unsubstantiated lip service which I feel no obligation at all to accept as anything more than that.
The question is why you posted something - copied and pasted not just a link - that you think is false? If it is false, then it is not evidence of truth, no matter what it says, and presenting it as a true argument is false.
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that? It is the only way to debate false outcomes. First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you.
™ Version 4.2