Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
21 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, RAZD (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 258 of 323 (525936)
09-25-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by RAZD
09-25-2009 7:40 AM


In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
I have placed the original content of this post in a "hide", please click on Peek to see it, but do not reply to it. Following is all the original content that bore on the topic. --Admin

But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.

RAZD writes:

If it's closing time, I would like to reference Message 64, which answers all the false assertions of the website that Archangel copied and pastes, and which Archangel has not responded to.
This post falsifies his position, but he has not seen fit to even try to rebut the evidence that I've presented, content instead to deny that it is evidence and snipe from the sidelines.

This is sufficient to show that he has no argument AND no rebuttal.

I constantly marvel that you evos insist that just because you continue to post what I have rejected as false and misleading interpretations of observed artifacts, that you have somehow answered my assertions which you claim are false but have not proven in any way at all. Here you also prove my point by posting the photo evidence of Java Man so proudly, as if a skull cap 2 femurs and a tooth is evidence of anything at all that would add up to a life size figure of a primitive man. The only real skill your cult possesses is that of great imaginations and creative fiction writers.

So stop claiming that any of your posts have contributed actual evidence of anything here which is why I haven't responded to them. You think that if you overload us with volumes of info, none of which is verifiable by objective sources which aren't directly involved in defending this pseudo science, that you can then claim that you have offered real evidence of anything. But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. So your claim of victory in closing this thread will NOT stand as long as I'm around. [/hide]

Edited by Admin, : Distill down to the on-topic portions.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2009 7:40 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by bluescat48, posted 09-25-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 9:40 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2009 9:43 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 263 by dokukaeru, posted 09-25-2009 9:50 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2009 6:55 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 287 by obvious Child, posted 09-25-2009 11:39 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 265 of 323 (525989)
09-25-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Admin
09-25-2009 9:40 AM


Re: In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
Admin writes:

Hi Archangel,
I really need everyone to begin addressing their responses to the topic. This usually takes the form of offering evidence and argument for one's position. If you'd like to discuss some other topic, then please propose it over at Proposed New Topics.

I responded directly and on point to RAZD's attempt to imply that he posted evidence I ignored, thereby implying that I failed to defend my position. I rightly pointed out that I interpret the available observations differently than he does so his assertion that he has posted any evidence at all in rebuttal to my OP is absolutely false. That was the point of the post you placed in peek and i stand by it as a valid rebuttal to his attempt to claim that he posted actual evidence I somehow couldn't refute.

Yet when I finally do respond to his alleged evidence and rebut it, it gets placed in this peek place which I don't understand at all what that means. And how can you accept any of the responses to me as on topic when all they do is ignore what I say? Is that what's accepted as debate around here? That believers are held to a different standard than evolutionists?

I have never once claimed that Creation can be proved scientifically. I have insisted though that if evolution claims to be a true science than let them prove that the foundation upon which their science is based is true in any way. This repeated request has been consistently ignored as they respond with demands that I support my claim that evolutions false and fraudulent claims have contributed to its public acceptance. But my repeated question which goes ignored and unanswered by one and all, is the greatest evidence that evolution is an absolute and unmitigated fraud which cannot hold up to the simplest scrutiny since it can't even prove it is built upon a solid foundation of proven science which has been born out in any verifiable or repeatable laboratory tests anywhere on earth at any time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 9:40 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 12:09 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 267 by dokukaeru, posted 09-25-2009 12:53 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 269 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 1:45 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 268 of 323 (526003)
09-25-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Coyote
09-25-2009 12:09 PM


Re: In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
Coyote writes:

Not all interpretations are equal.

In this case they are completely equal since many responses by your side to my oft repeated requests for absolute evidence that your claims of evolution are founded in fact have resulted in your side admitting that no scientific conclusions are absolute. So my interpretations are definitely as valid as yours since you readily admit that you can't prove your interpretations either.

Some agree with the majority, or all of the evidence. Others contradict that evidence.

Your failure to see and acknowledge the evidence that contradicts your interpretation does not make that evidence go away.

Again, your interpretations may disagree with my interpretation of the available observations we both make, but that doesn't mean you are right. All it means is that we don't have all of the facts needed in order to come to a naturally explained conclusion for what we observe. And I'm honest enough, unlike you, to admit that applies to me too.

Neither side has all the answers but you are attempting to explain a supernatural event through natural means, and you can't accomplish it no matter how many nice stories you devise to turn a pigs tooth, a donkeys skull or a modern era skull dipped in tea into various major steps in human evolution.

You are, in effect, looking at the blue sky and claiming that it is pink.

Not true at all. I am forcing you to prove that the sky you claim came to be by accident, actually did occur naturally and not by supernatural means as I maintain caused it to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 12:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2009 6:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 272 of 323 (526075)
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


Admin/Percy writes:

So keeping this in mind, let's focus on just one thing, the evidence for fraud concerning Orce man. Is there evidence that Orce man is a fraud? If so, please describe it. Please try to avoid hearsay evidence.

You can respond to this message, but address your response to the other participants. Now that I'm moderating I'm just trying to channel discussion onto productive avenues. I'm no longer a participant.

Tell me Percy, did you just miss my previous comment when I said that nothing AT ALL can be found online, either for or against Orce Man in any journals at all? If so, why would you repeat a request for info you know can't be produced?

I'll tell you what, you waste 3 hours finding anything on line which supports it as a valid discovery in order to refute my claim that it has been determined by scientists who were actually involved with determining its authenticity that it was a donkey skull bone. Go on, and while you're at it, answer me this; if it is valid evidence then why has it been erased from all journals and sources for review and as evidence of its veracity as a discovery? Can you answer that? Or produce any evidence in support of Orce Man? Cuz I can't find anything on it except for what I posted explaining the process it went through within years of being found when scientists rejected it as valid.

I mean, why is it that evolutionists will take a single pigs tooth and build a complete human being around it proving they have incredible imaginations and powers of extrapolation, yet when something as obvious as all of the existing evidence regarding a claimed find is erased from public exposure and scrutiny, you have no powers of deduction to actually perceive that the powers that be have erased it because it is unsupportable as evidence in the furtherance of the evolution agenda. In other words Percy, if it was accepted as valid by the scientific community, would it be impossible to find anything on it beside the TO links which just asked questions but offered no evidence or confidence in its authenticity at all? Now let's get real and stop asking me to produce evidence for something you know can't be proven on the web, and start using some of that common sense you pseudo scientists claim to possess.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 8:27 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 8:32 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 8:43 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 283 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2009 9:21 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 274 of 323 (526078)
09-25-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by RAZD
09-25-2009 6:55 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
RAZD writes:

Which is denial of the evidence, because this ignores the fact that these fragments match and correlate with many other fossils from the same location found later, AND from similar fossils found in other sites, AS I NOTED IN Message 64:

Really RAZD? You mean all of those other bones which you didn't bother to post evidence of? You know, evidence that the other bones found were actually from the same exact species or that they offered a combined skeleton when put together? That evidence that you never posted and evidently expect me to accept on faith in the honesty and accuracy of your same scientific community which will construct a missing human link from a pigs tooth. So by what standard of evidence do you claim the failure is mine RAZD?

And if the other evidence in the area was more complete than this photo evidence, why didn't you post a photo of it rather than this skimpy example which offers nothing worthy of building a complete specimen of.

TO BE PRECISE, THIS IMAGE REFLECTS ONE FEMUR, ONE SKULLCAP AND ONE TOOTH


Click to enlarge

By what standard of evidence does your science create this hairless image? Show me the pelvic fossils which show it stood perfectly upright as this projects. Prove it was hairless yet it wore no clothing to keep warm.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2009 6:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 12:13 AM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 277 of 323 (526084)
09-25-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by subbie
09-25-2009 8:27 PM


subble writes:

So obviously it's of supreme important in supporting the ToE, right? Or, perhaps it has nothing to do with supporting the ToE, and you erred in including it as a fraud that contributes to the public's acceptance of it.

More moving the goalposts yet again. Here's the point subble, I wasn't posting it as evidence of its importance in proving evolution is valid since I don't believe evolution is valid. I was posting it as evidence that Orce Man was a fraud which for the few years before being exposed as a donkey skull fragment by that very science you place your hope in, did contribute to the volumes of frauds which are accepted as valid as we speak.

But I can assure you of this, which my post you responded to made clear, if your pseudo science had any faith in its authenticity at all, it would be front and center in their arsenal of proof that Orce Man represents a transitional example of human evolution. Of that you can be certain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 8:27 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:10 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 278 of 323 (526087)
09-25-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Admin
09-25-2009 8:43 PM


Admin writes:

Hi Archangel,
I'm only trying to bring some structure to the discussion. So we've established that there is no evidence that Orce man is a fraud, so let's move on to the Coelacanth. Please describe the evidence that the Coelacanth is a fraud.

On the contrary, I have made my assertion that it's a fraud and I stand by it based on its absence from the transitional record of evidence which evolution holds up and just expects us to accept like ignorant sheeple. So how about you disprove my claim by showing that Orce is in fact not a fraud as I have claimed it is, all along! Or don't debates work like that around here. If Orce was valid, it would easily be found in your literature. The fact that it no longer is held up as evidence proves my point that it was in fact a fraud. If the discussion on this shard of bone ends now, that is the only reasonable deduction to take from your combined inability to defend it authenticity here and now.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 09-25-2009 8:43 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:18 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 285 by Granny Magda, posted 09-25-2009 9:34 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 286 by obvious Child, posted 09-25-2009 11:13 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 09-26-2009 8:35 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 282 of 323 (526093)
09-25-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by subbie
09-25-2009 9:10 PM


MORE CONDESCENSION FROM THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS:
subble writes:

You shouldn't use adult phrases that you don't understand.

Hey junior, I'm 56 years old. 8 years your senior. Now that you have been properly corrected, I expect you to refer to me as SIR from here on. Got it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:10 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by subbie, posted 09-25-2009 9:22 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 289 of 323 (526210)
09-26-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
09-26-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Another failure by RAZD
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

RAZD writes:

It is amusing that creationists always seem to think that scientists regard artistic renderings as evidence or even valid representations of the finds.

Are you actually admitting that this rendering:

is just for propaganda sake in order to humanize these apes for public consumption? Am I finally getting one of you to admit the dishonesty of your cult in doing any dishonest representation needed in order to convince the uninformed public at large that these bones represent actual human ancestors when they were nothing more that extinct apes?

My science doesn't create that image. That is an artistic representation. A picture made for media, by media people, not science or scientists. If you look at the journals that present fossil discoveries and discuss them in peer reviewed articles you will not see these pictures.

You are being dishonest again RAZD. No journalist sat down and came up with this rendition on his word processor and published it for public consumption. It was created by some paleontologist based on the actual bones from available specimens and released to the media for public consumption. In other words it is subjective propaganda since it doesn't reflect a realistic interpretation of this creature in any way. It is just more evidence of the dishonesty of this pseudo science in using modern marketing methods/visual aids in order to convince the general uninformed public who will accept this as a true and accurate rendition of this early ancestor of humanity. How you can overlook this fraud and excuse it is mind boggling.

Now, here we have your skeletal fossil of Turkana boy. A full scale representation which you post as validation for the artist rendition above.

Turkana Boy or Nariokotome Boy is the designation given to fossil KNM-WT 15000[1], a nearly complete skeleton of an 11- or 12-year-old hominid boy who died 1.5 million[2] years ago in the early Pleistocene. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya.

Notice how in your ape skeleton, the pelvis sits directly on top of the hip joint, but not so with the modern human skeleton. So by what standard of accuracy or scientific legitimacy do you claim that evolutionists are seeking to discover the absolute truth rather than manipulating reality in order to serve their agenda? I mean, the rendition above is your sciences propaganda which claims to accurately portray this early ancestor of modern humans. But at every level of scrutiny we see dishonest portrayals of reality and all I get from you allegedly objective scientists are excuses and obfuscations as you continue to defend the lies your science tells at every turn.

Will you actually claim that this modern human hip joint model in any way resembles how the hip joint connects to the pelvis in your model which would allow it to stand erect as modern humans do, and as the artists rendition portrays? And can't you appreciate that this type of fraudulent representation is just one more example of what evolution does at every turn and regarding every single aspect of marketing itself as a proven science? It is painfully obvious to anyone that this extinct ape did NOT stand upright as your mythological pseudo science would have us believe in the propaganda you admit is produced for the manipulation of the uninformed public.

And why are you replacing an older fossil with the Java man fossil structure we have been discussing? Are these fossils interchangeable now? Just remember that if you can use it as evidence of more complete examples for Java Man, don't you dare come back to me with an argument that using it as evidence that Java couldn't stand upright is unfair since it's an older skeleton. You can't have it both ways and just use these interchangeably as long as they serve your propaganda purposes.

And while your at it, explain how they determined that Java Man had less body hair than Robin Williams yet seemingly walked around naked. Who determines this stuff? And if evolution science is a valid discipline, how do they allow this type of crap to be placed in the public domain if honesty and accuracy is their main goal? Rather than doing anything necessary to sell this false interpretation of science to an ignorant and uninformed public at any cost. How do you defend or justify this RAZD?

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2009 7:53 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 3:33 PM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 292 of 323 (526217)
09-26-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Coyote
09-25-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Creationist wrong again
Coyote writes:

Hmmmm. No mention of donkeys here; that skull fragment exhibits hominid albumin. Perhaps the creationists crying "fraud" are behind the times, eh?
And this search took about ten minutes, most of it looking for a source that included the abstract without paying a fee.

A good university library will have that article available for your perusal. There are a lot more articles out there, but this one is sufficient to make an ass of those claiming Orce is a donkey.

Really? This is just too good to be true since you are obviously posting it as evidence that Orce is valid evidence of anything. If that is true, then why does the abstract open with this statement: IF it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, sounds to me like the jury is still out on this issue. Then it goes on to say this: If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. So which is it? Are early hominids the ancestors of modern humans, or were they actually humans as this description implies? Or is this just more misrepresentation which attempts to affiliate an allegedly, yet to date unproven transitional fossil with modern humans.

I mean, when I argue that these early hominids have no similarities to modern humans in any real way, you all come back with, well, of course not, because they are early ancestors and not actually human yet. But here it contradicts that and even implies that 780,000 years ago they utilized crude stone tools.

But here is the deeper question. We have various hominid fossil finds, all from distant antiquity and all from different parts of the world in various climates and ecosystems. And none of these ancestors could have had any contact with each other meaning they all evolved separately in what was a large and disconnected world at that time. But like funneling all of the extant communities into one common descendant, you categorize them as if they simultaneously and collectively evolved into what you like to call Homo Sapien Sapien until we see this all human end result all of a sudden just 40,000 years ago or so. We sure lost that brow ridge quickly according to normal evolutionary changes, wouldn't you say? And tell me what environmental changes occurred which precitated that evolutionary change, will you? Did the Sun change its location on the horizon so we no longer needed it to protect our eyes from it? After all, baseball caps and sun glasses are modern inventions.


And isn't it incredible once again how we became basically hairless right after evolving beyond the level of knuckle dragging apes according to evolution science created propaganda?

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2009 9:20 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Granny Magda, posted 09-26-2009 11:48 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2009 1:49 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 12:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 296 of 323 (526424)
09-27-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by RAZD
09-26-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Another failure by RAZD to substantiate his claim
I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

Here we go again. I point out general examples of widely dispersed inaccurate info which millions of uninformed layman see and just accept as accurate since they assume it is published because it's true, and you respond with excuses, justifications and examples of why your side is innocent of deceit or fraud of any kind.

Well I'm going to show that your own posted evidence is proof of universal fraud which is so matter of factly offered that you don't even see it anymore since you have drank all of the kool-aid and believe this stuff as just a matter of fact anyway. So let's get started, and i'm going to make this as much a pictorial process as possible in order to keep it visual and simple.

We will start with your model of Neanderthal child by your swedish artist:

and the comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing:

Before going further, I must comment on the empty space in the neanderthal childs skull as they imply that his brain doesn't utilize all of the available space in his brain pan. Can any of you so called scientists produce even one example of any type of animal in reality who's brain doesn't fill its skull? And doesn't such a rendition cause your common sense bells to go off to the tune of cookoo clock? The fact that it doesn't is what concernes me the most about evolutionists. With that said, let's move on.

Let's now look at a couple of neanderthal skulls for raw comparisons to just imagine the level of accuracy in the artists renditions of these APES, in my opinion.

and here's another one:

May I ask how your swedish model maker or the artists rendition which you posted as evidence reflect the massive brow ridge which defined the strong features of the actual Neanderthal skulls, as compared to the softer more human impressions which your artist renditions portray. I realize your renditions are children and will allow for that. But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense. The point I am making here is that much of this info you posted is created for public consumption by common uninformed layman which never think any deeper than accepting this stuff as evidence which is founded in truth and fact when it is nothing of the sort. They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.

I mean, it not only misrepresent the origins of human beings, it misrepresents the history of the Apes these fossils actually represent in reality since they have no true relationship to human beings at all according to my interpretation of the evidence.

For an additional example, here's a link to an article with an artists rendition of neanderthal man next to the partial skull remains from a bashed in find, evidently. I post it for the creative license it takes and for the massive assumptions it presumes based on the very limited actual evidence it started out with. Here's the image first:

And here's the article from the Japanese Times which I don't post for its scientific value, but for its exposure to the general uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news288.htm I realize that you will come back to me and ask how the evolution community is guilty of fraud when it is an independent magazine which prints the story by itself. But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested" It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull. Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."

The relevant point once again is that you can't have it both ways. You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false and unproven info to the general public as they release this drivel to non scientific magazines while simultaneously claiming that they can't be held responsible for what these magazines print. It isn't as though every one of these articles end with a disclaimer by the scientific community denying any and all responsibility for the truth and accuracy of the information being published.

NOW, here's another example of fraud which occurs with the approval of this so called scientific community. Here is the complete fossil record for Lucy, the once famous so called missing link.

And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.
My only question is, are you kidding me??? What is so incredible is that your community is serious about this rendition and in your collective mind, you aren't trying to kid me since you accept this as an accurate rendering of this fossil record. But the back story which goes along with it is where the fraud comes into play as you actually affiliate this fossil as a human ancestor at all. The fact is that all that is required to determine that any primate bones found anywhere belong to the human family is their discovery, PERIOD. No real or true evidence is required at all because what happens is that evolutionists first determine from appearance where in the fictional line of evolution that specific ape or gorilla will best fit and then they date it accordingly and place it there in their timeline of human evolution. And then they declare that one more link in the puzzle of human evolution has been filled in.[/hide]

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 3:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 298 by mark24, posted 09-27-2009 12:08 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 300 by greyseal, posted 09-27-2009 12:34 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 302 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 8:31 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 305 of 323 (526525)
09-28-2009 8:44 AM


I've requested that attention be focused on whether Orce man is a fraud, and I'll be hiding all significant content on this and subsequent pages that doesn't deal with that topic. When discussion about Orce man completes we will move on to the Coelacanth. --Admin

greyseal writes:

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!

God, how simple it is to overwhelm you with empty and frivolous content. RAZD is famous for long and expansive posts which do nothing more than bombard me with minutia which of course impresses you sheeple, but is no more true, scientifically verifiable or factual than the last stuff I refuted. Let me give you just one example of how incredibly juvenile and simple it is to deceive you cultists who lack the powers of critical thinking to objectively judge anything a proponent of your pseudo science says since you have already drank all of the kool-aid. Here is his newest example of evidence for Lucy. An alleged cast of the remains of "Lucy" as he puts it.
http://uploa.../Australopithecusafarensis_reconstruction.jpg
Now forgive me for once again asking a common sense question of you, but where are the bones used as a guide to reconstruct this skull apart from the 5 shards shown here of Lucy's skull from this exhibit ?

And why doesn't this reconstructed skull have a lower jaw since that is the one almost intact feature Lucy does still have? And just one more thing I would like to point out here since I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to defend my perspective just because you deniers of reality refuse to accept it, but look at this image. It's a bonobo skull. It looks a lot like your Lucy skull and is a contemporary example of a modern animal. Notice the human like teeth although they are larger just as RAZD describes the teeth from his example.
.

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


(1)
Message 307 of 323 (526738)
09-29-2009 8:26 AM


I have said all I have to say on Orce Man. Posts 277 and 278 made clear that if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence since it evidently comes from such a sparsely represented era of the so called evolutionary journey. Even the abstract that Coyote posted as some alleged evidence says, and I quote:
The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, AND ALSO: Both teams obtained reactions "characteristic" of human albumin in the Orce skull
So by what standard of genetic evidence does anyone here claim that this proves anything when it makes no attempt to claim the Orce fragment is definitely of hominid descent even though it is publishing the results of the ELISA OR RIA tests which only allow for the characteristics, but nothing that allows them to come to any absolute conclusions?

Here once again is the abstract of the article Coyote linked to:

Abstract: The Orce skull fragment from southern Spain, dated at 1.6 Myr, has been a subject of heated controversy since it was first discovered in 1982. If it is hominid, as its discoverers contend, it is by far the oldest fossil hominid yet found in western Europe and implies that human populations settled this region much earlier than was previously realized. Numerous stone artifacts found at the Orce sites provide evidence that hominids were indeed present there in the Lower Pleistocene. Some paleontologists maintain that the 8 cm diameter occipital fragment is from a horse, not a hominid. Two independent investigations of the residual proteins in the skull were undertaken, one at the University of Granada in Spain, the other at the University of California, San Francisco. Two immunological methods of comparable sensitivity were employed for detection and species attribution of protein extracted from fossil bone: the Granada team used an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the UCSF team used a radioimmunoassay (RIA). Both teams obtained reactions characteristic of human albumin in the Orce skull and horse albumin in some of the horse fossils. These results support the lithic evidence that hominids were living in Andalusia 1.6 million years ago.

The relevant issue for the sake of this debate is that even though the scientific community has no confidence in the Orce Man bone fragment as it stands, it was still used as evidence originally of a transitional fossil before any actual evidence either way obviously existed. And that deduction is obvious since red flags have surrounded it since 2 years after its discovery and release for public consumption. What happened with the peer review process with this and every other questionable discovery which has been thrown out into the public domain via world wide press releases? And where are the well documented retractions which reverse those original press releases with the same volume and verve which the announcements received?

And one more thing, how long must I respond to issues just because evolutionists will continue to reject anything I say? Since when do moderators determine for me when I have defended a position enough before moving on to another subject? My posts to RAZD on this page have been in direct response to issues he raised and vice versa. My technique is to point out in any evidentiary direction we go in that these unsupported by evidence claims of human evolution receive world wide promotion when nothing they claim is absolutely proven in any way, shape or form. This is evidence of organized indoctrination and validation of claims which cannot be held up as actual proven evidence at all, but that doesn't stop this pseudo science from promoting it anyway. NUFF SAID!


Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Admin, posted 09-29-2009 8:50 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 309 by mark24, posted 09-29-2009 8:52 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 310 by Granny Magda, posted 09-29-2009 9:12 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 311 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2009 10:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 312 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-29-2009 1:43 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 316 of 323 (529039)
10-07-2009 11:04 PM


I stand by my claim that evolution frauds have contributed to its acceptance:
I stand by the arguments I have offered on this thread and believe that it is fraudulent science by way of rational common sense deductions, which leads to conclusive evidence that evolution by its very inconsistency, constant redefinitions of its most basic foundational premises, and the unprovable guess work which defines it is absolute and undeniable evidence in my opinion that evolution theory is nothing more than a conglomeration of wishful thinking and imaginings by grown men and women who wish to idealize the secular explanation for how life came to be apart from a creator God. I submit all of the arguments I have posted and stand by them for any future observers who would like to follow my side of the debate.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&t=1370...


Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by greyseal, posted 10-08-2009 7:34 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019