Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:58 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 134 of 323 (525221)
09-22-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Hello ArchAngel, welcome to EVC.

ArchAngel writes:

It is the origins of life which evolution claims occurred which it bases its whole theory upon.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but you seem to have some ignorance as to what the theory of evolution is and what it says.

Evolution does not speak of the origins of life. ToE would hold true if life spontaneously arose, was brought here from another world/dimension, or was breathed into by God.
I think if you took the time to research what the ToE actually is, we could alleviate a great deal of this "nashing of teeth".

Also, could you please cite a specific reference for your definition of science?

Eagerly awaiting your response and thanks,
Joe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 174 of 323 (525384)
09-23-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-23-2009 12:01 AM


Re: Holy Mary mother of god in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib!
Thank you for your response Archangel.

As you can see clearly from the link you posted that Abiogenesis(Origins of Life) and Evolution are two distinct ideas

Darwin.org writes:

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Life origins studies proceed under a number of hypotheses and remain very tentative during this early period of investigation.


Granted, the website does talk about both, but distinctly says that evolution takes place AFTER life has arose by whatever means like I mentioned before. This is a point that creationist often bring up. It is a strawman arguement and is intended to decieve and confuse. Using it as an arguement is ignorant at best and possibly even fraudulent.

Archangel in Message 145 writes:

The ignorance is yours Joe, in assuming that I don't understand how evolution defines itself just because I reject how it defines itself. I refuse to allow it to speak out of both sides of its mouth as it attempts to control the debate by limiting my ability to ask deeper questions about its philosophy than it would prefer to be asked.

Could you please provide your definition of evolution AND science and site references please. As has been mentioned before to you, this is a science thread. You need provide evidence. We also need to understand what your definition of these things are in order to ensure we are all on the same page. Again, it appears you do not have a clear understanding of what is and is not evolution.

If you like, we could discuss Miller-Urey experiments and the multiple theories for abiogenesis, but that is for another thread. You are supposed to be pointing out frauds that have been used to further evolution. From what I have seen, you have only provide the same arguements that creationist have been using for DECADES and that themselves are fraudulent to use. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, yet you have failed to respond. Please, if you really are an honest Christian, you will look in your heart and see how being honest with yourself and everyone here is the best practice.

Again, eagerly awaiting your response.
Thanks, Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 12:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 175 of 323 (525386)
09-23-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-23-2009 12:01 AM


You are in the minority view even within you own religion
Archangel in Message 72 writes:

Yes it is. Because they both can't be right. If evolution is correct and true, then the bible is a lie, and conversely, if the bible is true, then evolution is the lie. There can be no compromise regarding the opposing foundations upon which each belief system stands.

Archangel in Message 165 writes:

But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about.

I am curious as to whether you believe the Pope and the overwhelming majority of Christians and Christian leaders have been decieved? For they have no problem accepting the sound science of evolution.

If you look at the quotes I posted of yours. You can see that you have a lot to gain from trying to disprove evolution. In your mind, belief in evolution basically damns you to your form of Hell. From the question I asked above....is the Pope damned to Hell?

You have also said that it is evolutionist who have the most to gain from continuing to promote evolution.
Do you realize how famous a biologist would become if he could show that our understanding of evolution is lacking or fundamentally flawed? The 150 years since Darwins Origins many have tried and failed. Does that not speak to you?

Again, Thanks for your time and responses,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 12:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 176 of 323 (525387)
09-23-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Archangel in message 153 writes:

Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science

Do you believe the science of genetics and that DNA is a "True Science"?

Edited by dokukaeru, : Fix broken quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 10:39 AM dokukaeru has responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 183 of 323 (525414)
09-23-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Archangel
09-23-2009 9:27 AM


Hello Archangel,

Neither of these show any evidence of fraud.

Archangel writes:

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


You are assuming that because scientist were mistaken about it being extinct, that they were also wrong about its dating.....not only that they were wrong but you are assuming that the are trying to decieve people. There is no deception, only what has been pointed out repeatedly to you: Science is dynamic and when new evidences is presented, theories are modified or discarded.

Are you denying that this is a transitional species or denying the fossil age?
If someone showed you a fossil of a horseshoe crab, does that mean it cannot possibly be alive today without some sort of fraud?

Archangel writes:

So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community?

Again, this shows NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD .
This is not the only example of soft tissue found from millions of years ago.

Archangel writes:

based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word


Can you show me a video of decomposition under the exact conditions of burial of this fossil. Chances are it was an environment devoid of oxygen.

Key point is neither of these are actual evidence of deception, please try again

Still waiting for your response to my previous questions, especially definitions of (true) science and evolution

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 9:27 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 186 of 323 (525421)
09-23-2009 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Archangel
09-23-2009 10:05 AM


Archangel writes:

What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY

Again THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF FRAUD ON THE PART OF Scientist This was caught by the peer review process

National geographic and many scientist were duped themselves. They corrected their mistakes after Xu Xing pointed out by sheer coincidence that it was a composite fossil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/.../dinofooltrans.shtml

NARRATOR: By an almost unbelievable coincidence Xu Xing had found not another Archaeoraptor, but the counterslab of the National Geographic specimen. Yet as he moved up from the tail to the pelvic region there was something very mysterious. The pelvises of the two fossils should have been identical, but they were completely different. The Archaeoraptor's was small and damaged. The new fossil's was large and intact and showed two hind legs which were very different from the Archaeoraptor's. It made no sense. He compared them again. The photos of the Archaeoraptor showed a clear fracture between the tail and the pelvis which didn't exist on the new fossil. As Xu Xing studied the two specimens an awful realisation dawned on him. There could only be one explanation. Somebody had glued a different head and upper body onto the tail of the National Geographic specimen. It was a fake. Xu Xing emailed National Geographic in Washington.

XU XING: I'm very sorry to tell you that I am now 100% certain that the fossil you have is a composite made from more than one specimen.

NARRATOR: The news of the fake came as a thunderbolt to National Geographic. Could it be that the most popular educational magazine in the world had got its facts wrong? The magazine had never faced such humiliation in its 113 year history.

BILL ALLEN: My first reaction was not necessarily disbelief, but... Wait a minute. It was disbelief, it was total disbelief.

LEWIS SIMONS: Allen was beside himself. He was furious, he was livid, he was hurt, he was angry in ways that, that are almost unimaginable because it wasn't as though they just buried this somewhere in the back of the publication. It was a big, important story and now he's been told you've been had.

I am still waiting for your definitions please

Thanks
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 10:05 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 187 of 323 (525422)
09-23-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Archangel
09-23-2009 10:39 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Archangel writes:

I have just been duped into ignorantly walking into. I welcome it! Show me how sharing 98% of our DNA with chimps means we must be genetically related to them through common descent, and then prove it. And of course according to this link we are also related to the mouse, right? WRONG!!!

Wrong trap. Have you ever heard of an Endogenic Retro Virus (ERV)?
I will give you some time to research that and me some time to actually accomplish something at work

I am still waiting for your definitions please

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 10:39 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 201 of 323 (525507)
09-23-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Archangel
09-23-2009 3:11 PM


Archangel, you may want to READ THE POST ABOVE that lithodid-man eloquently wrote a half hour before you posted this nonsense
It is Message 195 to be specific.

It is becoming very clear to everyone here you do not intend to have an adult discussion or to respond to the dozens of rebuttals for the meager, outdated evidence you present

I beg you to be honest with yourself and everyone here.
Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 3:11 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 227 of 323 (525687)
09-24-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
09-24-2009 8:03 AM


I think this is an important point to make:
Even though NG is not a peer reviewed article, the Archaerapter composite was discovered as a fake through somewhat of a peer review process. Immediately after the NG press conference, Xu Xing began looking for another fossil to compare. When he found one and realized that the NG one was a composite, he notified NG. They were embarrased and angry, but they published a formal retraction and apology.
This is NEVER the case for creationists and their websites/articles. They continuely use false evidence even when they are notified of such.
That demonstrates fraud beyond any reasonable doubt IMHO.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 09-24-2009 8:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coragyps, posted 09-24-2009 9:31 AM dokukaeru has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 255 of 323 (525912)
09-25-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Archangel
09-24-2009 10:05 PM


Hello Archangel!
Glad to see you are still posting.

Do you consider yourself an honest person?

If you do, how can you post things like this:

Archangel writes:

Bull pucky! I fared just fine even though I was outnumbered at better than 10 to 1. And here's my empirical evidence of that!
.....
But tell me, what empirical evidence did any of you present? Absolutely none. All you ever offer are subjective interpretations of observations which are based on massive assumptions founded in preconceived conclusions which is all that your pseudo science is based upon. So don't be claiming any undeserved victories here my lost and deluded friend. Especially since all you did was sit back and heckle throughout this fiasco, as most of your buddies did.

You realize that this thread will be viewable for a very long time. You can come back here years later and review it.
You realize God can see in your heart and in this thread.

You have been presented with massive amounts of rebuttals containing all sorts of honest evidence, yet you continue to assert the opposite.
I again beg you to look over this and be truely honest with yourself. Answer those rebuttals, post your definitions of science and evolution

I know that some members have treated you somewhat harshly, but you must understand that there are probably dozens of identical topics like this one on this forum and elsewhere. These members have become jaded and callous to your arguements because they have heard every claim you have made, rebutted them only to have the participant do exactly what you have done. Sometimes when I am bored, I go through and look at some of the older topics to see what kind of stuff was discussed there.I have tried not to do this to you. I am fairly new to discussions/debates like this one, but i am quickly realizing what the more experienced members have already learned.

If you feel you are being outnumbered, it is possible to have this discussion with only 1 or 2 people to respond to. I would really like to see you stick around

One last thing: Is your posting here on EVC in any way related to a class you may be taking?

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 10:05 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Huntard, posted 09-25-2009 10:14 AM dokukaeru has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 263 of 323 (525945)
09-25-2009 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:32 AM


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

So your claim of victory in closing this thread will NOT stand as long as I'm around.


I really don't think anyone here besides yourself has claimed victory.
I think most people here would count it as a minor victory if you would go through and just address some of the evidence thats already been presented.
Message 255
Doku writes:

I know that some members have treated you somewhat harshly, but you must understand that there are probably dozens of identical topics like this one on this forum and elsewhere. These members have become jaded and callous to your arguements because they have heard every claim you have made, rebutted them only to have the participant do exactly what you have done. Sometimes when I am bored, I go through and look at some of the older topics to see what kind of stuff was discussed there.I have tried not to do this to you. I am fairly new to discussions/debates like this one, but i am quickly realizing what the more experienced members have already learned.
If you feel you are being outnumbered, it is possible to have this discussion with only 1 or 2 people to respond to. I would really like to see you stick around

One last thing: Is your posting here on EVC in any way related to a class you may be taking?


Thanks,
Joe
This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 267 of 323 (526002)
09-25-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Archangel
09-25-2009 11:57 AM


Re: In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
Hello Archangel!
Archangel writes:

Yet when I finally do respond to his alleged evidence and rebut it, it gets placed in this peek place which I don't understand at all what that means.

Your response was boiled down to "Nu-uh" without actually examining the evidence or discussing it. Its pretty much what you have continued to do for 40ish post Archangel.
In Message 64
RAZD gives you the definition of fraud and hoax and then asks if agree with those definitions. He then goes on to show you that despite of alleged hoaxes, evolution is still a valid science.
This topic is supposed to be you showing hoax after hoax after hoax and how they have been used to further a supposed world wide scientific conspiracy to cover up the truth that evolution has more holes than swiss cheese. What you have successfully demonstrated is the only hoaxes and frauds are old creationist talking points that themsvelves are fraudlent beyond any reasonable doubt.
You really should try and be honest here and address what someone says for instance:

quote:
Yes I agree those definitions of hoax and fraud are correct. Here is an example from a high school science book of piltdown man being used to further evolution...yada yada yada

Instead we see something like:
Coyote writes:

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

We cannot tell if you really believe the sky is pink or if you are trying to decieve us that the sky is pink.

Thanks,
Joe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 11:57 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019