|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
duplicate post
Edited by RAZD, : deleted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel, still failing to use that skeptic approach to creationist sites eh?
What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds ... Just so we are working with the same understanding, how do you define fraud and what makes a fraud into a "major fraud"? In Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes I provided definitions of what constitutes a fraud and a hoax:
GROUND RULES:
Would you agree that those definitions apply?
... which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science ... Can you actually demonstrate that evolution is a "false science" or is this another attempt to defraud people into believing something that isn't true? Evidence please.
... and even gave it legitimacy ... I've seen your attempts to justify this with the scopes trial, however the problem you have is that evolution can still be true valid science in spite of having a history that could include hoaxes. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed in the life around us today, in history, in prehistory, in the fossil record and in the genetic record. Evolution has been observed, it is fact. The Theory of Evolution is that this is sufficient to explain life as we know it from the life around us today, history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record. This still remains a valid theory, and the validity of the theory is independent of whether or not some individuals perpetuated a fraud or a hoax for personal gain. This theory can still be tested against the facts, it can still make predictions and it can still be studied in the field and in the lab with experiments. This is true no matter whether or not frauds and hoaxes were involved at specific points. Frauds and hoaxes are weeded out by the scientific process, they are invalidated by science, and then they are discarded, and either ignored or used as examples of frauds and hoaxes. It is these facts of the science that give it legitimacy.
... where none was deserved ... You have not demonstrated this, it is just another of your continued assertions of opinion not based on fact. Is this another attempt on your part to defraud people into believing something that isn't true? Evidence please.
But here's where the true damage has been accomplished, and that is that by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages of scientific journals, compared to the fraudulent discoveries press releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people saw and heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as around 12 layman saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that common layman never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like of one "fraud" which established evolution as a valid science in the national psyche. Again, your one instance so far is the scopes trial. Curiously the scopes trial is not a fraud. Can you show how this resulted in evolution being taught in schools? You do know the result of the trial don't you? Or is the fact that evolution is taught in schools independent of the scopes trial, and is instead based on the fact that evolution is a valid science, done by the scientific method, with testing of the theory against the predictions? If you can't establish that the scopes trial led to any increase in the teaching of evolution, then your claim falls flat. Now let's look at your skeptical evaluation of the evidence for frauds perpetuated by science on the poor uneducated public in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain:
Piltdown man: ... Predictable well known typical creationist pratt:CC001: Piltdown Man quote: So we see that this hoax was NOT perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather was perpetuated ON science and was eventually uncovered and discarded by scientists - evolutionary scientists - that proved it was false. Nor was the Piltdown Man used to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively accepted until proven false, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists. The creationist contention that the Piltdown Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so. So much for your skepticism - this information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Nebraska man: Another predictable well known typical creationist pratt:CC002: Nebraska Man quote: So we see that this was NOT hoax at all, nor was it in any way perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather was blown out of proportion by the popular press, and was eventually re-evaluated and discarded by scientists - evolutionary scientists - that proved it was not related to primates. Nor was the Nebraska Man used by scientists to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively accepted until proven false, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists. The creationist contention that the Nebraska Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so. Again, so much for your claim of skepticism - this information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Orce man: I had to look this one up, because I had never heard of it before, so it can't have been instrumental to deceiving the public about the reality of evolution. Not surprisingly what I found was that this is just another creationist pratt.CC021: Orce Man quote: So we see that this was NOT hoax at all, nor was it in any way perpetuated by scientists to promote evolution - your claim - but rather that there just is not sufficient information to make a clear identification. Nor has the Orce Man been used by scientists to intentionally deceive the public about evolution, at best it was evidence that was tentatively discussed, at worst it was dismissed by skeptical scientists. The creationist contention that the Orce Man was instrumental in any way to the theory of evolution is itself a hoax and a fraud, because this just is not so. Once again we see that your claimed skepticism was not employed in your judgment of this creationist claim - the information is EASY to find, you just didn't do it because you failed to be skeptical about it.
Java man: This is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is some disagreement about all the original fossils being from the same species, to say nothing of them being from the same specimen, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the skull and bones belong to a hominid. Java Man - Wikipedia
quote: Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: Far from being a hoax, the original Java Man fossil is the type fossil for this species of hominid. So how is this a fraud or a hoax? At first it was tentatively accepted by some and not by others. More fossils - 40 different individuals from Java and more from other sites - have since been found that conform to it, they validate the find, and there is no deception here: the evidence is available for anyone to evaluate. This is not a fraud, and the creationist claim that this is a fraud, is just another example of the intentional misinformation promoted by creationists to deceive you as well as the general public. Your lack of skepticism of this creationist claim is appalling for someone who claims to be skeptical of anything but willing to review the evidence. It is typical of someone who uses confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance instead.
Neanderthal: Again, this is not a fraud. This is not false. There is no deception here. There is even more evidence for Neanderthals than there is for Java Man. Neanderthal - Wikipedia
quote: Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: There is no intentional deception using false information here. The original reconstruction was perhaps unfortunate, but it was not an intentionally false portrayal, and the reconstructions have changed as more information has become available. THIS IS HOW REAL SCIENCE WORKS. Once again, you have failed to provide an example of a fraud intentionally used by scientists to deceive the public into believing in evolution - your claim - and curiously, all you have shown is continued creationist falsehoods, misrepresentations, and deceptions -- creationist fraud.
(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20) Way to keep current with scientific findings Archangel. Why do creationists need to use outdated and superseded information, while ignoring modern information, if not to intentionally deceive you and the common public? Can you answer that? Instead of Neanderthal being a fraud we see - again - that the creationist claim that there is a fraud here is another creationist fraud.
Demonstrated to be yet another creationist fraud site, thank you for pointing it out and letting me add another creationist hoax to the much longer list of ON-GOING creationist hoaxes on Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . You claim to be a skeptic? Skepticism - Wikipedia
quote: One can also add Young Earth Creationism to the list of discredited intellectual positions. If you want to see a fraud intentionally made to deceive the public, deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain, then I suggest you look at:
2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd.Petersburg, KY 41080 (I think there may be a missing "sh" there ... but that may just be my impression) Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : concision Edited by RAZD, : no smilies 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Lithodid-Man, it's worse than that ...
Wow arch, wow. Okay, I was just pointing out to you that neanderthals are pretty much human. That is a fact whether or not you can see it. You are the only creationist I have encountered who thinks otherwise. This issue is not about anyone forcing you to explain your worldview through our interpretation. His position that neanders are not human is contradicted by his own pasted information:
quote: So if it was a fraud to show neanders as not being quite human, then how does this fit with the position that neanders are not human at all? Cognitive dissonance anyone? Enjoy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (/qs into /quote). 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
HI Archangel, still having trouble with common sense, rationality and logic I see.
Really AA? You can read my opening post HERE: EvC Forum: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: - which was quoted as evidence of evolutions frauds, not in agreement with evolution as my argument in that post makes painfully clear. Then you can accept Huntards accusation of my alleged lying, and your own observation that I am promoting falsehoods, then write your post as evidence that you take the truth very seriously? If you are so unable to recognize that I posted that link as evidence against evolutions validity, and the link itself is written to oppose evolutions veracity, then we are from completely different levels of rationale if you will condemn me as dishonest for posting links which defend my position that evolution falsely characterizes Neanderthal as having modern human traits. The question is why you posted something - copied and pasted not just a link - that you think is false? If it is false, then it is not evidence of truth, no matter what it says, and presenting it as a true argument is false. What is painfully clear is that you cannot honestly debate your own position, because you intentionally used information you yourself thought was false. What is painfully clear is that you have dismissed, waved away and denied, mountains of evidence for evolution, made weak claims that creationist have different interpretations, and then failed to show how those different interpretations explain all the actual evidence. What is painfully clear is that you are now denying the different interpretations from creationists as being valid. Now we can go to all the main creationist sites and document where they talk about neanderthals being human, and compile a list of creationist sites that you are also in denial of. Curiously that leaves you with no argument other that your personal belief/s.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. I see no point in discussing anything with a person who cannot honestly debate their own position. You have fallen to a level of dishonesty that is not worth replying to, as we cannot tell now when you post something you believe or something else. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel, it is simple logic.
It was posted as evidence of evolutionists truth RAZD, and in opposition to that perceived truth. How can you people not comprehend that? It is quite simple Archangel: (1) Because even that quisling weasel argument fails. The original neanderthal representations are not a fraud - remember what I said in Message 64 about the definition of fraud?
quote: To be a fraud it must be an intentional deception for a purpose - what you see instead is increased understanding as more information becomes available, refining the original picture with new details not known before, again as noted in Message 64:
quote:(Curiously you have not replied to this message which answers each of your purported frauds and debunked them with the facts.) Instead of exposing evolutionary lies, your website is a fraud, a hoax, trying to deceive people about the facts. (2) Because you are still using something you don't believe to try to discredit evolution. This means that any argument you make is of questionable value at best, because you have demonstrated a willingness to use information you think is false. Is it a valid argument, if I try to tell you that the bible is false because website X says it was written by monkeys, even though I don't believe that it was written by monkey? Of course not. You don't like evolution? Tough. You want to debunk it? Then use facts, don't hide behind information from others that you don't even believe, as that is dishonest. (3) Because we can agree with you that the information on the website is invalid - you disagree with it and we disagree with it - so we can discard it. The problem then is that you are left with no support for your argument.
First post the lie the other guy is promoting and then explain why it's a lie. That is what I did, ... No, that is NOT what you have done. You may think that you posted "the lie" but each one of these examples falls flat from what you have claimed, and you have absolutely and completely FAILED to then explain why it's a lie. All you have done is (mis)use the website. Curiously you have spent more time saying that what is on that website is a lie according to your belief than in dealing with evolution and the evidence that the website itself is a fraud.
... and if it is beyond you to comprehend that, then I'm sorry for you. Curiously, I am not the one using false information from websites that I don't believe, I am not the one in massive denial of the plentiful and readily available evidence of reality, and I am not the one claiming that the whole world, if not the universe, is a lie because of my beliefs.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance are not the tools of an open-mind or honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : no smilies 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel, trying to play the "big victim" card I see.
Real science which is founded upon a foundation of proven and tested conclusions builds upon that foundation with new technologies, applications and innovations based on new insights which are applied to it. But the foundation upon which the science rests remains unchanged and consistent as it was originally defined and proven to function in the real world. No, science is a series of approximations of truth, based on what is currently known, making prediction, testing those predictions and then repeating the process with new information derived from the tests. This is how medicine works, this is how physics works, this is how chemistry works, this is how astronomy works, this is how biology works.
You have completely ignored the examples I gave about the many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, and are currently used in medicine. And I mean Blow Fish toxin, Sea Urchin Toxin and Jelly Fish Toxins for example. They are broken down to their molecular level, chemically separated, refined and tested in combinations to determine which properties have value in various applications as general medicines, vaccines, anti-virals and pain controllers. Curiously, many modern medicines are based on knowledge from evolutionary biology that predicts cures.
Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs. Can you provide a single example of such total revamping? Darwin stated that evolution was descent with modification through natural selection of hereditary traits in populations where those traits provided an advantage for the individual to survive or reproduce. Can you honestly show that evolution today is different from that founding principle? Many aspects of how evolution accomplishes this have been uncovered since Darwin's time, including how DNA is the bearer of the hereditary traits during reproduction, but the basic principle remains the same: evolution is still the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and what we see are added mechanisms, like genetic drift and the founder principle, in addition to validating the process of natural and sexual selection. Adding to a theory is not a total revamping.
You people are so dishonest that you will call the science which led to these computers we are all using, engineering rather than the pure science they represent. You either forget or just are in denial to the fact that only around 6 or 7 decades ago computer science was completely theoretical. Engineering generally (good engineering anyway) uses the same principles as science, because those principles work. Many many times engineers will make theoretical approximations of solutions to problems, and then test and refine their models to come closer and closer to an ultimate solution until the point is reached where it is good enough for practical purposes. Engineers can do this without any knowledge of how a system works through the use of empirical formulations, developing equations from the parametric analysis of existing data and then using those equations to make the next approximations for the next round. The point of engineering though, is not to understand HOW things work, but to figure out practical solutions to problems, to get close enough, by whatever method is most time and cost effective. Furthermore, engineers will use approximations that are easy to calculate instead of actual equations of how things really work that are cumbersome and time consuming to calculate. This is why the moon shots, and the robot expeditions to mars used Newton's law of gravity rather than relativity.
In fact, IC engines are the standards ... Which is why the engine power is measured in Horsepower?
Have you ever heard an auto manufacturer claim that the engines they put in their cars last year were a mistake which new technology proves never should have been offered in the first place? Yes, they are called "recalls", sometimes they affect minor systems within the vehicle, sometimes the whole vehicle is replaced.
In addition to these problems, you all seem oblivious to the fact that in just determining the age of the earth come numerous theoretical applications which are all determined by our very limited ability to interpret them, and that how one theory affects, or is affected by another is well beyond our ability to judge at this time. So let's start with a simple and easy to verify measurement first ... and see how we can develop further measurements with a minimum of "theoretical applications" by validating it with other methods.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 Let's explore how limited we are in being able to interpret the information available.
You people will consider we christians to be backward thinking believers in myths, when it is you who are steeped in believing in magical processes which you couldn't prove are real or accurately applied if your life depended on it. ... And you will insist that I am the ignorant one who clings to fairy tales. Oh boo-hoo.
Just think, you are proposing that around 3.5 billion years ago, life spontaneously appeared on earth from non-life. Actually, what we know is that some 4.0 billion years ago there was no life on this plant, but that by 3.5 billion years ago life not only had already begun, but that it was fully developed cellular life. The earliest fossils that show life show life already developed, rock before that are not fossil bearing types of rock. Now as science is an approximate understanding of reality, honed and refined by repeated testing, we can say that life certainly began somewhere between 3.5 billion years ago and 4.0 billion years ago. How it began is not recorded in the fossil record, so we have no evidence on which to base even uncertain knowledge of how it began. That uncertainty does not apply to life existing 3.5 billion years ago, and to the (constant) evolution of life from that point to the present. Curiously, it just does not matter HOW life began, only that it DID begin, for evolution to explain the diversity of life that we now see in the world today.
Get a clue guys and then come back when you want to seriously discuss the problems with evolution and the fact that it is only by promoting frauds that this scam is called a science at all. So far you have totally failed to present a single problem with evolution. You proposed a thread based on purported frauds committed by science to further public awareness of evolution, and what you end up with instead is an example of a creationist website that lies about evolution. If your position is really based on truth then why do you need to use falsehoods to support it? If evolution is really based on lies, then why do you need to use creationist lies when you should have REAMS of data of the real enchilada. Why can't you show how foraminifera are deposited in organized and sorted layers? Why can't you back up your position with evidence? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : replaced chopped paragraph Edited by RAZD, : t 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel,
More judgmental criticisms and drivel from the peanut gallery as he offers no evidence at all to the debate. If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service... ROFLOL. The irony is killing me. Curiously, you have failed to answer:
Message 64 which deconstructs your opening post with factual evidence, showing that your website was an example of creationist fraud rather than documenting any fraud by evolutionary scientists.
Message 96 which deals with your continued failure to acknowledge that this website does not support your thesis because it is false. Rather than demonstrate that evolutionary scientists have committed frauds and hoaxes, you have demonstrated that creationist websites post false information. You can't use a falsehood to prove a truth.
Message 124 which deals with your false analogy of science and engineering, and your false assertions of how good science is done. These are just the posts on this one thread where you have posted judgmental criticisms and drivel instead of replies, and offer no evidence at all to back up you position once refuted. I can document more, but you are not interested in reality, as you have ignored all evidence contrary to your pet beliefs. Your absolute failure to deal with foraminifera or age correlations show you are not interested in understanding reality.
If incessant insistence that you are right was worth anything, you would have won this debate long ago. But alas, all we have is empty lip service... Indeed, and that is why I find it worthless to read your posts or debate with you further. There is no value added. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Archangel, let me see if I can help you understand your problem.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. The problem is that you don't offer any alternative interpretation that works, that explains all the evidence to the same degree of completeness or more than the current scientific one. If you can't do this THEN YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: YOU HAVE A FAILED EXPLANATION. The fact that you absolutely FAIL to provide an interpretation that explains, for instance the sorted and ordered structure of foraminifera deposits, leaves you with simply saying that you don't believe that the layers are sorted and ordered, which IS denial, and when you then FAIL to answer when provided with evidence that this is the case, THEN the only thing apparent from your position LEFT is your denial. References from The phrase "Evolution is a fact"Message 185 Message 187 (the denial) Message 217 (no answer) I have provided evidence contrary to your assertions on several occasions, and in each case you have FAILED to provide any kind of alternative interpretation that explains all the observed evidence.
(hidden portion) 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. 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:
quote: So, no, it is NOT just a skull fragment, 2 femurs and a tooth that add up to the evidence of Java Man as a type specimen for a hominid in the family tree, it is the correlation of these fossils with the rest of the Homo erectus, the part of my post that you ignored and FAILED to refute. Once again this leaves you with the apparent position of denying the evidence of the fossils, not in denying the interpretation of them OR providing an alternative explanation.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. You also absolutely FAIL to demonstrate how the scientific interpretation is poorly constructed or improperly arrived at, thus you don't challenge the interpretation, you don't provide an alternative, and you deny evidence that is contrary to your assertions.
But I have already said ad infinitum that I don't reject the observable evidence, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. Curiously, the points I made in Message 64 still stand, uncontested by any counter argument or by counter evidence or by an "alternative" interpretation that explains the evidence. Thanks for validating Message 254. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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
Hi Archangel, If you use [thumb=300]http:⁄⁄upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Pithecanthropus-erectus.jpg[/thumb] Then it sizes the picture to 300 pixels wide to fit the forum page, allows you to click on it to see the details full size, and automatically centers the image. You can also find out thinks like this by using the peek function on a post or in the reply copy.
Really RAZD? You mean all of those other bones which you didn't bother to post evidence of? Curiously I did post links to some of it:
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: Far from being a hoax, the original Java Man fossil is the type fossil for this species of hominid. Question: do you know what the term "type fossil" means? Do you have any idea why there is so much description of the minor morphological features that are used to describe the fossils? Click on the link. You also have several additional names that a true skeptic would use to find more information about the fossils in question. It also has links to more information.
Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Note the discussion of comparative features between the fossils. You can also go toAnthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History for a hyperlinked page showing current thinking on hominid lineages, with Homo erectus shown as a cousin species, like neanderthals. 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. First, because your cut and paste link referred specifically to this specimen, second, because it is the type fossil as it was the first one found, and third, because I supplied links to more information that a true skeptic could follow.
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? The failure to follow where the evidence leads. If you had you would have found several examples of other fossils. If you are really interested in looking at the evidence then you will need to do what Ernst Mayr did and go to see the actual fossils. Of course you would need some kind of credentials to be allowed to touch these valuable specimens.
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.
It is amusing that creationists always seem to think that scientists regard artistic renderings as evidence or even valid representations of the finds. 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. Rather you will see pictures like this:
and this: Turkana Boy - Wikipedia
quote: Note how the age and sex was determined from the bones - something you denied could be done with the Pelycodus fossils. Notice how the bones fit the upright posture without being forced in place. Notice that this is an older fossil than the original find in Java. And this is still just a fraction of the evidence we have for Homo erectus. Enjoy. Edited by Admin, : No reason given. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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
Let's deal with this first, Archangel:
Now, here we have your skeletal fossil of Turkana boy. A full scale representation which you post as validation for the artist rendition above. No, sorry, read my post again: it was posted to show you that the hominid species Homo erectus was substantiated by many fossils, all of which demonstrate their hominid ancestry. This and the other pictures that I posted show homologies with the skull fragment, bones and tooth that were in the first find of fossils for this species, the fossil type specimen properly called Trinil-2 in science. "Java man" is the popular name and is often applied to the group of fossils rather than a specific specimen. As noted in Message 64, this validates the original find as being the first find of a new fossil species. Homo erectus - Wikipedia
quote: The evidence of evolution is found in the bones, and the evidence of human behavior is found in the artifacts found with the fossils, not in artistic rendering.
Are you actually admitting that this rendering: is just for propaganda sake in order to humanize these apes for public consumption? Curiously, I am unable to state anything more about your purported fraud claim in this regard, because you have failed to provide adequate citation of your source and the picture is posted on a personal picture website with no link to actual science.
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. So you claim, yet it appears that YOU are hiding the source of this picture, as you don't provide links to the original publication of the picture, information of when it was drawn, by whom, when it was published, in what magazine. Notice that all my pictures are referenced to sources and information about their origin, so I am not hiding anything. I find it listed in wikimedia's picture library along with several other pictures of fossils for Homo erectusSearch results for "homo erectus" - Wikimedia Commons and when I click on the link it tells me quote: As Granny Magda notes Steveoc 86 is an amateur and not a scientist. I've also made several google searches to find links to the picture and to Homo erectus renderings and have not found any evidence that this picture was published at all. Can you show that it was extensively disseminated as you claim? Remember - to establish fraud by scientists you need to show (1) that the picture is false, (2) that it is intentionally false (3) that it is done and promoted by scientists rather than media, (4) that there is clear intention to deceive people with the picture into believing something that is not true and finally (5) that someone benefits from the deception. This has still not been done for a single one of your fraud claims. Here's another picture that may help you in the discussion of intentional deception: quote: Again we have a picture posted by someone of a reconstruction in a museum, and the picture taker is not the author of the reconstruction (likely done by museum staff). The skeleton is a composite that is made up of scaled reproductions of all the fossils available from this single site, and showing how they still fit together in the same basic hominid pattern. Of course you can't have your little argument about the hip joint with this reconstruction as the pelvis is in red - which means that it is assumed (likely from other Homo erectus fossils) rather than modeled on an existing fossil from the site. Is this fraud? No, for the intention is not to deceive but to show what the latest current thinking is about the fossil skeletons of Homo erectus, including a hip joint similar to the one found in Turkana Boy rather than what you have shown for Modern 21st century humans: if deception was the order of the day, would not the model show a modern hip instead? Remember that Turkana Boy comes from the earliest group of Homo erectus fossils in africa, and the ones in france could show new derived features.
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. Notice that Turkana Boy is 1.5 million years old, belongs to a different species from Homo sapiens that is regarded as being a cousin species rather than an ancestral species. Notice that the knee joints demonstrate full upright posture and that the hip joints allow this posture as well. Notice that the overall proportions of arms and legs to torso also matches the human pattern rather than the chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan patterns. Again, in evolution we expect homologous features to show different derived development in different species, but to show a trend from and ancestral species to an offspring or younger species. If you want we can also discuss chimpanzee pelvic and hip joint arrangements and compare the Homo erectus to them and human and see which is closer. Then we can look an the knee joints of these species to see how they show development for upright posture in Homo but not in Pan (chimp). Here you have a picture I found posted on Neanderthal Song (cannot find original wikipedia file) to which I have added the previous picture of Turkana Boy, so you have a Neanderthal skeleton on the left and a Cro-Magnon (Homo sapeins) skeleton in the middle and Turkana Boy () on the right (roughly scaled to similar overall height):
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. Note that you have not yet replied to my rebuttal of this claim (Message 205):
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. Any reply to that post in the near future? Or do you agree that your point is invalidated by the facts again?
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. Turkana Boy is older than the original Java Man fossil. Remember that Turkana Boy comes from early Homo erectus while still in africa and is 1.5 million years old, while Java Man come from Java after Homo erectus left africa and is 0.7 to 1.0 million years old: Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: Because Java Man is younger than Turkana Boy in the evolutionary lineage of the species, it would likely exhibit more derived features for upright walking, and Turkana Boy represents an outer bound for traits comparable to .
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? Curiously, you are still confusing one artistic rendering with the evidence for evolution provided by the fossils. From the fossils we see homologous features that show a clear linear trend in their development from ancient fossils to modern ones. Where soft tissue is preserved we can sometimes detemine fur or scales or feathers, but nowhere in science are these features assumed without evidence. The fact that Homo sapiens is covered with thin hairs is one of the small mysteries, and I have made my educated guesses regarding when and why this occurred, but I don't claim this opinion as fact, just a concept to be considered. See Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution if you want to see what I think happened. Now if you want to discuss how reconstructions are made and by whom, we can discuss the neanderthal child shown previously, and see if this fits the definition of fraud - intentionally false information used to deceive people for a purpose. Élisabeth Daynès - Wikipedia
quote: I can't read the swedish, but this site has some interesting pictures of the processhttp://www.nrm.se/...cf0748000337/FaktaOmElisabethDaynes.pdf Her website is http://www.daynes.com/en/home.php This is a similar reconstruction to the child that you have seen a frontal picture of, seen from the sidehttp://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/neanderthal-3.php quote: Here is one of the magazines that published pictures of the reconstruction:ARCHAEOLOGY Table of Contents, November/December 2006 - Archaeology Magazine Archive On the Cover: This reconstruction of a Neanderthal child was based on finds in Gibraltar, which is believed to be among the last places where Neanderthals survived. ( Philippe Plailly/eurelios, Reconstruction Atelier Daynes) quote: Doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, nor does the reconstruction form part of the articles inside the magazine. Here is a NEWS article about the reconstruction http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote: What we are looking at is the most accurate information we have from the fossils, and there is no intent to deceive, even though these sources are not evolutionary scientists but media magazines. Your claim that reconstructions are evidence of scientific fraud are not substantiated.
Am I finally getting one of you to admit the dishonesty of your cult in doing any dishonest representation ... You are being dishonest again RAZD. It is just more evidence of the dishonesty of this pseudo science ... 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. The facts still demonstrate that your opinion is false. Getting outraged with the evidence and insulting the messenger/s is just another symptom of cognitive dissonance and the futile attempt to make contradictory evidence go away. Sadly your self-centered childish and biased railing, denigration and continual insult is completely impotent at changing the facts of reality.
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? This is hilarious, after you claim a world wide conspiracy to suppress evidence, you now wonder how scientists cannot contain journalists from publishing whatever media-hype article they want to attract customers. How do YOU prevent the media from spreading falsehoods at every turn -- just look at politics and the outright lies that are "news" and ask this question again with a straight face. LOL. Enjoy.[/hide] Edited by RAZD, : granny - thanks Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : spling Edited by RAZD, : fixed a glitch Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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
Hi Archangel, As you keep adding new material before finishing with the previous examples, this is going to be long. You complained about being ganged up on before, well now you will find that the evidence gangs up on you, demonstrating that your thesis is false. You still have not substantiated any fraud here on any single example brought up thus far as being promulgated BY science - which is your claim. Remember fraud is:
You need to demonstrate (a) that it is a deception, ie not based on reality, (b) deliberately practiced, specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists, and (c) that it results in an unfair or unlawful gain for the perpetrator, and not anyone else.
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. What you have been shown is that the scientists are presenting what they currently consider the best explanation of the evidence. There is no intent to deceive or perpeturate a fraud. Pictures created for and published in the media do NOT constitute intentional deceit by scientists.
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. Curiously, I gave you the information and told you how you could verify the validity of it.
Well I'm going to show that your own posted evidence is proof of universal fraud ... And I'm going to answer you in three parts. PART 1: current cases of asserted fraud Okay let's look at what you provide for the requirements of fraud for just the last few items discussed here, between you and I from Message 271 to your current post (Message 296): A. FIRST CRITERIA: Intentional Deceit; intentionally inaccurate, intentionally false.
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. You are correct that the reconstruction and the picture are based on actual skulls of children, and the actual skulls of the children did not have brow ridges. Are you aware that chimpanzee and gorilla children ALSO have no brow ridges? http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/...s-at-the-zoo/offbeat-news
But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense. Let me get this straight: to meet your standard of not being fraudulent, the reconstructions and pictures need to show false information? Sadly your criteria of "common sense" just means that it does not comply with your uninformed opinion, which as we have seen for many posts now is a poor criteria of truth and reality. Your opinion is completely incompetent at changing reality to comply with it. Instead what we see are people meticulously showing what the evidence shows to the best of their knowledge of reality.
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? Let's look at what the media news article says again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote: No mention of any "empty space" inside the skulls or even that the brain is part of the discussion, rather we see they are talking about the physical evidence - the skull BONES. When you look at the reconstructed skull, where parts are mirrored to fill in missing areas as much as possible with actual evidence, we see that what you probably think is "empty space" is really the areas where the bone is missing. Thus, what you are seeing as missing brain, is really missing bone structure, and certainly not intentional deceit.
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. Curiously, my "common sense bells" go off whenever someone asserts that their uninformed opinion is more valid than evidence, and that actual evidence should be ignored.
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. Access denied and here's another one: http://www.rationalisme.org/photos/neanderthal_skull_big.jpg So you think the rendition of neanderthal children, based on the actual fossil skulls of neanderthal children, are fraudulent because they are not based on neanderthal adult skulls? Is this how you derive "alternative explanations" of the evidence so that it matches your preconceptions? No evidence for the first criteria, so your claim fails. B. SECOND CRITERIA: Deliberately Practiced; specifically by the person accused of the fraud, which in your case is evolution scientists,
We will start with your model of Neanderthal child by your swedish artist: Correct: artist, NOT evolutionary scientist. Thus anything you demonstrate about the artist reconstruction of a neanderthal child, no matter how well informed and based on current knowledge of forensic science to create possible facial appearances from bare skulls, etc, ... you have already conceded that this is not done by any evolutionary biologist scientist.
and the comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing: Correct: a drawing. Generated by a computer program. Lets see what it says in the article again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1469607.stm
quote: Again these images are not made by evolutionary biological scientists. No evidence for the second criteria, so your claim fails. C. THIRD CRITERIA: To Scure Unfair or Unlawful Gain; to profit in some way from the deception, specifically by the party responsible for the fraud.
The point I am making here is that much of this info you posted is created for public consumption by common uninformed layman ... Yes, produced by media people to use in media articles about what science is doing, not produced by scientists. Published in order to sell magazines.
... which never think any deeper than accepting this stuff as evidence ... Curiously, scientists aren't responsible for the average education and level of understanding reality of the general public. Fascinatingly, I agree that the general level of education in science is rather pathetic, especially in public schools science courses that have been hog-tied by religious concerns rather than scientific ones.
... which is founded in truth and fact when it is nothing of the sort. ... A point that you have absolutely failed to show any kind of substantiation for. Once again what we have is your opinion, and your opinion has been demonstrated as an extremely fallible measure of validity.
... They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, ... Yes, media people sell media products. Last time I checked this was a completely legal and fair procedure. People making the reproductions are hired for a purpose and are paid for their effort. The information they use is provided by science, but the scientists don't control the media product or the media outlets in producing and selling their products, especially when it is a legal thing to do, and the productions are fair representations of current knowledge.
...and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. Which, amazingly, it IS, but not because these images and reconstructions make it so, rather it is because it is good science. It is repeatable, it is testable, it is subject to falsification, and it has been validated time after time after time. The fact that you don't accept this as science doesn't mean that the average person has to reject it based on your opinion. If you want to show people that evolution is false you need to provide the evidence that this is so, not just claim that we can't provide information that you don't like. Your claim that evolution is not science needs to be substantiated before you can then use this as proof of fraud. You have failed to show that the makers of the pictures and reconstructions have benefited in an unfair or illegal way. There is no Bernie Madoff here. No evidence for the third criteria, so your claim fails. Conclusion: Does the argument of Archangel meet the criteria for fraud?
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. So you are asserting that people using the most up-to-date and accurate information of reality, the solid and validated evidence of evolution and the natural history from fossils and science in a fair and legal manner to sell magazines is fraud committed by scientists.
quote: You failed to establish a single one of the three criteria that ALL need to be present to constitute fraud. Thus you have failed to support your thesis in the OP in regard to these particular cases. PART 2: previous cases of asserted fraud Now a little history of this thread: You have failed to establish:
Each of these are just assertions, unsupported by evidence of actual fraud, and they have each been responded to, responses that have sometime been ignored by you, such as my posts:
Message 64 regarding your four original claims
Message 96 regarding your claims on Neanderthals Message 124 regarding your claims about engineering and the age of the earth Message 205 regarding your claims about Coelecanths and soft tissue fossils That's all the unsubstantiated claims you have made prior to Message 274, and this doesn't even touch your fantastic claims that using false information from creationist websites and that you consider to be false is any kind of reasonable evidence that what the website says is true. I post this to show that you cannot claim that any of your points have not been addressed, or that you have even "answered the mail" in responding to the refutations to provide a rebuttal. You claim that you are outnumbered - you are, but that just means you need to focus on the topic and make your point with substantiation, not introduce new topics to the discussion and throw around a bad attitude. Most of your posts are wasted bandwidth devoid of information related to YOUR OP topic. PART 3: NEW cases of asserted fraud The ink isn't dry on your undefended previous assertions of fraud, and now you are adding more to the list.
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: Curiously, it appears that the reconstruction does in fact match the fossil, it shows the same degree of brow ridges, consistent with a young neanderthal, the forward jutting jaw, the sloped forehead and the elongated skull typical of neanderthals that the fossil shows. You claim that there are "massive assumptions" but you don't detail a single one. For reference, this is what the article says:
quote: The evidence for the thesis in the article (that neanderthals were violent and sometime attacked other neanderthals) is supported by the fact that this skull has a healed bone scar. This evidence is shown by an unbroken part of the skull, where new bone material was deposited over the cut, which only occurs if the individual is living. There is no assumption here: this is what the evidence says. The picture is just used to show the location and depth of the wound that would result in the bone scar found on the skull.
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." Curiously, the scientist is quoted by the media article as saying that the evidence suggests that violence was a part of neanderthal life. The article discusses the evidence in a clear and straightforward way and concludes
quote: There is no quote of the scientists stating that anything other than the evidence of the wound and the healing of the wound, was fact. No intent to deceive is shown by this new example.
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. Nor can you have it both ways and assert that evolution is trying to deceive ill-informed general public people by providing evidence that shows the most current thinking and demonstrating how it is supported by the facts. Fascinatingly, your repeated assertion of fraud does not make it so.
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. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Why am I not surprised that you just bring up another example of a reconstruction that is based on numerous fossils, not just the famous Lucy, but others from the same time and location: Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote: Other finds that are related to Lucy in include: The well known Hadar knee joint (found before Lucy, NOT part of the Lucy fossil) ... and ...
Page Not Found | Cleveland Museum of Natural History
quote: ... and more ... Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: Putting these many parts all together and mirroring ones missing from one side we obtain this composite Australopithecus afarensis
Notice how few places are not taken by brown (indicates Lucy fossil bones) and white (from other fossils and mirrored parts), and that this shows how complete the composite skeleton is. This then becomes the frame on which a 3-D Full size fleshed out reconstruction is made: Australopithecus afarensis - Wikipedia
quote: Note that this museum display puts the reconstruction with the Laetoli footprints, more fossil evidence of bipedal walking: Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
quote: The gait and length of stride match the fossil reconstruction, the footprint pattern matches the foot bones of A. afarensis.
My only question is, are you kidding me??} Nope. Evidence does not lie. Multiple bits of evidence makes mistaken interpretations less and less likely. You are the one who is kidding yourself if you think this reconstruction is a gross misrepresentation of reality, when the validity is demonstrated by many multiple and overlapping fossils from many individuals that have already been uncovered. More evidence will only serve to "flesh-out" the skeleton further. End Conclusions In the end we can conclude that not a single instance of fraud by evolutionary scientists for the planned purpose of deceiving the public with false information has been demonstrated on this thread. In Message 81 you said (regarding neanderthals)
As is quite obvious to any reasonable observer, I wasn't posting that info for the truth of it in any way,... Too bad. Enjoy Edited by Admin, : Remove off-topic content. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
My summary is supported by evidence presented in Message 64, Message 96, Message 205. Message 288, Message 294 and Message 302. These show, not only that the original posts do not meet the standard of fraud committed by "evolutionists" and that evolution has not benefited from these cases in any way, but that none of the additional "examples" have met the standard of fraud. What we have is the continued scientific process of refining information as more evidence becomes available. In every case - even Piltdown - the original stance was that the evidence could be possible, and that more information should confirm or invalidate this position. In Piltdown and Nebraska Man we see that further evidence showed the original information to be false - Pildown because it was a fraud perpetuated by someone outside of science, Nebraska because it was a pig and not human. In Orce Man we see that the jury is still out, but that evidence seems to point towards the skull fragment being human. In Java Man we see that this was the beginning of finding many similar specimens of this species of hominid, that is also classified in the Homo genus.. In Neanderthals we see that these are also evidence of another hominid in the Homo genus and that they show evidence of "human-like" behavior. The sheer number of fossil specimens for Java Man and Neanderthal are all that are necessary to show that these hominids are not frauds nor hoaxes. These are all discussed in Message 64 and the points made have not been refuted with contradictory evidence, only with denial. Enjoy. ps - Can I ask that the hidden messages be made visible? You can leave a message at the top that they were hidden while the Orce Man debate was focused on. Thanks. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If the topic is going to be closed, then I think it is fair to unhide the topics that were hidden in order to force the focus on Orce Man, especially when the posts are not off topic for the general thread.
It is possible to read the hidden posts, but you don't get to see the images, which are a part of the argument/s. (perhaps Percy could have a "view post" similar to the preview function for hidden posts) Thanks. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024