Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
64 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK (3 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,038 Year: 12,786/23,288 Month: 511/1,527 Week: 190/207 Day: 12/39 Hour: 0/1

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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 1 of 323 (524619)
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved is exposed in this link which outlines many of them. 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.

Here's an initial excerpt of the human ancestral frauds as just an example of what this link documents.

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

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. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)


http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2009 10:12 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2009 10:39 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 7 by jacortina, posted 09-17-2009 10:49 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2009 11:33 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 25 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:31 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 28 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 5:33 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 30 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 6:56 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 11:52 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 12:10 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 10 of 323 (524645)
09-17-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
09-17-2009 10:24 PM


EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Coyote writes:

You presume to demonstrate massive fraud in evolution, and all you can find is the standard few examples always used by creationists.

Lets take a closer look:

LINK: writes:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Piltdown was a hoax. It was designed to fool the British paleontologists! It wasn't something they perpetrated to fool the public or anyone else.

And it didn't fit! Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit with the rest of the evidence. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. Piltdown was increasingly ignored until it was finally disproved in the early 1950s.

Note the title of this thread Coyote. More damaging than any given single example of the numerous frauds that link documents is the perceived legitimacy which these frauds and hoaxes contributed to the lie of evolution and it gained before they were discovered as frauds and hoaxes. I submit to you that by the time frauds are exposed, the damage from the positive press has already been done which the very quiet retractions never reverse or truly correct. And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial, the evidence lasted in the public domain for decades before being exposed for what it was. Specifically, through the world wide press which the Scopes Trial received and validated evolution by actually using this evidence as justification that evolution was in fact a valid and undeniably relevant science. So the lie extended well beyond the trial itself as it gained legitimacy since the evidence was considered sound enough to be used in what was referred to as the trial of the century, at that time.

Remember, the public didn't have the internet or access to the minuted of the trial or the actual testimony. What they received were daily recaps from the media which explained the evidence in layman terms so simple and uneducated americans could understand what was being offered as evidence.

Here is the background of this conspiracy to first challenge the anti-evolution laws of the period, but also to use the opportunity to inject evolution as a valid science into the american psyche. It proves an agenda and YES, a conspiracy to validate an alleged science which especially at that time, hadn't been proven in any way, shape or form in anyones mind or scientific lab.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch30.htm

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:42 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 12:21 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 13 of 323 (524649)
09-17-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
09-17-2009 11:42 PM


Re: Topic
AdminNosy writes:

The scopes trial belongs in a separate topic. You may open that and we'll get it going. You will have to summarize the issues yourself though.

I'm not submitting the Scopes Trial as an issue for debate, but as evidence of one way a public event was used to promote false and fraudulent evidence for evolution.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:42 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:50 PM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 15 of 323 (524656)
09-18-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminNosy
09-17-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Debating
If you don't want to debate it you can edit your post and remove it. It does not stand if you can't support it.
We often hide off topic posts (but don't delete them). We can do that so as not to clutter up this thread.

I have no problem defending it, but are you saying it has to be in another separate thread? Because that is just taking the teeth out of the argument I'm building on this thread of how frauds work to inject themselves in social issues in ways that falsely validate evolution. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you, and we don't have an issue here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:50 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminNosy, posted 09-18-2009 1:09 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 18 of 323 (524661)
09-18-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
09-18-2009 12:13 AM


Coragyps writes:

I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits.

Actually, your quoted info perfectly supports what I said about the long term damage done because of the Scopes Trial.

The Scopes Trial generated a lot of publicity, and the possibility remains that commentators outside the trial made mention of Nebraska Man. However, this still renders the original assertion false. The Institute for Creation Research grudgingly admits that Nebraska Man was not entered as evidence.

[...] The imaginative newspaper coverage and the timing of the find made a big impression at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Nebraska man was never introduced into the trial, since the lead paleoanthropologist Dr. Fay Cooper cole had some misgivings about it, but it was there nonetheless.
[End quote -- RM Cornelius & JD Morris, 1995, Scopes: Creation on Trial, ICR, p.40.]


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2009 12:13 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 1:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Granny Magda, posted 09-18-2009 1:02 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:10 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2009 4:41 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 6:15 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 31 of 323 (524720)
09-18-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by ApostateAbe
09-18-2009 1:31 AM


AdminNosy writes:

The topics are each very big and will generate a lot of discussion. It gets very hard for anyone to track what is said if they are all merged together.
There is no reason why you can't build a case by supporting each item and then when you have put it to bed you can summarize in one place.

If you handle each one well then it is clear you will make your case when you summarize. If you have trouble then it will only be worse if they are all mixed up.

Beside someone might accuse you of a Gish gallop if you mix too many topics up.

I marvel that you could suggest that I could be accused of being guilty of Gish Gallup while attempting to frame an argument in light of the widely varied expansion of the debate subject offered by the opposition.

For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings:


Click to enlarge

The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes?

And then he say this:

None of those skulls are the examples you listed, except for the Neanderthal skulls, (J), (K) and (L). Three skulls, not just one. Do a Google search and you will find many more of them.
Then you post these photos as evidence that each of these skulls belong to Neanderthal:

Can Abe actually say that these APE skulls even belong to the same family/genus of Ape? Because I see no obvious resemblance at all. From the width/shape of the skulls to the protruding of the brow ridges. I mean at every level of rationale I see no way to prove that these skulls represent any true and real connection to human development or evolution. With every piece of evidence you post, you prove my point that no real and verifiable evidence exists which supports your belief in evolution.

Sure, he will place every single fossil skull of a primate found in some manufactured category of human based evolution, but that doesn't mean it is a true or reliable assumption at all. And only if we are able to absolutely prove you wrong will you even consider that an error has been made. And even then, evolutionists will just poo poo it as part of the process of getting to your so called truth. But the truth to evolution is whatever furthers your agenda and doesn't impede the overall fairy tale evolution is promoting.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:31 AM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2009 8:43 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 9:47 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 09-18-2009 10:12 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-18-2009 1:26 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 45 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:33 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 46 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2009 1:35 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 3:13 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 32 of 323 (524722)
09-18-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peepul
09-18-2009 5:33 AM


Peepul writes:

You have this completely backwards. Ask people what they know of Piltdown man and if they know anything about it they will tell you it's a fraud. How does that support evolution's public acceptance?

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 and contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science. Which of course is a blatant and unmitigated lie.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 5:33 AM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 09-18-2009 9:36 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2009 10:22 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 12:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 12:45 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 41 by tuffers, posted 09-18-2009 12:53 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2009 1:06 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 53 of 323 (524817)
09-19-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Lithodid-Man
09-18-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Lithodid-Man writes:

Hey arch,
Just so I get this right, you are saying the the three photos Apostate posted of Neanderthals are clearly apes? I am assuming, now, you mean "apes" in the "just an ape" sense of the word as in "ape kind as opposed to human kind" not "neanderthals are apes because all hominins are a derived clade of African apes".

Right, Apes as in extinct types which have absolutely no relationship to us via evolution cuz they all existed within the past 10,000 years or so. There is no accurate or consistent chain of fossil evidence which supports evos claims at all.

If that is case you have some 'splanin' to do. Have you seen a neander skeleton? We have pretty much complete ones. While different in many important ways from modern humans they are much much more like us than 'just an ape'. They walked upright very much like we do, the differences are mainly due to bone and muscle mass. They also buried their dead in a ritualized manner, probably had music, etc. Most creationists I know claim they were 'just human', you are the first in some time to claim them as apes. Please elaborate!

Why do I have some splainin to do? Why must I explain my worldview according to your interpretation of what we observe according to your worldview's perspective? In other words, I completely reject your description of what neanderthal looked like or acted like in reality. I have already shown how corrupted the evolutionists interpretation of evidence is in various posts on various threads, so stop expecting me to support my arguments based on evolutionist definitions of what "is" in reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-18-2009 1:26 PM Lithodid-Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-19-2009 5:10 PM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 55 of 323 (524819)
09-19-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by ApostateAbe
09-18-2009 1:43 PM


ApostateAbe writes:

An "ape" is the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. But, in conventional English, apes are the set of species that includes that superfamily but excludes humans, similar to how the common people use the word, "animal."

NO AA, an Ape is a big monkey which was created by God will all of the other lower animals. It is not related to us in any way which is evidence by the fact that it is still living just as it did on that first day of creation. As for the fossils you attempt to label as our human ancestors, they too were lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist. Most likely because of pressure and over hunting by human beings. Not because we evolved from them in any way over hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:43 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2009 7:51 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 57 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2009 8:48 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2009 9:11 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2009 10:00 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 62 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-19-2009 11:42 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 58 of 323 (524824)
09-19-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by bluescat48
09-19-2009 8:48 AM


bluescat48 writes:

Wrong, an ape is not a monkey. There are 2 types of monkeys, new world that have prehensile tails & old world which have non-prehensile tails. Apes on the other hand are tailless. And stop saying that humans are above all other creatures that is an archaic idea st forth by men several thousand years ago. HUMANS are APES.-=

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2009 8:48 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Huntard, posted 09-19-2009 9:57 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 67 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2009 1:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-19-2009 4:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 72 of 323 (524895)
09-19-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Lithodid-Man
09-19-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Lithodid-Man writes:

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.

No LM, it isn't a fact in any way other than through your evolutionist interpretation of a bunch of old bones. No one has any actual or absolute evidence at all that neanderthal's are anything more than lower animals which is precisely what they were.

You are the only creationist I have encountered who thinks otherwise.

This is far from the truth. But even if it were true, I would stand against anyone who accepts any aspect of man being related to the lower animals via evolution. You just don't comprehend evidently, that if any part of macroevolution theory is correct, then the whole bible is a lie.

This issue is not about anyone forcing you to explain your worldview through our interpretation.

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.

You are being presented with evidence and choosing to ignore. I am not talking about evidence for evolution, I am talking about evidence that frauds have not contributed to an understanding of evolution.

Once again you are wrong on both counts. I have not been presented with any actual evidence of anything concrete and absolute regarding our ancestry from lower life forms or the macroevolutionary process you claim is a fact.

And just because your side will obviously reject any valid explanation regarding the many decades of lies and propaganda which has been used to validate this false pseudo science, it doesn't mean for one second that evolution is valid or true at all.

Every one of your claims in the OP have been addressed and shown to be just wrong.

No they haven't been SHOWN to be wrong in any absolute terms. They have been rejected, rebutted and rebuffed, but no actual proof other than fervent opinions by numerous posters who all oppose my worldview. But since when does a lie become true just because many people tell it? Not in my world is that the case, but in yours it plays out like that every day.

Yet here you are over 50 posts in claiming "I have already shown how corrupted the evolutionists interpretation of evidence is in various posts on various threads" when you have done no such thing. Here is a question I want you to serious ponder:

After this thread will you ever again make the claim the evolutionists used Nebraska Man to prove evolution? And that it constitutes a fraud?

If your answer is no, then some good has been done. If the answer is yes then you have no business lobbing the word 'fraud' at anyone.

SEE THE BOLDED QUESTION YOU ASK ABOVE? The answer is an absolute and unconditional YES to it!!! And I have posted the evidence in the beginning of this debate which your side has so consistently and conveniently ignored and acted as if it didn't exist at all. Here is the direct quote once again, with the link:

Certain items of "scientific evidence of evolution" were mentioned at the trial, whether or not formally presented. This included Piltdown Man (announced to the world in December 1912, and repudiated in the 1950s when the British Museum's Kenneth Oakley devised a new method for determining whether ancient bones were of the same age), but especially Nebraska Man was proclaimed. The great Nebraska Man, discovered only three years before in Bryan's home state, was exalted at the trial as the outstanding evidence that man had evolved from an apelike creature.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch30.htm

The press coverage and propaganda value of that trial was priceless for the furtherance of this false philosophy, and the numerous frauds which are documented in the first posts link which have gone unchallenged so far also contributed to the propaganda value they represented for so long before being discovered. And add to that the FACT that the indisputable evidence which Nebraska Man represented was in fact based on ONE PIGS TOOTH!!!! That this doesn't completely offend you and cause you to question this so called sciences ability to police itself just boggles the mind of reasonable people.

But what is so diabolical about about these numerous frauds is that when they are released they get world wide press coverage in every venue imaginable, but when they are discovered as frauds, they just quietly go away but the fraud never gets the same press coverage the alleged discovery received.

And if the defenders of this philosophy had an ounce of honesty within them, they would have to admit that in every case they have personally observed, this has been true.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-19-2009 5:10 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2009 9:22 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2009 11:06 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 09-20-2009 2:23 AM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 74 of 323 (524898)
09-19-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Coyote
09-19-2009 9:22 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Coyote writes:

Neanderthal buried their dead (with flowers, no less), made sophisticated tools, and cared for elderly or crippled members of their group.
Your "interpretation" that they were lower animals is absolutely wrong. But that's no surprise, as its based on religious belief rather than evidence. (See tagline.)

Oh please! You realize of course that you are basing these claims on the word of people who had everything to gain and nothing to lose for proposing such preposterous back stories, don't you? Since no powers within the evolution community had any motivation to oppose or reject such a theory supporting story. You can see that, can't you? I'll bet you can name those people who made these claims by name, since it put them in the history books as leader of the great lie which evolution represents. Only evolutionists can observe the buried remains of animal bones and create such a flowery and imaginative story for public consumption. It is just one more example of the way that frauds and lies have contributed to furthering the myth or evolution.

And I make these accusations with absolute confidence since I know without doubt that evolution is a manufactured lie of atheism and secular humanism, and that the bibles account of creation, no matter how difficult to explain or justify, is true. And the reason for that Coyote, is because, and I know this reality will come as a shock to you, but Man is in no position to answer these questions with any absolute assurance in any way.

Science is incapable of accurately interpreting what is found buried in the dirt in any actual or definitive way at all. But that doesn't stop evolutionists from claiming they know, and they have the evidence, the proof, the understanding to interpret that which is a mass of undecipherable gibberish. How arrogant and what hubris it reflects in people who will defend so strongly that which they have never personally observed first hand in any way, and cannot replicate in any lab on earth.

At least I and other christians/creationists have the honesty, courage and power of introspection to admit that we don't possess the capacity to discern our origins naturally, and that we take it on faith based on the observable, symbiotic and self supporting chain of life that an intelligent designer created all that is just as the Genesis account says it happened. We admit it is by faith that we accept what we believe. You guys refuse to admit the massive faith you are placing in men as you parrot the ridiculous evidence they have spoon fed you.

I don't have to explain or justify that which I wasn't there to witness in order to accept the results which I observe every day of my life Coyote. Just as God doesn't have to explain or justify Himself when He has given us all that this life and world exhibit as evidence that His word is good as described in Genesis. And your only decision in life will ultimately be to decide if you will believe God or Man by faith in what they promote. Because accept it or not, you are placing an eternities amount of faith in this bogus belief called evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2009 9:22 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluescat48, posted 09-19-2009 11:09 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 09-19-2009 11:15 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 78 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-19-2009 11:18 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 09-20-2009 7:29 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 81 of 323 (524909)
09-20-2009 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Huntard
09-20-2009 2:23 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Huntard writes:

THAT Archangel writes:
No one has any actual or absolute evidence at all that neanderthal's are anything more than lower animals which is precisely what they were.

Huntard writes:

Then why in http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=524619 did you say they are:

Huntard writes:

Archangel in message 1 writes:
Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.

Huntard writes:

What is it Archy? Just as human as us, or lower animals? Pick something and admit that you were wrong on one account. I think the fact that you're not answering these questions says enough.

Now that I have copy and pasted your precise accusation which attempts to assert that I said something in message 1 which I am now contradicting regarding my personal perspective, let me expose that it is you who is being duplicitous in your accusations against me. All I need do is quote message 1 for all to see that it wasn't me stating any facts I accepted as true in reality, but I posted the statement in question as evidence of evolutionist FRAUDS which have taken place. Yet, you attempt to attribute those frauds to me as statements of fact which they never were in any way. NOTE THE BOLDED IN THE QUOTED POST BELOW:

Message 1 of 80 writes:

What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved is exposed in this link which outlines many of them. 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.

Here's an initial excerpt of the human ancestral frauds as just an example of what this link documents.

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

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. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)


http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

As is quite obvious to any reasonable observer, I wasn't posting that info for the truth of it in any way, but was posting it as evidence of the ludicrous claims this fraudulent science continues to make regarding the status of these bones of extinct primates which this pseudo science wants to now define as being relatives/close relatives of ours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 09-20-2009 2:23 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 09-20-2009 4:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 83 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-20-2009 4:23 AM Archangel has responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 84 of 323 (524915)
09-20-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ApostateAbe
09-20-2009 4:23 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Huntard writes:

So, you were posting something you know wasn't true. That's called lying. Also, you were lying to further your cause, that's very disingenuous of you. But thanks for letting everybody know you are willing to lie to further your cause.

ApostateAbe writes:

Archangel, I know you are trying to do the right thing, and I think to that end that you need to understand us. We take reason and the truth very seriously. To us, quoting a falsehood as if it is correct is no different (or hardly different) from the falsehood emerging from your own mind.

Really AA? You can read my opening post HERE: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=524619 - 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.

Especially since nothing I wrote defended the position that I believed that neanderthals possessed human traits. I obviously posted that link as evidence of evolutions fraud, so how can you now argue that I was posting it in defense of neanderthals human traits? It just boggles the mind and destroys your credibility as an objective and reasonable person in my humble opinion. But this is the quality of reason I get from your side on a regular basis. The debate inevitably becomes about me and must deceptively attack my honesty since you can't convince me to accept the lies which your worldview represents.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-20-2009 4:23 AM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Son, posted 09-20-2009 7:28 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2009 7:34 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2009 8:21 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 98 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-20-2009 11:14 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 89 of 323 (524924)
09-20-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Son
09-20-2009 7:28 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Percy writes:

Hi Archangel,
I don't think anyone could argue with the position that the Biblical accounts are true as an article of faith, or that evolution is false as an article of faith, but that's not all you're saying. You're also claiming that the evidence for evolution is fraudulent or purposefully misinterpreted.

Very TRUE. One aspect of evolution fraud is a preconceived agenda which will accept evidence which agrees with it without serious scrutiny as long as that evidence doesn't conflict with previously accepted dogma. They attempt to give an appearance of consistency at least, but often fail since new evidence causes them to revamp previously held beliefs. One example is that since the back story regarding Neanderthals allegedly human lifestyle of burying their dead with flowers, tending to cripples and even having rudimentary medical care perfectly compliments the proposition which evolution is building, so they have no motivation to scrutinize the veracity of this pretty story which is about as substantial as life existing on the SUN.

One of the things you keep saying about evolution is true, and that is about our degree of confidence in what we know.

Just to be clear, I have insisted how misplaced your confidence in evolution is. It was never stated as position I respect or endorse at all.

You say there are some things we cannot know with "absolute assurance," or that there is no "absolute evidence" for evolution. About this we can all agree - nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. All theories, indeed even all hypotheses, interpretations and facts, are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight. If you're seeking absolute certainty you must look elsewhere than science.

I keep hearing this excuse and justification for why evo cannot be absolutely proven or supported with facts, but I completely disagree with you as you say: nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. This statement is absolutely false as it applies to real science. Apple didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars in initial production costs without knowing that the science which went into the design of my Macbook is tested, proven science and reliable technology. The same can be said about the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the V type Harley engine and even the science which goes into making a flu vaccination. Manufacturing doesn't even begin until the veracity and reliability of the final product is confirmed through real time tests and retests.

Not so with evolution which makes outrageous claims which are then eventually shown to be false or blatantly fraudulent as they again push back the definition and re categorize major aspects of the theory. You have short memories where these realities are concerned. But it is undeniable that the evolution of 50 years ago is nothing like how evolution describes itself today. Real science isn't like that in the real world. Only evo demands such unscientific methodology. And I reject it in equally absolute terms.

The degree of confidence we have in any scientific finding varies according to how compelling the evidence is. If it is very compelling, like that the Earth orbits the sun, then our confidence is high. If it is not particularly compelling, like that extreme dilutions of poisons are cures (homeopathy), then our confidence is low, and in fact we would in this case instead say that homeopathy has been falsified. Note that it hasn't been disproven, only falsified, and that the falsification can itself be falsified. Tentativity is rampant within science.

Once again you are fallaciously comparing testable science with evolution as if they are at all comparable. Many natural toxins in nature which animals use for self defense, 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. None of these results are based on guess work or hoping they are right before manufacturing begins on a final drug. They know through solid science and testing what to expect before patenting, copyrighting and trademarking these drugs for public consumption. Why do you think the list of warnings on the labels are longer than the description of what the drug does for its user?

So when you ask for absolute assurances you're asking for something that science cannot provide. All science can do is build as compelling a case as possible upon the available evidence, and in the case of evolution that is what has been done. So if you believe the evidence is actually "indecipherable gibberish" then we'd like to understand what it is about the evidence that leads you to believe this. After all, if we don't understand how you're making your interpretation, how are we to be convinced? You have to give us your rationale so that we can incorporate it into our own thinking.

Again, not true at all. Not with real science anyway. Real science is absolute and comes to absolute conclusions based on what we know at the time. This doesn't mean that what we learn in the future wont add to that knowledge, but what we learn in the future shouldn't nullify the science of the past. For example, just because 2 years from now scientists will discover a new medical application for a refined process of a new property in the Blow Fish Toxin, that in no way nullifies the current drug or drugs which have been refined from that deadly poison in its natural form and is currently helping people.

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. 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? Of course not. We may be inventing new technology like Hybrid, Electric and Fuel Cell Technology for pollutions sake, but nobody is saying its necessary because internal combustion engines just don't perform well anymore.

In fact, IC engines are the standards which new technologies must compete with before they will be accepted as reliable new power plants in cars. That is real and true science. It is testable and repeatable and verifiable before being accepted as the norm. Give me that reliability with evolution and you will have a convert. But you can't and that's because it's a man made lie and a manufactured myth.

Look at it this way. Let's say I became convinced you were right and began trying to convince others. How many people do you think I'm going to convince if all I can say is, "There's this guy Archangel on the web who says because of what he witnesses in his daily life he knows that the Bible is true and evolution is false and fraudulent." That's not only not going to convince anybody, it isn't even science.

Which brings me to my last point, one that I think has been made a couple times already. This *is* a science thread, so we're supposed to be exploring and discussing the topic using a scientific approach, which means introducing, examining, dissecting and discussing the evidence.

The problem with your premise here in claiming that you are attempting to discuss science when I am not is that I have shown right here in this post what true science does everyday in our world of workable technology as compared to what you take by faith as true in evolution since you all admit that the only absolute in evolution is that you must maintain an open mind in anticipation of the new facts which will completely negate, contradict and nullify the previous so called theoretical facts which will once again become passe in the future.

So it must be stated that I have no respect for the evolutionists definition of what true science is. Evo is a bogus and unprovable conglomeration of myths and fairy tales which have absolutely no basis in fact at all as far as real science is concerned. So since this is a thread where science is supposed to be debated, how about you share some which has actually gone through the true scientific process of testable and repeatable experiments with controls resulting in repeatedly consistent results, then please post them for discussion.

But don't criticize me for asking questions and for making demands of evolution which it can't satisfy. You people must learn that just posting verbiage and making unsubstantiated cut and paste claims without real and tested supporting evidence which will survive the test of time is NOT scientific evidence at all. It is just more unsubstantiated lip service which I feel no obligation at all to accept as anything more than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Son, posted 09-20-2009 7:28 AM Son has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by bluescat48, posted 09-20-2009 9:24 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 93 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2009 10:10 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-20-2009 1:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 102 by obvious Child, posted 09-20-2009 6:02 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