EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact. Didn't they say Coelacanth was a true intermediary animal and even described a partially developed lung with drawings of it crawling out of the Sea on partially developed legs/fins which were evolving from life at sea to life on land? On what facts were these claims based? Had not a living animal been discovered to still exist in its unchanged form, this fraud would still stand today as hard core evidence of this alleged intermediary animal which is in fact nothing of the sort.Evolutionists are good at one thing only, and that is at justifying false assumptions once discovered, making excuses in order to avoid taking responsibility for their frauds and refusing to take consider that it is their own so called science which is the problem here.I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?

Who did that describing? Name and citation, please.And do you deny that Pennsylvanian lungfish were shallow-water river-livers? Not sea-dwellers? Why are their fossils found in deltaic sediments, do you think?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Since this is not true, not really, no. If you would actually post some, perhaps...

---

I hunt for the truth

Please document the presence of soft tissue.It looks more like there are the fossilized impressions of where soft tissue was some 50 million years ago.And if so, doesn't this invalidate your point here?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is, of course, untrue.

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to everyone here you do not intend to have an adult discussion or to respond to the dozens of rebuttals for the meager, outdated evidence you presentI beg you to be honest with yourself and everyone here.
Thanks,
Joe

I have only your word for this, which most likely means that this claim is another creationist fraud.No-one claims that tetrapods were descended from coelancanths, but from other lobe-finned fish.Here, by the way, is a photograph of a lobe-finned fish crawling about on the land. It's called a lungfish, can you guess why? And here's some video.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact.

---

Where is your evidence that NG knew what they were saying was wrong yet passed it off as the truth? Publishing something you thought was true but later find to be false is not fraud.

quote:

---

Had not a living animal been discovered to still exist in its unchanged form, this fraud would still stand today as hard core evidence of this alleged intermediary animal which is in fact nothing of the sort.

---

We've gone over this on 4forums. You are just repeating the same refuted argument. The Coelacanth we see today is not the Coelacanth in the fossil record. Similar, yes, but not the same species. There are anatomical differences.

quote:

---

I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180?

---

Once again, your argument is fraudulent.Dino Blood ReduxI call it fraudulent because I personally informed you of how soft tissue was actually found. Therefore, you already know what you are trying to pass off as the truth is false. This is different from merely posting something that you thought was true which later turned out to be false.

The only person here passing off fiction as fact is you. You seem to have no problem putting fingers in gear before engaging in any kind of legitimate information gathering. No. The fossil Coelacanths were described then, and are described now, as lobe-finned fish that are close evolutionary relatives of lungfish, which are also lobe-finned, and it is lungfish that are thought to be the ancestors of tetrapods (land-based animals).Fish of the order Coelacanth were once numerous and a great many different species are represented in the fossil record, many of them shallow fresh water fish. Most of these species went extinct, and evidently the only remaining Coelacanth were deep-water ocean species, and deep-water geological layers are rarely available to paleontologists, which is why we don't find any in layers younger than around 70 million years. Surviving Coelacanth species are not the same species as any of the known fossil Coelacanth, nor even the same genus.Here's some information I posted about the Coelacanth back in 2002: Archangel, there's no fraud or fictions here, and not even any mistakes, except the ones you're making up. Your pattern here is to ignore corrections of your prior erroneous statements, then make more erroneous statements, then issue a flurry of unsupported accusations directed at your opponents. It would be a really welcome change if you could begin saying things that were actually true.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add message subtitle.Edited by Percy, : Correct date of youngest coelacanth fossils.

Hi Archangel, is see you are still making mistakes in sources your THINK are credible because they conform to your beliefs, with no validation to see if they conform to reality. They are NOT identical, look at the picture again: the rays on the tails are shorter on the modern fish than on the ancient one, and the central spine (notochord) extends beyond the tail rays in the modern fish, but blends in with the rays in the fossil. You have also excluded scale from the information provided - modern fish are around 4 times bigger than the ancient fossils. What you have are homologous structures that are due to common ancestry.Curiously this is exactly what evolution predicts you will find between ancestral species and modern species: homologous features that show change over time.Fascinatingly, evolutionists are not astonished to find modern species of ancient orders of animals living today. We have sharks, crocodiles and alligators that also trace ancestral lines to the times of early dinosaurs.Shark - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Evidence for the existence of sharks extends back over 450—420 million years, into the Ordovician period, before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonized the continents.[1] Only scales have been recovered from the first sharks and not all paleontologists agree that these are from true sharks.[52] The oldest generally accepted shark scales are from about 420 million years ago, in the Silurian period.[52] The first sharks looked very different from modern sharks.[53] The majority of modern sharks can be traced back to around 100 million years ago.[54]

---

Crocodile - Wikipedia (and alligators)

quote:

---

A crocodile is any species belonging to the family Crocodylidae (sometimes classified instead as the subfamily Crocodylinae). The term can also be used more loosely to include all members of the order Crocodilia: i.e. the true crocodiles, the alligators and caimans (family Alligatoridae) and the gharials (family Gavialidae), or even the Crocodylomorpha which includes prehistoric crocodile relatives and ancestors. Crocodiles are large aquatic reptiles that live throughout the tropics in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Australia. Crocodiles tend to congregate in freshwater habitats like rivers, lakes, wetlands and sometimes in brackish water. They feed mostly on vertebrates like fish, reptiles, and mammals, sometimes on invertebrates like mollusks and crustaceans, depending on species. They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events.[1]

---

So having living members of old lineages is absolutely no problem for evolution and science. The only thing different about Coelacanths is that they were absent from intermediate fossil deposits, and what this shows, curiously, is that the absence of fossils can occur for long periods of time but still not interfere with the process of evolution: missing links in the fossil record are of shorter duration than the absence of coelacanth evidence between the fossil record and the present.http://www.dinofish.com/

quote:

---

DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time
Classification

​

The living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae,and Latimeria menadoensis are possibly the sole remaining representatives of a once widespread family of Sarcopterygian (fleshy-finned) coelacanth fishes (more than 120 species are known from fossils)all but one of which disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. The classification of coelacanths is a murky business with more than one vairation in the class category, but we'll give it a shot. Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Pices (fishes), Sub class: Gnathostomata- jawed fishes, Sub class: Teleostei- bony fishes (though cartilaginous, coelacanths are usually classed with the teleosts), Sub class: Sarcopterygii (lobed-finned fishes), Order: Crossopterygii, Family: Actinistia (coelacanths), Gennus: Latimeria, Species: chalumnae and menadoensis.

​

The coelacanth appears to be a cousin of Eusthenopteron, the fish once credited with growing legs and coming ashore-360 million years ago. Today, scientists prefer to cite the tongue-twisting fossil candidates: icthyostega, panderichthys, acanthotega, and the newly discovered Tiktaalik roseae (2004), as the ancestor(s) of all tetrapods-amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, including ourselves.

​

Fossils of ancient coelacanths have been found on every continent except Antarctica. They were first identified from an English fossil by naturalist Louis Agassiz in 1839. (Ironically, Agassiz became a firm opponent of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution!) 250 million years ago there were as many as 30 species living at the same time, about a third of them in fresh water. With a couple of exceptions ancient coelacanths were small, seldom exceeding 55 cm.

​

Today's coelacanths can reach almost six feet (2 meters) in length and weigh up to 150 or more lbs,(the giant Mozambique female shown on this site was 180 centimeters long and 95kg) but they are usually somewhat smaller, particularly the males, which average under 165cm.

​

http://www.dinofish.com/famtree.html The current family tree for coelacanths accepted by most scientists. Earlier trees had placed coelacanths closer to land vertebrates than lungfishes or, conversely, had placed them closer to sharks and rays.

---

Coelacanth - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Coelacanth (pronounced /ˈsiːləknθ/, adaptation of Modern Latin C—lacanthus: c—l-us + acanth-us from Greek κοῖλ-ος [hollow] + ἄκανθ-α [spine]) is the common name for an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of gnathostomata known to date. The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938. They are, therefore, a Lazarus taxon. Since 1938, Latimeria chalumnae have been found in the Comoros, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, and in iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa. The second extant species, L. menadoensis, was described from Sulawesi, Indonesia in 1999 by Pouyaud et al.[1] based on a specimen discovered by Erdmann in 1998[2] and deposited in Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

Kingdom: 	Animalia
Phylum: 	Chordata
Class: 		Sarcopterygii
Subclass: 	Actinistia
Infraclass: 	Coelacanthimorpha
Order: 		Coelacanthiformes

They first appeared in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian.[4] Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.

​

Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales.

---

Here's a picture of a modern coelacanth from wikipedia: And when you compare that picture of an entire fossil coelacanth to the modern coelacanth you can see that they are NOT identical. Curiously, the fact that there are soft tissues found in fossils only 50 million years old is of no big concern, all that needs to happen is burial under anaerobic conditions. We see this with many fossils, including ones that pre-date the Cambrian era.This picture is what caught my eye - because of the HY imposed on it.Do you realize that the original source for this picture is Harun Yahya, and that he is a convicted pedophile and extortionist, a muslim (which you have problems with on another post), and he has been known - documented - to post fake pictures on his website?http://www.harunyahya.com/
Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia
Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia
The Fishing Lures of Faith

quote:

---

Volume 1 contains the example of the Caddis Fly. The illustration in the book shows the modern-day fly in the foreground. Circled in red in the background is the fossil analogue, preserved in amber. (No, they don't look similar to me either). But look again at the modern fly. Skeptics noticed it had a steel hook coming out the bottom of it. In fact, it's not a Caddis fly at all. It's a fishing lure created by Graham Owen. Harun Yahya lifted the image (right) from Owen's site, apparently not realizing it wasn't a living creature, and pasted it into his book. Other fishing lures by Owen are scattered throughout the Atlas of Creation.

---

This is another example of you posting information that you think (a) is valid (presents true information) and (b) strikes against evolution, and it fails on both counts.Why do creationists need to use lies and frauds to support creationism? Why aren't the lies and frauds removed from creationist sites when they are pointed out? Why don't creationists use some mechanism for determining the truth of what is on creationist sites before posting false information? Why isn't there an ongoing effort to remove false and misleading information from creationist websites?Why is it so easy for evolutionists to find and post factual evidence to support evolution if it is a false science? And yet, amusingly, we can also post information about naturally formed mummies from peat bogs in europe and from deserts in Egypt, and Ozi the iceman: mummies that were formed naturally and which are clearly well beyond the time normal for decomposition of bodies. Curiously they also tend to show the same collapsed tissues you see in fossils where soft tissue is preserved. This collapse is due to loss of liquids from the tissue, desication that preserves the soft tissue. Interestingly, being wrong about a cryptozooic species has absolutely no bearing on the methods used for dating. If you REALLY want to discuss the problems with dating you need to pay a visit to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.Without addressing the actual evidence of age dating methods and the many ways they are validated by actual scientific testing, then all you are doing is posting an ill-informed opinion based on a lack of information.I'm betting I can add this to the list of posts that you either (a) ignore or (b) brush off with some snide comment, as can be predicted from your past behavior as documented on Message 154:

quote:

---

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...

​

ROFLOL. The irony is killing me.

​

Curiously, you have failed to answer:

​

Message 64 which deconstructs your opening post with factual evidence, showing that your website was an example of creationist fraud rather than documenting any fraud by evolutionary scientists.

​

Message 96 which deals with your continued failure to acknowledge that this website does not support your thesis because it is false. Rather than demonstrate that evolutionary scientists have committed frauds and hoaxes, you have demonstrated that creationist websites post false information. You can't use a falsehood to prove a truth.

​

Message 124 which deals with your false analogy of science and engineering, and your false assertions of how good science is done.

​

These are just the posts on this one thread where you have posted judgmental criticisms and drivel instead of replies, and offer no evidence at all to back up you position once refuted.

---

Of course you could prove me wrong and actually take up the challenge of defending your position against the contradicting evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Its all they have. The actual data doesn't support their beliefs. There would be little left on those websites. See No. 1, above. There is no such mechanism in creation "science" similar to what is found in real science. Creation "science," actually a form of religious apologetics, exists only to support religious belief. Because creationists reject scientific data (see No. 1, above) there is no standard against which to judge the accuracy of any statement or claim other than whether it supports religious belief. See Nos. 1-3, above.But all of these falsehoods and misleading statements don't alter the consuming public's acceptance of creationist websites because the authors and readers of those websites want only to support religious beliefs (i.e., religious apologetics).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

1) Why is it that evolutionists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence?2) Why are evolutionists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system?3) Why do evolutionists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue?4) Why do evolutionists continue to insist that a spiritual/supernatural event which Creation was, must be defined and explained through scientific means when they can't even prove the first stage of the process of life beginning, which they insist occurred spontaneously?5) Why do evolutionists copy and paste volumes of so called evidence when none of it is evidence of anything since it is all based on faulty and prejudicial interpretations by people with a preconceived agenda to insure that their profession of choice survives all scrutiny.

Why do you scream halfwitted falsehoods about evolutionists instead of even trying to defend the fraudulent crap in your OP?

1) Why is it that creationists deny reality in favor of mythical and fraudulent assumptions which are impossible to support with real evidence?2) Why are creationists so insecure about what they believe that they must travel in packs like wild wolves and personally attack the opposition rather than directly debate the many inconsistencies in their pseudo scientific belief system?3) Why do creationists cherry pick what they will respond to while ignoring everything they can't refute, as if it was never raised as an issue?You put the wrong word in your statements 1 through 3. Your statements are what the creos do.The same with statement # 5as for statement 4, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, but you creos continuosly
attempt to use this in regards to evolution. Evolution & Abiogenesis are two different disciplines.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Cool it - I have weapons of mass suspension.See the Admin quote in the "signature".Adminnemooseus

---