Could you explain how, for example, Nebraska Man has contributed to the public acceptance of evolution?
Have you ever, ever, ever, in your entire life, heard anyone putting forward Nebraska Man as evidence for evolution? Of course you haven't. The only time we hear about Nebraska Man is when creationists dishonestly claim it as an example of evolutionary fraud like the contemptible liars that they are.
The only fraud going in in that case is that creationists are lying, and their intent in doing so is to contribute to public rejection of evolution.
Similarly with "Orce man". No fraud was ever perpetrated except by creationists lying about it in order to contribute to public rejection of evolution.
We have no way of knowing who was behind the "Piltdown Man" fraud, but certainly the only fraud going on today is, once again, creationists whining on about it in order contribute to public rejection of evolution.
Java Man and Neanderthals are of course perfectly genuine, and by screaming and raving about imaginary "fraud" the creationist liars show up the profound weakness of their case. Is it really impossible to argue for creationism and tell the truth? Apparently so.
Finally, let me add that if making a mistake about hominid fossils was the same as committing fraud, you'd be in jail right now. At least scientists try to be right. You, on the other hand, spewed out this dishonest crap without taking five seconds to think about, or research, the question of whether you were telling the truth.
Are you deliberately ignoring the point I am making here? Have you no appreciation for proper time placement or context? Now go back to the 40 years after the Scopes Trial but before the 1952 acknowledgement of the fraud involved and every historical reference which the world heard and saw regarding this fraudulent evidence was from the perspective that it was first offered during the scopes trial ...
You are making stuff up again. Of course Piltdown Man was not presented "from the perspective that it was first offered during the Scopes trial", because it wasn't "first offered during the Scopes trial".
But you apologists and defenders of evolution on this very site are evidence of the effectiveness of that decades long lie and propaganda which was allowed to persist unchecked for those decades as you have been raised to believe this lie and misinterpretation of the bones of long dead animals.
Uh, no. I for example, first heard of Piltdown Man as a fake. What with me being born in 1974. My acceptance of evolution is therefore not even tangentially a result of the Piltdown hoax.
It is strange that you should keep railing about lies and frauds, when you yourself can't seem to get through a single paragraph without saying something blatantly and stupidly untrue.
In your OP you correctly admitted that "much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us". It does indeed, though the word "now" is superfluous, since it always did. This is why they were always classified in genus Homo.
But in your latest rant, you're calling them APEs (capital letters yours), denying that there is any evidence that they have any connection to humanity, and writing that there is "no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes".
Which of these positions do you believe to be true? You must think that at least one of the statements you've made is a lie. Which?
You have misunderstood what Archangel is trying to be wrong about. Having (correctly) admitted in his OP that Neanderthals belonged to the same genus as us, he's now denying that they belonged to the same genus as each other!
In your first post on this thread, you admitted that Neanderthals were "just as human as us".
Today, you tell us that they were: "a big monkey which was created by God with all of the other lower animals ... lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist".
I should like you to tell me which of these two contradictory positions you think is true.
You whine that:
You must stop expecting me to explain my worldview according to your evolutionist definitions of life and how it came to be as it is.
But no-one is asking you to do that. What we want to hear from you is the creationist "worldview". Are Neanderthals "just as human as us", as you wrote, or are they just "a big monkey which was created by God", as you wrote?
SORRY my friend, but you are deluded if you actually believe that humans are related to Apes in any real or specific way at all. I reject that definition of who and what we are and refuse to apply it to my human origins no matter how many times you attempt to affiliate me with being related to lower animals.
So let me repeat it for you. I am above all other primates/lower animals on Earth. Maybe the reason why you and I can't relate to each other or understand each other is because "YOU" are directly related to apes, but I am NOT!!! I am a human being who was created in my father Gods image, by Him, for fellowship, and I am NOT the result of evolution from lower animals. So stop attempting to define me with your degrading and offensive perspective that human beings are just more complex animals, because I am much more than that with my personal awareness of MY Heavenly Father/Creator/God as well as my ability and desire to fellowship with Him. Degrade yourself and your proper place in this world if you like, but don't place me in that degrading box with you.
As we are posting in the "Is It Science?" forum, perhaps this would be a good time for me to point out that your religious beliefs are not science.
Also, they're frickin' retarded. But that would be a topic for another thread.
On this thread, you are meant to pretend that your halfwitted dogma has a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of scientific justification. I realize that this is very, very, very difficult, what with you being completely wrong in your beliefs and disgustingly ignorant about every pertinent scientific fact, but you could at least try, or why are you here?
The trick is to find unbiased sources which are interested in pure science no matter where it takes them. Although Garrett is such a researcher, he finds himself disregarded by the scientific community ...
This is a peculiar falsehood for you to come out with, since we know, and you know we know, that the only reason you've heard of Gargett, whose name you have not yet learned to spell, is that you found his views expounded and discussed in a scientific paper.
Since I have clearly proven my point above, and you have actually agreed with me that you have no hope of currently proving anything about our origins which you claim are true, you have by default admitted that everything you believe regarding this theory of evolution is based on nothing more than faith in the men who's unprovable/untestable/unverifiable research you rely on.
As we can all read what he wrote, we know that you are not telling the truth.
Again I ask you --- whom do you hope to deceive?
It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon.
What nonsense you talk.
What off-topic nonsense you talk.
If you wish to be wrong about this, you should start a new thread.
... and you write 3 posts which contribute nothing more to the debate than calling me a liar again.
It is very difficult to debate with you without pointing out that some of the things you say are false. Most of them, in fact.
As to whether you are a "liar", I am willing to entertain the conjecture that when you write this nonsense you actually believe it yourself. Stranger things have happened. I once met a guy who thought he was Jesus.
But even if you are successfully deceiving yourself, I would advise you that you stand no chance of deceiving anyone else.
Yip, this is why debates on here never really seem to get off the ground. They don't even want to admit that they have a worldview which they think is supported by the evidence. This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins. Ah well, I'm just hoping that one day i will come across someone who wants to discuss, which worldview is supported by the evidence.
Are you two having a competition to see who can be the most flagrantly wrong?
Evolution is supported by the evidence, as has been proved by a century and a half of biological research, and of course anyone here will discuss this proposition with you.