Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:54 AM
43 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,597 Year: 9,633/19,786 Month: 2,055/2,119 Week: 91/724 Day: 23/68 Hour: 2/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
22Next
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 211 of 323 (525624)
09-24-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Archangel
09-24-2009 12:03 AM


Still Dodging
Hi Angel,

That was a very funny post there Angel. Of course what would be even more fun would be if you were to provide me with some evidence that Orce Man is used as prima facie evidence for the Theory of Evolution, as you suggested in your OP.

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?

You know what hypocrisy is right?

If you don't have any evidence of Orce Man being cited as proof of evolution, just say so and we can move on to the next in your list of "frauds".

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 12:03 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 212 of 323 (525629)
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


Hi Granny,
My quote in the OP regarding the Orce fossil was a direct quote of the claims made in the source I linked to. So I needn't defend it any further than that. But since you insist on repeating your question incessantly as if you have me by the short hairs or something, Let's see what your oracle or evolution, Talk Origin says about it. Interestingly, it still doesn't acknowledge that it's a fraud, but in usual fashion for evolutionists, it just makes excuses and obfuscates any knowledge of a fraud.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

Here's another mention of it by T.O.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC021.html

So once again, even though huge segments of the evolution community are profusely apologetic and accepting of the fraud this manufactured evidence represents as you all here have disavowed any faith in its authenticity, here is TO refusing to admit without compromise that its a fraud. Nice job trapping me as we once again see the inconsistency within your own community regarding how fraudulent evidence is treated by different segments of it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2009 1:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 214 by greyseal, posted 09-24-2009 2:40 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 223 by Admin, posted 09-24-2009 7:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 224 by Granny Magda, posted 09-24-2009 8:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 213 of 323 (525631)
09-24-2009 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Archangel
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


My quote in the OP regarding the Orce fossil was a direct quote of the claims made in the source I linked to. So I needn't defend it any further than that.

Actually, you do need to defend the fraudulent creationist nonsense you quoted. Merely quoting it is not enough.

Let's see what your oracle or evolution, Talk Origin says about it. Interestingly, it still doesn't acknowledge that it's a fraud ...

They also don't acknowledge that a giant winged pig ate New York.

So once again, even though huge segments of the evolution community are profusely apologetic and accepting of the fraud this manufactured evidence represents as you all here have disavowed any faith in its authenticity, here is TO refusing to admit without compromise that its a fraud.

Nor do they admit without compromise that they are a race of super-sentient marshmallows from Rigel 7 who have voyaged to Earth to eat our beach umbrellas.

I wonder why not.

Nice job trapping me as we once again see the inconsistency within your own community regarding how fraudulent evidence is treated by different segments of it.

It is not actually inconsistent for all scientists to unanimously agree that it is not a fraud.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 1:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 214 of 323 (525635)
09-24-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Archangel
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

Here's another mention of it by T.O.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC021.html

So once again, even though huge segments of the evolution community are profusely apologetic and accepting of the fraud this manufactured evidence represents as you all here have disavowed any faith in its authenticity, here is TO refusing to admit without compromise that its a fraud.

Are you mentally deficient? I'm not trying to be rude, but the TO page you linked to makes it quite clear that there is a lot of disagreement about the fossil and the only reason it is "so important" is because of it's location in time.

Disagreement and over-enthusiastic pronouncements are not fraud.

I can't say this enough, and I'm really surprised you don't understand this crucial difference.

Fraud would be deliberate concoction of false "evidence" with an intent to deceive.

this is a real find, with an ambiguous nature which the scientists themselves noted and obviously did their best to damp down the excitement over their mistake (and yes, there was a mistake in jumping the gun) and have done and are now doing their best to verify it's nature, NOT it's authenticity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 1:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM greyseal has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2603 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 215 of 323 (525639)
09-24-2009 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by greyseal
09-24-2009 2:40 AM


even so the story and hype has contributed to evolution's public acceptance. Same with Neanderthal man. The image of an ape-ish looking person i would say is still in the public mind. Despite scientists refuting this image of neanderthals this has not had a big impact on the public impression of neanderthals. As such even when it is not direct fraud, the overhyped and over-eager stories of these transitional fossils, etc. have contributed to its public acceptance. Many of these continue to persist in the public eye.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by greyseal, posted 09-24-2009 2:40 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Huntard, posted 09-24-2009 4:35 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 217 by greyseal, posted 09-24-2009 4:54 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2009 5:04 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 466 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 216 of 323 (525641)
09-24-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Arphy
09-24-2009 4:23 AM


Arphy writes:

Same with Neanderthal man. The image of an ape-ish looking person i would say is still in the public mind. Despite scientists refuting this image of neanderthals this has not had a big impact on the public impression of neanderthals.


So you're saying Neadrthals were more huamn like than ape like, yes?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 217 of 323 (525643)
09-24-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Arphy
09-24-2009 4:23 AM


but it's not FRAUD
arphy writes:

even so the story and hype has contributed to evolution's public acceptance.

Well the idea of ape-men from the mists of time, growing strong, tall, proud, intelligent, taking mankind up from an animal past to an uncertain, noble future...sure, who wouldn't love that story?

Do you have a problem with stories of greatness, of stories with ignoble actions, of murder, theft, war...and love and turmoil?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you thought that the bible was a bad thing...

Same with Neanderthal man. The image of an ape-ish looking person i would say is still in the public mind.

And?

Despite scientists refuting this image of neanderthals this has not had a big impact on the public impression of neanderthals.

Is it fraud? NO

Is it the fault of the scientists? NO

You've even agreed they tried to fix the image...of something that still isn't a fraud.

As such even when it is not direct fraud,

you mean, even when it's not fraud at all, of course

the overhyped and over-eager stories of these transitional fossils, etc. have contributed to its public acceptance. Many of these continue to persist in the public eye.

Some sensational stories exist - but they are not frauds.

Some sensational stories exist - and they are NOT overhyped, and over-eager (neanderthal man, australopithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus...nearly all of them - they are compelling, they are exciting, the public loves 'em and THEY ARE NOT FRAUD.

I can't say this enough - you still don't get it.

Where is the fraud?

Why is it wrong for the multitude of non-over-eager, non-over-hyped evidence to cause a stir and to shake up the imagination?

Why is it the fault of scientists when the media gets the headlines wrong?

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 323 (525646)
09-24-2009 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Arphy
09-24-2009 4:23 AM


even so the story and hype has contributed to evolution's public acceptance. Same with Neanderthal man. The image of an ape-ish looking person i would say is still in the public mind.

Uh ... they were "apish-looking" compared to us. They had big brow ridges, massive jaws, virtually no chin, a protruding face, and robust bones.

As such even when it is not direct fraud, the overhyped and over-eager stories of these transitional fossils ...

They're not transitional, they're a sister group.

If you are an example of the "public eye" you speak of then it's not the fault of biologists that you don't listen to a darn thing they say.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 942 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 219 of 323 (525661)
09-24-2009 6:59 AM


greyseal writes:

Are you mentally deficient?

I must be to expect this crowd to show any objective consistency in what it defends or rejects regarding this pseudo science. Didn't you ask me to document where evolution used the Orce evidence to further the validity of the theory in order to show that it rejected it as nothing more than a fraud? That was the reason for your repeated question wasn't it? To show that evo didn't stand behind that evidence as valid since it was so questionable? Yet now, you now turn 180 degrees and defend T.O.s refusal to come right out and admit it is what it has been determined to be by so many.

I'm not trying to be rude, but the TO page you linked to makes it quite clear that there is a lot of disagreement about the fossil

Which the original quote I posted makes very clear but which you also went after me about as if I was saying more than that. Here is the quote from my OP again in its entirety.

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)

Now keep in mind that all they have is a skull fragment. You tell me how from a skull fragment which is so small it can't be identified as hominid or equine, they were originally able to construct drawings that said it was from a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago? Tell me what factual deductions that bone fragment gave them which made that possible if you will because I'm just too mentally deficient to get it. Especially since they can't even determine if it's human or animal for certain. It boggles the mind, yet it is my mental acuity which you question?

greyseal writes:

Well the idea of ape-men from the mists of time, growing strong, tall, proud, intelligent, taking mankind up from an animal past to an uncertain, noble future...sure, who wouldn't love that story?

Do you have a problem with stories of greatness, of stories with ignoble actions, of murder, theft, war...and love and turmoil?

Not at all. Hollywood does that in many movies and I love the plot lines. But when it is dishonestly passed off as science and attempts to say that is my ancestry when my ancestry is one of being descended from the King of Kings, then I find that lie to be offensive and degrading.

We are not descended from animals and how you can find that uplifting just shows how little you respect your place in this world as its Apex life form. And according to your bogus science, we became that Apex life form by evolving to this position over only the past 130,000 years out of the 4.5 billion years of the process of evolution which has been taking place on earth.

Time wise, it is like saying that we were apelike barbarians until 11:59:57. And only in the past 3 seconds we evolved to the status of gods when one compares our technological, creativity, imagination and intelligence quota as compared to every other animal on earth. Not to mention our recognition of and sensitivity to the spiritual realm which no other animals which have we allegedly evolved from, practice or even recognize in any way, shape or form. Can you explain these inconsistencies to this mentally defective ignoramus greyseal? Cuz I just don't get it!!! And keep it simple if you can. I don't need pages of evo talking points and propaganda, just plain and simple explanations which make sense.


Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2009 7:16 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 226 by caffeine, posted 09-24-2009 8:25 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 229 by greyseal, posted 09-24-2009 3:21 PM Archangel has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 220 of 323 (525662)
09-24-2009 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Archangel
09-24-2009 6:59 AM


I must be to expect this crowd to show any objective consistency in what it defends or rejects regarding this pseudo science. Didn't you ask me to document where evolution used the Orce evidence to further the validity of the theory in order to show that it rejected it as nothing more than a fraud?

Please quote one scientist --- not a creationist bullshitter, but a scientist --- saying that it was a fraud.

Or stop making false statements with no basis in reality.

You tell me how from a skull fragment which is so small it can't be identified as hominid or equine, they were originally able to construct drawings that said it was from a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago? Tell me what factual deductions that bone fragment gave them which made that possible if you will because I'm just too mentally deficient to get it. Especially since they can't even determine if it's human or animal for certain. It boggles the mind, yet it is my mental acuity which you question?

Your statements about the bone fragment are derived from a known creationist bullshitter talking nonsense about what a journalist wrote in the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

If you want to know the reasons why it was suggested that it was human, and the reasons why it was suggested to be not human, what you would need would be some sort of peer-reviewed scientific publication.

Why don't you go and look for one?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 6:59 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 221 of 323 (525663)
09-24-2009 7:28 AM


Moderator Now on Duty
I'm now beginning moderation of this thread and will no longer be participating as Percy.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 222 of 323 (525665)
09-24-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
09-23-2009 12:26 PM


No I mean the peer reviewed articles that Archangel was referring to.

Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 09-23-2009 12:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 09-24-2009 8:03 AM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 223 of 323 (525669)
09-24-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Archangel
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


Archangel writes:

My quote in the OP regarding the Orce fossil was a direct quote of the claims made in the source I linked to. So I needn't defend it any further than that.

The purpose of a debate board like this one is to outline, support and defend one's positions, so your statement that you "needn't defend it any further than that" is incorrect.

Talk Origin says about it. Interestingly, it still doesn't acknowledge that it's a fraud, but in usual fashion for evolutionists, it just makes excuses and obfuscates any knowledge of a fraud.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

Here's another mention of it by T.O.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC021.html

Bare links should not be offered in place of your own arguments. Under most circumstances links should be used only as references. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Before you can validly note that TO has dishonestly failed to concede that Orce Man was a fraud, you first have to make your case that it actually was a fraud, which is what Granny Magda has requested.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 1:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 61 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 224 of 323 (525670)
09-24-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Archangel
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


Archangel Addresses Own Topic Shocker!
Hi Angel,

Hey! You actually addressed your own topic! Nice one!

My quote in the OP regarding the Orce fossil was a direct quote of the claims made in the source I linked to. So I needn't defend it any further than that.

Huh?!

Er... yes you do. That is how debate works Angel. You make a claim, those who disagree challenge the claim. We are not just going to take your word for it. If I believed everything I was told around here, I'd believe that the sun goes round the Earth, that the ark was bigger on the inside and that all Earth's creatures have two eyes.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide some, y'know, evidence. That is how to debate and it is also one of our forum rules here. You must provide evidence.

But since you insist on repeating your question incessantly as if you have me by the short hairs or something,

I have repeated it until you deigned to respond to it Angel. Keep ignoring the question if you like, but that doesn't mean it will go away.

Interestingly, it still doesn't acknowledge that it's a fraud

Perhaps that's because it's not?

Fraud, just to be clear, is deliberate deception. I have seen no evidence of that here. You have certainly presented none.

Maybe it is a fraud. Feel free to provide some evidence of that too. Convince me. But I'm not just going to take your word for it simply because you shout "FRAUD!" in allcaps.

So once again, even though huge segments of the evolution community are profusely apologetic and accepting of the fraud this manufactured evidence represents as you all here have disavowed any faith in its authenticity, here is TO refusing to admit without compromise that its a fraud.

Please demonstrate;

a) That the evidence was manufactured.

b) That I have "disavowed any faith" in it.

For the record, I have not. I have no opinion either way on Orce Man. Hominin? Fine. Equine? Okay. Whatever. I am agnostic with regards to this fossil. There isn't enough information yet.

Nice job trapping me as we once again see the inconsistency within your own community regarding how fraudulent evidence is treated by different segments of it.

Yeah, yeah. You are long on braggadocio, short on substance my friend.

Now, since you made absolutely no attempt to address the question I asked, I'll have to ask it again.

Do you have any evidence that Orce Man is cited as prima facie evidence for evolution?

If not, just say "No Granny, I don't." and you can drop your rather peculiar claim about Orce Man aiding the public acceptance of evolution. It was a silly claim anyway. This fossil is incredibly obscure. Almost nobody has heard of this fossil, Angel and a large portion of those who have seem to be creationists.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 1:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 225 of 323 (525671)
09-24-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Peepul
09-24-2009 7:37 AM


Replying only to provide information...

Peepul writes:

No I mean the peer reviewed articles that Archangel was referring to.

Archaeorapter was never the subject of any peer reviewed journal articles. The NG article was their own original reporting.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Peepul, posted 09-24-2009 7:37 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dokukaeru, posted 09-24-2009 8:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019