Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 241 of 323 (525824)
09-24-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Archangel
09-24-2009 8:18 PM


Re: Still Not Playing Ball!
Archangel,
You see Granny, this question which has been repeated ad infinitum by you and your cohorts is a perfect example of your blatant dishonesty and disingenuous debating style. 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 and know it has been erased from the on line journals, so the info no longer exists on the net.
It's not our fault you can't support your claims. If you made a claim you couldn't support, then shame on you. Stop getting shitty with everyone else because you can't show the deliberate deception that you alleged in the examples you gave.
Who committed fraud? How? In exactly what way were they dishonest? Put up or shut up. This grows tedious.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Archangel, posted 09-24-2009 8:18 PM Archangel has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 298 of 323 (526435)
09-27-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Archangel
09-27-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Another failure by Archangel to substantiate his claim
Archangel,
But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense.
What, like apes, & even some people you mean?
But the back story which goes along with it is where the fraud comes into play as you actually affiliate this fossil as a human ancestor at all.
But it's not deliberate misinformation, ergo it's not fraud.
They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.
It's not fraud because there is no deliberate falsehood being perpetrated. It's undespicably not fraudulent.
I mean, it not only misrepresent the origins of human beings, it misrepresents the history of the Apes these fossils actually represent in reality since they have no true relationship to human beings at all according to my interpretation of the evidence.
What you said was no more fraudulent than the people you asert are frudulent. But judging your above comment by your own standards makes you "despicably fraudulent"!
Annoying isn't it?
uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, no fraud is evident.
But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested"
This is 100% accurate, so no fraud was perpetrated. Anthropologists did suggest...
It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull.
Again, 100% accurate, no fraud here!
Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."
Ooh, what a liar! No fraud here, this is broadly true.
You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false
Yes, I can deny it. You have provided no evidence that falsehoods have deliberately been perpetrated.
And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.
An artists impression based on fossil evidence is fraudulent? I think not. No-one has deliberately perpetrated a falsehood here, either. No fraud once again.
The problem, Archangel, is that you don't have the slightest clue as to what "fraud" means, do you? Somebody "getting it wrong" in your opinion does not constitute fraud.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 309 of 323 (526751)
09-29-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Archangel
09-29-2009 8:26 AM


Archangel,
Could you please highlight the part of your post where a deliberate deception has been committed. For the life of me, I cannot see where fraud has occurred, or where you have pointed it out.
You aren't here to show that Orce man wasn't a transitional, you are here to show where scientists deliberately misled everyone. This has been pointed out so many times now that I'm growing suspicious you are being deliberately myopic.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Archangel, posted 09-29-2009 8:26 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024