|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,426 Year: 3,683/9,624 Month: 554/974 Week: 167/276 Day: 7/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1379 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
dokukaeru writes: Again THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF FRAUD ON THE PART OF Scientist This was caught by the peer review process National geographic and many scientist were duped themselves. They corrected their mistakes after Xu Xing pointed out by sheer coincidence that it was a composite fossil: Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact. Didn't they say Coelacanth was a true intermediary animal and even described a partially developed lung with drawings of it crawling out of the Sea on partially developed legs/fins which were evolving from life at sea to life on land? On what facts were these claims based? Had not a living animal been discovered to still exist in its unchanged form, this fraud would still stand today as hard core evidence of this alleged intermediary animal which is in fact nothing of the sort. Evolutionists are good at one thing only, and that is at justifying false assumptions once discovered, making excuses in order to avoid taking responsibility for their frauds and refusing to take consider that it is their own so called science which is the problem here. I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
even described a partially developed lung with drawings of it crawling out of the Sea on partially developed legs/fins which were evolving from life at sea to life on land? Who did that describing? Name and citation, please. And do you deny that Pennsylvanian lungfish were shallow-water river-livers? Not sea-dwellers? Why are their fossils found in deltaic sediments, do you think? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2317 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Archangel writes:
Since this is not true, not really, no.
I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?
If you would actually post some, perhaps... I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?
Please document the presence of soft tissue. It looks more like there are the fossilized impressions of where soft tissue was some 50 million years ago. And if so, doesn't this invalidate your point here? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY. This is, of course, untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4636 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Archangel, you may want to READ THE POST ABOVE that lithodid-man eloquently wrote a half hour before you posted this nonsense
It is Message 195 to be specific. It is becoming very clear to everyone here you do not intend to have an adult discussion or to respond to the dozens of rebuttals for the meager, outdated evidence you present I beg you to be honest with yourself and everyone here.Thanks, Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact. Didn't they say Coelacanth was a true intermediary animal and even described a partially developed lung with drawings of it crawling out of the Sea on partially developed legs/fins which were evolving from life at sea to life on land? I have only your word for this, which most likely means that this claim is another creationist fraud. No-one claims that tetrapods were descended from coelancanths, but from other lobe-finned fish. Here, by the way, is a photograph of a lobe-finned fish crawling about on the land.
It's called a lungfish, can you guess why?
And here's some video. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: Where is your evidence that NG knew what they were saying was wrong yet passed it off as the truth? Publishing something you thought was true but later find to be false is not fraud.
quote: We've gone over this on 4forums. You are just repeating the same refuted argument. The Coelacanth we see today is not the Coelacanth in the fossil record. Similar, yes, but not the same species. There are anatomical differences.
quote: Once again, your argument is fraudulent. Dino Blood Redux I call it fraudulent because I personally informed you of how soft tissue was actually found. Therefore, you already know what you are trying to pass off as the truth is false. This is different from merely posting something that you thought was true which later turned out to be false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Archangel writes: ure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact. The only person here passing off fiction as fact is you. You seem to have no problem putting fingers in gear before engaging in any kind of legitimate information gathering.
Didn't they say Coelacanth was a true intermediary animal... No. The fossil Coelacanths were described then, and are described now, as lobe-finned fish that are close evolutionary relatives of lungfish, which are also lobe-finned, and it is lungfish that are thought to be the ancestors of tetrapods (land-based animals). Fish of the order Coelacanth were once numerous and a great many different species are represented in the fossil record, many of them shallow fresh water fish. Most of these species went extinct, and evidently the only remaining Coelacanth were deep-water ocean species, and deep-water geological layers are rarely available to paleontologists, which is why we don't find any in layers younger than around 70 million years. Surviving Coelacanth species are not the same species as any of the known fossil Coelacanth, nor even the same genus. Here's some information I posted about the Coelacanth back in 2002:
Archangel, there's no fraud or fictions here, and not even any mistakes, except the ones you're making up. Your pattern here is to ignore corrections of your prior erroneous statements, then make more erroneous statements, then issue a flurry of unsupported accusations directed at your opponents. It would be a really welcome change if you could begin saying things that were actually true. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add message subtitle. Edited by Percy, : Correct date of youngest coelacanth fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel, is see you are still making mistakes in sources your THINK are credible because they conform to your beliefs, with no validation to see if they conform to reality.
The truth was very different, however. Since 1938, more than 200 present-day C—lacanths 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 C—lacanth, saying, "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."20
The tail of the living C—lacanth and that of a 140-million-year-old fossil specimen are identical to one another. So, is the fossil specimen actually 140 million years old as claimed by evolutionists for so long? You still believe it is, don't you? You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods. Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it.. 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. Curiously this is exactly what evolution predicts you will find between ancestral species and modern species: homologous features that show change over time. Fascinatingly, evolutionists are not astonished to find modern species of ancient orders of animals living today. We have sharks, crocodiles and alligators that also trace ancestral lines to the times of early dinosaurs. Shark - Wikipedia
quote: Crocodile - Wikipedia (and alligators)
quote: So having living members of old lineages is absolutely no problem for evolution and science. The only thing different about Coelacanths is that they were absent from intermediate fossil deposits, and what this shows, curiously, is that the absence of fossils can occur for long periods of time but still not interfere with the process of evolution: missing links in the fossil record are of shorter duration than the absence of coelacanth evidence between the fossil record and the present. http://www.dinofish.com/
quote: Coelacanth - Wikipedia
quote: Here's a picture of a modern coelacanth from wikipedia:
And when you compare that picture of an entire fossil coelacanth to the modern coelacanth you can see that they are NOT identical.
Here's another example of a living fossil which defies logic since it allegedly survived 50 million years and still has soft tissue attached to it..
This 50-Million-Year-Old Fossil Fish, Genus Priscacara, Dating Back To The Eocene Epoch, Was Also Discovered At Green River In Wyoming, Where Some Of The World’s Best-Known Fossil Discoveries Have Been Made. As With This Fish, Other Fossils Discovered In This Region Have Preserved A Large Portion Of Their Soft Tissues. Curiously, the fact that there are soft tissues found in fossils only 50 million years old is of no big concern, all that needs to happen is burial under anaerobic conditions. We see this with many fossils, including ones that pre-date the Cambrian era. This picture is what caught my eye - because of the HY imposed on it. Do you realize that the original source for this picture is Harun Yahya, and that he is a convicted pedophile and extortionist, a muslim (which you have problems with on another post), and he has been known - documented - to post fake pictures on his website? http://www.harunyahya.com/Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia The Fishing Lures of Faith quote: This is another example of you posting information that you think (a) is valid (presents true information) and (b) strikes against evolution, and it fails on both counts. Why do creationists need to use lies and frauds to support creationism? Why aren't the lies and frauds removed from creationist sites when they are pointed out? Why don't creationists use some mechanism for determining the truth of what is on creationist sites before posting false information? Why isn't there an ongoing effort to remove false and misleading information from creationist websites? Why is it so easy for evolutionists to find and post factual evidence to support evolution if it is a false science?
Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word. And yet, amusingly, we can also post information about naturally formed mummies from peat bogs in europe and from deserts in Egypt, and Ozi the iceman: mummies that were formed naturally and which are clearly well beyond the time normal for decomposition of bodies. Curiously they also tend to show the same collapsed tissues you see in fossils where soft tissue is preserved. This collapse is due to loss of liquids from the tissue, desication that preserves the soft tissue.
You will never consider that, well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods. Interestingly, being wrong about a cryptozooic species has absolutely no bearing on the methods used for dating. If you REALLY want to discuss the problems with dating you need to pay a visit to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. Without addressing the actual evidence of age dating methods and the many ways they are validated by actual scientific testing, then all you are doing is posting an ill-informed opinion based on a lack of information. I'm betting I can add this to the list of posts that you either (a) ignore or (b) brush off with some snide comment, as can be predicted from your past behavior as documented on Message 154:
quote: Of course you could prove me wrong and actually take up the challenge of defending your position against the contradicting evidence. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
1. Why do creationists need to use lies and frauds to support creationism? Its all they have. The actual data doesn't support their beliefs.
2. Why aren't the lies and frauds removed from creationist sites when they are pointed out? There would be little left on those websites. See No. 1, above.
3. Why don't creationists use some mechanism for determining the truth of what is on creationist sites before posting false information? There is no such mechanism in creation "science" similar to what is found in real science. Creation "science," actually a form of religious apologetics, exists only to support religious belief. Because creationists reject scientific data (see No. 1, above) there is no standard against which to judge the accuracy of any statement or claim other than whether it supports religious belief.
4. Why isn't there an ongoing effort to remove false and misleading information from creationist websites? See Nos. 1-3, above. But all of these falsehoods and misleading statements don't alter the consuming public's acceptance of creationist websites because the authors and readers of those websites want only to support religious beliefs (i.e., religious apologetics). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1379 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
1) Why is it that evolutionists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence?
2) Why are evolutionists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system? 3) Why do evolutionists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue? 4) Why do evolutionists continue to insist that a spiritual/supernatural event which Creation was, must be defined and explained through scientific means when they can't even prove the first stage of the process of life beginning, which they insist occurred spontaneously? 5) Why do evolutionists copy and paste volumes of so called evidence when none of it is evidence of anything since it is all based on faulty and prejudicial interpretations by people with a preconceived agenda to insure that their profession of choice survives all scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1) Why is it that evolutionists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence? 2) Why are evolutionists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system? 3) Why do evolutionists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue? 4) Why do evolutionists continue to insist that a spiritual/supernatural event which Creation was, must be defined and explained through scientific means when they can't even prove the first stage of the process of life beginning, which they insist occurred spontaneously? 5) Why do evolutionists copy and paste volumes of so called evidence when none of it is evidence of anything since it is all based on faulty and prejudicial interpretations by people with a preconceived agenda to insure that their profession of choice survives all scrutiny. Why do you scream halfwitted falsehoods about evolutionists instead of even trying to defend the fraudulent crap in your OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
1) Why is it that creationists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence?
2) Why are creationists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system? 3) Why do creationists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue? You put the wrong word in your statements 1 through 3. Your statements are what the creos do. The same with statement # 5 as for statement 4, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, but you creos continuoslyattempt to use this in regards to evolution. Evolution & Abiogenesis are two different disciplines. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Cool it - I have weapons of mass suspension.
See the Admin quote in the "signature". Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150 |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024