Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8998 total)
50 online now:
DrJones*, Pollux (2 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,570 Year: 11,318/23,288 Month: 570/1,763 Week: 209/328 Day: 36/88 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 29 of 323 (524693)
09-18-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM

It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.

oh noes! the press reports scientific news badly! And the public believe them sometimes!

Wait Archangel - would you say that deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud?

The reason I ask is because of your stubborn refusal to accept your glaring mistakes.

1 of your 5 examples was a hoax, and that was discovered by the scientific community - the retraction is blatantly ignored by creationists.

If anything, therefore, the fraud is entirely on the side of the creationists who are misrepresenting known facts, lying about others, making up even more and refusing to correct these mistakes - the refusal could be taken, being deliberate, as fraud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 38 of 323 (524736)
09-18-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Huntard
09-18-2009 10:12 AM

huntard writes:

Thanks for clearing that up Archy, you just called a skull from a Homo Sapiens (Skull N) an "apeskull". So, you agree that modern humans are apes. Thanks, that should take some confusion away.

Not only that, H, but he seems to be under the impression that

* humans aren't apes (we can perhaps forgive this one)
* that skulls were all that were found, apparently magically placed on a pillar complete with identifying tags - namely that the skulls shown are all the evidence there is.

That's mighty thick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 09-18-2009 10:12 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 173 of 323 (525355)
09-23-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM

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


You know, I don't have to do anything else other than sit back and laugh until my sides hurt, because you're the source of your own undoing.

I quote YOU back at yourself as an answer to that dreck.

Archangel writes:

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...

Now go away until you have something useful to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 214 of 323 (525635)
09-24-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Archangel
09-24-2009 1:13 AM


Here's another mention of it by T.O.


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.

Are you mentally deficient? I'm not trying to be rude, but the TO page you linked to makes it quite clear that there is a lot of disagreement about the fossil and the only reason it is "so important" is because of it's location in time.

Disagreement and over-enthusiastic pronouncements are not fraud.

I can't say this enough, and I'm really surprised you don't understand this crucial difference.

Fraud would be deliberate concoction of false "evidence" with an intent to deceive.

this is a real find, with an ambiguous nature which the scientists themselves noted and obviously did their best to damp down the excitement over their mistake (and yes, there was a mistake in jumping the gun) and have done and are now doing their best to verify it's nature, NOT it's authenticity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 1:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 217 of 323 (525643)
09-24-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Arphy
09-24-2009 4:23 AM

but it's not FRAUD
arphy writes:

even so the story and hype has contributed to evolution's public acceptance.

Well the idea of ape-men from the mists of time, growing strong, tall, proud, intelligent, taking mankind up from an animal past to an uncertain, noble future...sure, who wouldn't love that story?

Do you have a problem with stories of greatness, of stories with ignoble actions, of murder, theft, war...and love and turmoil?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you thought that the bible was a bad thing...

Same with Neanderthal man. The image of an ape-ish looking person i would say is still in the public mind.


Despite scientists refuting this image of neanderthals this has not had a big impact on the public impression of neanderthals.

Is it fraud? NO

Is it the fault of the scientists? NO

You've even agreed they tried to fix the image...of something that still isn't a fraud.

As such even when it is not direct fraud,

you mean, even when it's not fraud at all, of course

the overhyped and over-eager stories of these transitional fossils, etc. have contributed to its public acceptance. Many of these continue to persist in the public eye.

Some sensational stories exist - but they are not frauds.

Some sensational stories exist - and they are NOT overhyped, and over-eager (neanderthal man, australopithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus...nearly all of them - they are compelling, they are exciting, the public loves 'em and THEY ARE NOT FRAUD.

I can't say this enough - you still don't get it.

Where is the fraud?

Why is it wrong for the multitude of non-over-eager, non-over-hyped evidence to cause a stir and to shake up the imagination?

Why is it the fault of scientists when the media gets the headlines wrong?

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Arphy, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 229 of 323 (525779)
09-24-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Archangel
09-24-2009 6:59 AM

still not a fraud!
Didn't you ask me to document where evolution used the Orce evidence to further the validity of the theory in order to show that it rejected it as nothing more than a fraud?

wait, what? You could try to write something that makes sense rather than simply further my opinion of you.

I (and everyone ELSE) has asked you to document your claim of FRAUD.

Because you appear to be slow and having trouble understanding the big words, here is the dictionary meaning of fraud:

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Now, I'll take it slow because you seem to be having trouble, but a mistake is none of the following: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence.

You COULD argue the last one, but NOT when you add "perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".

So, if Ocre man is a mistake and not anything of the above (and I hasten to add it was detected and retracted by scientists - one year later notwithstanding) it is not fraud.

Got that?

I'm not trying to be rude, but the TO page you linked to makes it quite clear that there is a lot of disagreement about the fossil

Which the original quote I posted makes very clear but which you also went after me about as if I was saying more than that.

Yes, you WERE saying more than that. Which part of "it was not a fraud" are you failing to understand?

Dear sir, I do not wish to cast aspersions on the magnitude of your IQ, but I am having trouble explaining this any simpler.

The fact that an unfriendly, inaccurate, biased website makes the same point out to be bigger and grander than it is (and it STILL falls short of "fraud") is hardly at issue!

attempts to say that is my ancestry when my ancestry is one of being descended from the King of Kings, then I find that lie to be offensive and degrading

Well sure, you can be offended all you like when I call you an ape. I call myself an ape, we are all apes. Again, I cannot put it any simpler. If you do not wish to put homo sapiens sapiens in the same taxonomic family I can't help you, blame the creationist who came up with the methods!

Your argument that we are not animals falls flat on it's face because unless you are a fungus (IQ not withstanding) or a plant of some kind, you are an animal! you eat, breath, excrete, move, grow and reproduce!

You can scream until you are blue in the face but it will not change these facts.

We may be the worlds "highest" animal but animal we are!

Even if god almighty came down and told me personally he created the world 6000 years ago, it wouldn't change the facts we know about evolution and taxonomy, you can blame the man upstairs for playing fast and loose with the base pairs if you wish.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

Edited by greyseal, : minor grammar and spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 6:59 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 4:23 PM greyseal has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 300 of 323 (526437)
09-27-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM

Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
Archy, may I take it you have admitted defeat in the case of Orce man? And that your attempts to say it is "a fraud" (when it is not) who's "wide acceptance" (although you say information on it is so impossible to find because of the evilotionist cabal who control teh internets have deleted it all, despite the fact you've been shown pertinent, correct, supportive evidence against this wild claim of yours) has furthered the cause of evilution, have totally failed?

And so you don't run and hide, what you do is bluster and crow about another non-fraud. How sad. (Archy, please, you've also been told how to resize pictures. Take the ruddy advice).

"artists rendition of a neanderthal child" - er...yes? You just thought you'd ejaculate that one up there, eh? Ok, fine, but...not a fraud. WHY is it a fraud? You were shown, patiently and slowly, what "fraud" meant. Why you bothered putting the picture there is beyond me - RAZD already put it so much neater.

"comparative human/neanderthal child skull drawing" - er, yes? It's a comparitive drawing - do you even know what that means? Did you even bother checking what the drawing was about? do you have any shred of reason WHY you think it's a fraud? Are you, perhaps, a master of comparitive anatomy?

No, I didn't think so.

Stop parroting stuff back that you clearly do not understand, saying it says something that it clearly does not.

Oh, wait, I see - finally - you think that the adults had a big monkey mono-brow and the children did not...and that makes the ARTISTS RENDITION OF A CHILD a fraud?

oh noes, you has founds us outs! quick! alert the black helicopters, we'll have to erase THAT from teh intarwebs too.

Didn't you notice, dear sir, the skull picture RAZD linked of a child? the URL is http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstructions/i.../neander3-1.jpg and it quite clearly has no monobrow.

Of course, you'll bluster and shout and send more piss and wind our way, but it won't change the fact you're dead wrong. again.

Now, the japanese times article I'm going to say, again, doesn't appear to be a FRAUD. It's an artists' rendition of a real skull - the missing parts have been filled in using basic anatomy, symmetry and software. It's an artists rendition. You can call it innacurate if you want, it's not meant to prove anything - the fact the skull is in pieces tells us that neanderthal man was pretty violent...or do you have a good reason to doubt that?

The article says that they've got good reason to believe that humans (and neanderthals) were similar enough that they were pretty violent as well as pretty warm and loving.

Or...do you doubt that?

I mean, I've got a couple of world wars I could point to, and of course your favourite book the bible wherein it describes murder, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sacrifice, incest and more...and unless you've never said to your parents "I love you" or had them say it to you, I'm pretty sure you've also seen the warmer, loving side of human life.

so, again, WHY is it a fraud?

Now your lucy spat is pathetic. Shameful even. Didn't you know that there are far more than just one example of "Lucy", otherwise known as Australopithecus Afarensis?

Oh, say what? You didn't?

Well now you do.

Whoops, I guess that's not a fraud either.

Perhaps you don't like the artists' reconstructions?

Well tough nuts, bub, that's not a fraud. "artistic license" perhaps, but...it's not meant to be definite, just what we currently think based on the best information we have. That's not a crime, and it's not deceit, and it's not fraud.

You lose again.

So, ready to accept defeat a second time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Archangel, posted 09-27-2009 9:38 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2009 12:45 PM greyseal has responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 303 of 323 (526495)
09-28-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by AdminNosy
09-27-2009 12:45 PM

Re: Topic Focus
In light of RAZD's overwhelmingly complete rebuttal of every single point that Archangel has made, not only is my post not needed but nobody else's is either.

RAZD for post of the month!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by AdminNosy, posted 09-27-2009 12:45 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 306 of 323 (526534)
09-28-2009 9:15 AM

So, Orce man - why's it a fraud?
Archangel, can you please either back down or do as the mod says rather than muddying the waters further (and thanks mod for doing your tireless, oft thankless job)

I'd like to get past Orce man because, quite frankly, the post by RAZD was exhaustive and his work to rebut you deserves to see the light of day.

If you've evidence Orce Man is a fraud (remember, you know what that means now - deliberate malfeasance) then post it.

If not, say "Orce man isn't a fraud, I was wrong" and then concentrate on RAZD's quote which Master Percy will (at that point and no earlier) uncover so you can say "and for my next trick..." and blow evolution out the water.

I think coelacanth is right out until after that.

This is your chance. Don't blow it.

Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009

Message 319 of 323 (529085)
10-08-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Archangel
10-07-2009 11:04 PM

Re: I stand by my claim that evolution frauds have contributed to its acceptance:
Archy had no "arguments" that stood up to even a cursory examination.

His inability to even get one (Orce man) of those arguments to stick led to an even heavier drubbing from RAZD to merely hulk in shadow, unused.

I personally wish we could have got beyond the first example, because the next salvo would've been a doozy.

No fraud. case closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Archangel, posted 10-07-2009 11:04 PM 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 © 2020