EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

oh noes! the press reports scientific news badly! And the public believe them sometimes!Wait Archangel - would you say that deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud?The reason I ask is because of your stubborn refusal to accept your glaring mistakes.1 of your 5 examples was a hoax, and that was discovered by the scientific community - the retraction is blatantly ignored by creationists.If anything, therefore, the fraud is entirely on the side of the creationists who are misrepresenting known facts, lying about others, making up even more and refusing to correct these mistakes - the refusal could be taken, being deliberate, as fraud.

Not only that, H, but he seems to be under the impression that* humans aren't apes (we can perhaps forgive this one)
and
* that skulls were all that were found, apparently magically placed on a pillar complete with identifying tags - namely that the skulls shown are all the evidence there is.That's mighty thick.

You know, I don't have to do anything else other than sit back and laugh until my sides hurt, because you're the source of your own undoing.I quote YOU back at yourself as an answer to that dreck. Now go away until you have something useful to say.

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.

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... And? Is it fraud? NOIs it the fault of the scientists? NOYou've even agreed they tried to fix the image...of something that still isn't a fraud. you mean, even when it's not fraud at all, of course 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.

wait, what? You could try to write something that makes sense rather than simply further my opinion of you.I (and everyone ELSE) has asked you to document your claim of FRAUD.Because you appear to be slow and having trouble understanding the big words, here is the dictionary meaning of fraud:

quote:

---

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

---

Now, I'll take it slow because you seem to be having trouble, but a mistake is none of the following: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence.You COULD argue the last one, but NOT when you add "perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".So, if Ocre man is a mistake and not anything of the above (and I hasten to add it was detected and retracted by scientists - one year later notwithstanding) it is not fraud.Got that? Yes, you WERE saying more than that. Which part of "it was not a fraud" are you failing to understand?Dear sir, I do not wish to cast aspersions on the magnitude of your IQ, but I am having trouble explaining this any simpler.The fact that an unfriendly, inaccurate, biased website makes the same point out to be bigger and grander than it is (and it STILL falls short of "fraud") is hardly at issue! Well sure, you can be offended all you like when I call you an ape. I call myself an ape, we are all apes. Again, I cannot put it any simpler. If you do not wish to put homo sapiens sapiens in the same taxonomic family I can't help you, blame the creationist who came up with the methods!Your argument that we are not animals falls flat on it's face because unless you are a fungus (IQ not withstanding) or a plant of some kind, you are an animal! you eat, breath, excrete, move, grow and reproduce!You can scream until you are blue in the face but it will not change these facts.We may be the worlds "highest" animal but animal we are!Even if god almighty came down and told me personally he created the world 6000 years ago, it wouldn't change the facts we know about evolution and taxonomy, you can blame the man upstairs for playing fast and loose with the base pairs if you wish.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.Edited by greyseal, : minor grammar and spelling

Archy, may I take it you have admitted defeat in the case of Orce man? And that your attempts to say it is "a fraud" (when it is not) who's "wide acceptance" (although you say information on it is so impossible to find because of the evilotionist cabal who control teh internets have deleted it all, despite the fact you've been shown pertinent, correct, supportive evidence against this wild claim of yours) has furthered the cause of evilution, have totally failed?And so you don't run and hide, what you do is bluster and crow about another non-fraud. How sad. (Archy, please, you've also been told how to resize pictures. Take the ruddy advice)."artists rendition of a neanderthal child" - er...yes? You just thought you'd ejaculate that one up there, eh? Ok, fine, but...not a fraud. WHY is it a fraud? You were shown, patiently and slowly, what "fraud" meant. Why you bothered putting the picture there is beyond me - RAZD already put it so much neater."comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing" - er, yes? It's a comparitive drawing - do you even know what that means? Did you even bother checking what the drawing was about? do you have any shred of reason WHY you think it's a fraud? Are you, perhaps, a master of comparitive anatomy?No, I didn't think so.Stop parroting stuff back that you clearly do not understand, saying it says something that it clearly does not.Oh, wait, I see - finally - you think that the adults had a big monkey mono-brow and the children did not...and that makes the ARTISTS RENDITION OF A CHILD a fraud?oh noes, you has founds us outs! quick! alert the black helicopters, we'll have to erase THAT from teh intarwebs too.Didn't you notice, dear sir, the skull picture RAZD linked of a child? the URL is http://www.daynes.com/...constructions/images/neander3-1.jpg and it quite clearly has no monobrow.Of course, you'll bluster and shout and send more piss and wind our way, but it won't change the fact you're dead wrong. again.Now, the japanese times article I'm going to say, again, doesn't appear to be a FRAUD. It's an artists' rendition of a real skull - the missing parts have been filled in using basic anatomy, symmetry and software. It's an artists rendition. You can call it innacurate if you want, it's not meant to prove anything - the fact the skull is in pieces tells us that neanderthal man was pretty violent...or do you have a good reason to doubt that?The article says that they've got good reason to believe that humans (and neanderthals) were similar enough that they were pretty violent as well as pretty warm and loving.Or...do you doubt that?I mean, I've got a couple of world wars I could point to, and of course your favourite book the bible wherein it describes murder, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sacrifice, incest and more...and unless you've never said to your parents "I love you" or had them say it to you, I'm pretty sure you've also seen the warmer, loving side of human life.so, again, WHY is it a fraud?Now your lucy spat is pathetic. Shameful even. Didn't you know that there are far more than just one example of "Lucy", otherwise known as Australopithecus Afarensis?Oh, say what? You didn't?Well now you do.Whoops, I guess that's not a fraud either.Perhaps you don't like the artists' reconstructions?Well tough nuts, bub, that's not a fraud. "artistic license" perhaps, but...it's not meant to be definite, just what we currently think based on the best information we have. That's not a crime, and it's not deceit, and it's not fraud.You lose again.So, ready to accept defeat a second time?

In light of RAZD's overwhelmingly complete rebuttal of every single point that Archangel has made, not only is my post not needed but nobody else's is either.RAZD for post of the month!

Archangel, can you please either back down or do as the mod says rather than muddying the waters further (and thanks mod for doing your tireless, oft thankless job)I'd like to get past Orce man because, quite frankly, the post by RAZD was exhaustive and his work to rebut you deserves to see the light of day.If you've evidence Orce Man is a fraud (remember, you know what that means now - deliberate malfeasance) then post it.If not, say "Orce man isn't a fraud, I was wrong" and then concentrate on RAZD's quote which Master Percy will (at that point and no earlier) uncover so you can say "and for my next trick..." and blow evolution out the water.I think coelacanth is right out until after that.This is your chance. Don't blow it.

Archy had no "arguments" that stood up to even a cursory examination.His inability to even get one (Orce man) of those arguments to stick led to an even heavier drubbing from RAZD to merely hulk in shadow, unused.I personally wish we could have got beyond the first example, because the next salvo would've been a doozy.No fraud. case closed.