Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 6:34 AM
22 online now:
(22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 6 of 323 (524633)
09-17-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Orce Man
Hi Archangel,

major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved

Wow. Sounds heavy. Are you really sure that the following is an example of that though?

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

For starters, the comment "Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago" implies a scientific consensus which never existed. That was the overblown claim of the discoverers. It has always been disputed. This fossil has never enjoyed any sort of consensus on its origin and still doesn't. Can you show conclusively that it came from a donkey? No. Neither can any one else conclusively prove it to be human.

Also, I'm not sure where the fraud is supposed to come in. Fraud, afetr all, is deliberate deception, a con trick. I don't see that here. All I see is a rather over-excited discoverer, who presumably believes that he has found a human fossil (the area is known for human artefacts after all). Others believe he is mistaken and that the fossil is equine. So where's the fraud? Who has deliberately decieved anyone and what is your evidence of this?

What really surprises me though is the idea that this fossil is some sort of poster-fossil for evolution. It's not. Hardly anyone has heard of this fossil. Beyond the creationist community (and those of us who debate you),palaeontologists and Orce locals and I doubt one person in a hundred thousand has heard of this. There are only 130 000 results on Google for Orce Man; that's pitifully few. Most of the results are creo/evo sites.

Do you seriously believe that anyone has chosen to believe in evolution because of this fossil? Can you point to a single person anywhere citing Orce Man as primary evidence for evolution? I doubt it very much.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 20 of 323 (524663)
09-18-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


So your argument is actually that the media is piss-poor and that science reporting is often very bad. No argument there. I fail to see though;

a) How this is the fault of the actual scientists and

b) How this constitutes fraud.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 120 of 323 (525116)
09-21-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Hi Angel,

Technically I am not a creationist.

You're not a creationist. Right. But you believe that God created the world, life and specifically, "big monkeys".

You also reject the Theory of Evolution, believing instead that God created everything. But you're not a creationist.

You cite links to "creationist.org". But you're not a creationist.

Also, you say things like this;

Archangel writes:

And then to add insult to injury, it is you very deceived and gullible victims of this pseudo scientific lie who condescendingly and sanctimoniously talk down to we creationists as if we are morons.

Heaven forbid!

And you say this;

Archangel writes:

What we creationists are waiting for

and this;

Archangel writes:

Also, you know that creationists interpret the same evidence you observe differently because we don't accept the old earth standard of life evolving over millions or hundreds of millions of years as evolutionists do.

But you're not a creationist, no sir. Not technically...

Bullshit.

It amazes me that you have the temerity to complain about others accusing you of dishonesty and inconsistency when you come out with crap like this. To do this whilst simultaneously avoiding your own topic, belittling others and bragging about your giant brain is shockingly poor, even for a creationist. Are you thirteen years old or something Angel? Please quit it.

Of course, if you want to have a proper grown-up discussion, you could try and address the question that you have repeatedly been asked; what evidence do you have that Orce Man (the hominin/donkey that you haven't mentioned since message 1) is cited as evidence for the Theory of Evolution?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 194 of 323 (525477)
09-23-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:57 PM


Re: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Hey Angel,

And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines.

Dude, you have had numerous responses to your OP. Why not address one of them?

Why not answer my question from waaaaaay back on page one.

What evidence do you have that Orce Man is cited as evidence of evolution?

It's pretty simple, but so far you have completely ignored your own topic. Pretty shabby.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:57 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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


Still Dodging
Hi Angel,

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

3) Why do evolutionists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue?

You know what hypocrisy is right?

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

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


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

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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


Archangel Addresses Own Topic Shocker!
Hi Angel,

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

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

Huh?!

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps that's because it's not?

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

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

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

Please demonstrate;

a) That the evidence was manufactured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mutate and Survive


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

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 235 of 323 (525807)
09-24-2009 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Archangel
09-24-2009 4:23 PM


Still Not Playing Ball!
Hi Angel,

You all continue to reject everything I say with insulting retorts and ignore all of the arguments I have forwarded as if I haven't supported anything I have claimed, it doesn't mean that you are right or that I haven't supported my claims.

As far as I can tell, you have not substantiated your claims. All you have done with regards to Orce Man is claim that a) it is a fraud and b) it has contributed to the widespread acceptance of evolution. The fact that you have done so repeatedly does not mean that you have backed those claims up.

What I have been asking is for you to substantiate those claims.

So you think that Orce Man was a fraud. okay. Perhaps it is and perhaps it ain't. What you are being asked to do is substantiate that claim.

Who committed fraud? How? In exactly what way were they dishonest? How can you demonstrate this to be the case? How can you verify that they were deliberately dishonest as opposed to simply being mistaken?

You also think that Orce man has contributed to the widespread acceptance of evolution. Okay. Maybe it has and maybe it hasn't. What I have been asking you to do is to substantiate that claim.

How has it furthered acceptance of evolution? How do you know this is true? Where is the evidence that this has been cited as prima facie evidence of evolution? Can you point to a single person who cites Orce Man as their reason for believing in the Theory of Evolution?

I'm not asking you these questions just to annoy or trap you. I'm trying to engage you in... y'know... debate. This being a debate site an' all.

Now either you are willing to substantiate your claims, or you are not. If so, please do so. If not, then merely repeating the same claims, over and over, without ever substantiating them, isn't going to cut it here. No-one is going just take your word for it. You have to back up what you say with evidence.

The time to either put up or shut up has come and gone Angel.

What's it going to be then eh?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 8:18 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 242 of 323 (525826)
09-24-2009 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Archangel
09-24-2009 8:18 PM


Re: Still Not Playing Ball!
Hi Angel,

Still blaming everyone else for your problems eh? Classy.

You see Granny, this question which has been repeated ad infinitum by you and your cohorts...

I have cohorts! Great! I've always wanted cohorts! Next I'm gonna get me some goons. Cohorts are all very well but they don't have the personal touch you only get with hired goons...

...is a perfect example of your blatant dishonesty and disingenuous debating style.

Thanks. Right back atcha big fella.

It also reveals your sides cockiness and sanctimonious belief that you can con us by insisting that I answer a question you know cannot be answered from any source on the web since you have done the required searches yourself...

Actually I haven't. I really haven't. I'm just going on a hunch.

...it has been erased from the on line journals, so the info no longer exists on the net. Which just confirms the power of this cult.

I'm a cultist too now? Great! First the cultist cohorts, then the goons, then... henchmen.

Remember, tinfoil hat shiny-side-out.

Of course I posted the excuses T.O. offers regarding Orce Man, and am still told that I must defend that evidence of evolutions refusal to actually admit the misrepresentation you all have admitted to right here on this thread since you're demanding evidence that evo supported it as valid.

In all seriousness Angel, I'm only asking that you back up your claims. I think I've been pretty patient with you in doing so. Never mind though, since I think I have my answers;

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

No you don't.

Do you have any evidence that Orce Man was a deliberate fraud?

No you don't.

Why not?

Because everybody else is out to get you. Apparently.

Well, boo-hoo.

Any time you want to actually substantiate your claims kid, I'll be here. Until then, you are welcome to continue your descent into conspiracy theory lunacy. Keep it up. You are doing a far better job of making creationism look stupid than I ever could.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 8:18 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 247 of 323 (525840)
09-24-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dr Adequate
09-24-2009 10:16 PM


Re: How Evolutionists Control The Internet
Treacherous dog! No minions for you. You have said too much!

A team of crack evil-utionist ninjas, led by Grand Dragon Richard Dawkins himself, has been dispatched to your location.

Your bones will be used to create fraudulent hominid fossils.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2009 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Briterican, posted 09-24-2009 11:29 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 250 of 323 (525852)
09-24-2009 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Briterican
09-24-2009 11:29 PM


Re: How Evolutionists Control The Internet
Hey Briterican!

The sad thing about this thread is that Archangel's behaviour is not unusual. I've seen it before in other creationists. The scam is to post something contentious, brag and be rude to everyone, ignore any posts that address the topic in a reasoned or polite fashion and reply only to the jokes, snipes and put-downs.

That way, the creo can go "See? They're picking on me! The evil-utionists are mean! Thus, I declare creation true, this debate over and myself the winner."

Now, to you and me, that may seem like a poor substitute for reasoned debate...

Now, off to the MMORGs and role playing discussion. thread with you, to tell everyone how bloody brilliant my D&D campaign is!

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Briterican, posted 09-24-2009 11:29 PM Briterican has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 283 of 323 (526094)
09-25-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Archangel
09-25-2009 8:20 PM


Just Because You're Paranoid...
Hi Angel,

It seems that the evil-utionsist conspiracy hasn't wiped you from the internet yet.

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?

You are wrong. Again.

quote:
Lowenstein J. M., Borja C. and GarcĂ­a-Olivares E.

A skull fragment (VM-0) from Orce, Granada, Spain, dated palaeomagnetically at about 1.6 Myr, is thought by some palaeontologist to be hominid, while others maintain it is equid. If hominid, it would be by far the oldest evidence ofHomo in Europe. Immunological studies on residual albumin in this fossil were carried out independently, and with different immunological methods, at the University of California, San Francisco (radioimmunoassay), and at the University of Granada, Spain (enzyme immunoassay). Other fossils attributed to hominids also studied wereVM1960 from Venta Micena, andCV-1 from Cueva Victoria, Murcia, Spain. Undisputed equid and bovid fossils from the same deposits and dated to a similar period as the Orce skull were also analyzed. Our results showed that species-specific albumin can be detected in 1.6 Myr-old hominid, equid and bovid fossils. The albumin from the Orce skull fragment and fromVM-1960 was immunologically closer to human albumin. These findings support the contention that theVM-0 andVM-1960 are hominid and that members of the genusHomo occupied southern Spain 1.6 Myr ago.


Source

quote:
Immunospecificity of albumin detected in 1.6 million-year-old fossils from Venta Micena in Orce, Granada, Spain

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.


Source

Now these are just abstracts. You have to pay for the full articles. Nonetheless, they do exist. Your paranoid delusions are just that; delusions.

I'll tell you what, you waste 3 hours finding anything on line which supports it as a valid discovery

They took me about five minutes to find. Perhaps you are on dial-up. Really bad dial-up.

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?

It hasn't. You just made that up. Hope this clears up your obvious confusion there.

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.

Or to put it another way, you heard the claim, couldn't back it up with any of that pesky evidence stuff, but decided to believe it anyway.

Tell me Angel, if you can't find any evidence online or anywhere else that Orce Man is a donkey bone, why are you so insistent that it is a donkey bone?

Myself, I don't know whether it is a human bone or an equine one. I just don't know. I don't have enough information. You on the other hand, seem to believe that your contention that Orce Man is equine is beyond question. You seem to believe this despite clearly admitting that you have no evidence for it. That is no way to go about approaching knowledge and it is no way to conduct oneself in debate.

You then go even further and make serious accusations against the professionals involved in this find. You claim that it was a fraud. Of course, you have no evidence of this - you have admitted as much - but you still see fit to throw out these accusations.

You say Orce Man is a donkey - you can't even show us evidence that it was equine.

You say that Orce Man was a fraud - you can't provide evidence of that either.

You say that Orce Man has been used to promote evolution and yet you freely admit that it is barely even present on the web.

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.

Okay... So there is little info on Orce Man on the web. Conclusion: the evil evo's deleted it!

There is also little info on the web about my theory that Jesus was in fact a fifty foot tall purple rabbit from the planet Susan. Conclusion: Evil anti-Jesus/rabbit conspirators have hidden the evidence!

Here's an alternative conclusion: Orce Man is just really, really obscure. There's little material out there because no-one gives a shit.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. On the other hand, sometimes, that's exactly what it means. They're not out to get you Angel. You're just being paranoid. Maybe you should get out a bit more.

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.

You brought it up Angel. This is your topic. You brought up Orce Man. You made a series of claims about this fossil which you now find yourself unable to back up. This is no-one's fault but your own. No-one forced you to base your argument on unsubstantiated points - you did that all on your own.

Now grow up and stop blaming everyone else for your own bad arguments.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 8:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 285 of 323 (526097)
09-25-2009 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


This just gets funnier.

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

So you claim that Orce Man is used to promote evolution.

You also claim that it is absent from evolutionist records.

Huh? Tell me, are you ever troubled by cognitive dissonance?

which evolution holds up and just expects us to accept like ignorant sheeple.

Excuse me, but I believe it is Christianity that refers to its faithful as a "flock".

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.

No they don't. Generally, if you make a claim, you are the one who is expected to provide evidence for that claim. If I claim that Jesus was a giant purple rabbit, it's up to me to prove that. It's not anybody else's responsibility to disprove it, at least not until I have provided some kind of pro-Jesus-bunny evidence for them to refute.

You have provided us with nothing to refute, just an empty claim, a lot of hot air and a very bad attitude.

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.

No, it means that scientific literature aimed at the non-specialist tends to concentrate on what can be proved to a reasonable degree of confidence. They do not concentrate on finds which can't be verified. This does not prove a fraud.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 293 of 323 (526248)
09-26-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Archangel
09-26-2009 8:54 AM


Creationist Wrong Again and Again and...
Hi Angel,

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.

This is precisely what I have been telling you since Message 6, where I said this;

Granny writes:

This fossil has never enjoyed any sort of consensus on its origin and still doesn't. Can you show conclusively that it came from a donkey? No. Neither can any one else conclusively prove it to be human.

Science is not about absolutes, it is tentative. In this case, sensible folks are avoiding coming down on one side or the other with any great certainty. This is not a failing. It is an important part of the scientific method.

You on the other hand, seem to have been absolutely certain throughout this thread that the Orce "cookie" is from an equine. Not only that, but you know what kind of equine; a donkey. It seems to me that you have completely convinced yourself of this because it chimed with your religious notions.

No-one is telling you that Orce Man is absolutely definitely human. What we are telling you is that it is not definitely equine either and that there is evidence out there which is consistent with both interpretations. At this remove, it is not possible to draw any reliable conclusions, so we are not doing so.

Are you now ready to admit that you have no serious evidence that Orce Man is in fact a donkey? Will you admit that you as just as much in the dark on this as everyone else?

Will you admit that you have no evidence of fraud? That you rushed to judgement on this issue?

Perhaps you will show the maturity and strength of character to admit your error. I doubt it, but you never know...

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?

It says human, not modern human. Human is a Genus, not a species. It is referring to the genus Homo, of which we, H. erectus and several other human lineage fossils are a part.

There is no contradiction here, you have simply misunderstood the terminology.

Or is this just more misrepresentation which attempts to affiliate an allegedly, yet to date unproven transitional fossil with modern humans.

The only misrepresentation here is yours. You have made many claims which you are unable to back up. You admit that you have next to no info on Orce Man, yet you speak as if you had absolute knowledge that it was a fraud. That is what I call a misrepresentation.

The rest of your post strikes me as irrelevant to the question of whether or not hominid fossils are fraudulent or not. You are welcome to have your doubts about human evolution, but as it goes, your incredulity is not a matter of the slightest relevance.

Either show me the evidence of fraud or withdraw.

Oh and by the way, this picture;


Click to enlarge

is not by a palaeontologist. It's by this guy. He is not a palaeontologist, other than having an amateur interest. This was not not difficult to find out. You might like to try doing your own research next time you're thinking of casting wild accusations around at random.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Archangel, posted 09-26-2009 8:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 310 of 323 (526758)
09-29-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel
09-29-2009 8:26 AM


Still Waiting for Fraud Evidence...
Hi Angel,

I have said all I have to say on Orce Man.

You then proceed to talk about 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.

That sounds a lot like an admission that Orce Man is not used as an argument for evolution. So your argument that it was used to promote evolution is false then?

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

Please try to understand before one of us dies of old age.

No-one on this board is saying that Orce Man is definitely human. You seem to keep wanting to pigeon hole us into this position, but it is not my position. No-one here has claimed to know either way about this fossil except you.

You claim that it is definitely a donkey skull. How do you know?

You don't. You admit that you have not examined the science. You have not read the papers on it. The only reason you have to suppose the Orce fossil is a donkey is because a creationist site told you so and you simply believed it, without any attempt to examine the evidence.

Now for the Nth time, I do not have an opinion either way on Orce Man. It may be human, it may be donkey. From what little I have seen of the evidence, there is no way to be sure. Anyone making definitive statements about this fossil is wrong to do so.

Now if you were to criticise the original team leader who announced Orce Man as having been guilty of over-egging his discovery, fine. From the sound of it, you could make a case for that. He seems to have been premature in claiming that his find was human. This in itself though, does not constitute fraud. For that, you need to demonstrate both knowledge that the claim was false and deliberate intention to deceive. You have shown neither, nor have you shown any interest in doing so.

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?

They are trying to build up a body of evidence. Sadly, evidence is rarely conclusive. If you have a more effective testing procedure in mind, one which might provide more conclusive results, please do share it with us. I'm sure that the worldwide palaeontological community would be grateful for your insight.

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.

I thought you said "if evolution science had any confidence in it as true evidence, it would be front and center in their lineup of transitional fossil evidence"? You can't have it both ways Angel. Was Orce Man used as evidence of evolution or not? If so, where, when and by whom? That is the relevant issue for this debate. It is the issue you chose and now seem unwilling or unable to defend.

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?

If this were genuinely your complaint I would sympathise. Peer review is an imperfect system, leaving much to be desired. Science reporting is shockingly bad and the problem of retractions and negative findings going under-reported is a serious one. This however is not your real complaint.

Your complaint is that a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated, but you simply can't be bothered to argue your own case. Demonstrate fraud or admit that your claim is unfounded Angel.

And one more thing, how long must I respond to issues just because evolutionists will continue to reject anything I say?

Gee, I dunno. Until you back up your claims or withdraw them I suspect.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Archangel, posted 09-29-2009 8:26 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 320 of 323 (529232)
10-08-2009 5:01 PM


Fraudulent? My Orce...
So what is the "Orce cookie"? I dunno. Maybe it's a human, maybe it's an equine. I just don't have enough info to form any kind of meaningful opinion on the matter.

Archangel on the other hand, seems to know with absolute certainty that it is a horse. Not only that, he specifically knows that it is a donkey and not any other kind of horse. How does he know and what makes him so sure?

The donkey claim seems to originate with Duane Gish. A cynic might suggest that Gish, ever the showman, used this slight exaggeration for effect, since "donkey" is a funny word (K's are funny) and because suggesting that evo's can't tell a human from a donkey sounds that little bit more damning. In fact,since I am a cynic, that's what I am suggesting; Gish just made it up as a rhetorical flourish (AKA: lie).

What I find odd is Archangel's weird insistence that it is definitely a donkey. He seems to be completely certain of this, even to the point of accusing others of being part of a conspiracy to delete the truth from the face of the internet. It's almost as though Archangel attaches the same authority to any creationist claim as he ascribes to the Bible. His certainty makes me wonder if he regards biblical infallibility as extending to the whole of creationist output.

In summary, no-one gives a shit about Orce Man other than creationists. Almost no-one has heard of it. A Google-search for the term only throws up about seven thousand results. That's very low. The first page is predominantly creationist pages. Of the other three, two are from TalkOrigins, debunking the creationists.

The fact that only creationists seem to care about Orce Man fatally undermines Archangel's claim that it has been used to promote the ToE. Nor is there any evidence of fraud here, other than the silly and fraudulent creationist web page that is cited in the OP. Sadly, it is a fraud that Archangel seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019