quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Evidence?

Yeah, the evidence of the world as it is, with diseases, disasters, and wars and hatred, and religious strife. Clearly whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

some of the fun "facts" of evolution:

[long, but worth the read comrades]

quote:

Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud.

Evolution fraud Haeckels drawingsEvolution fraud. Haeckels drawings are still printed in some of todays school science text books with full knowledge that they are wrong.

One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years...

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution...


Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud

The history of the discovery of the earliest Englishman (as Piltdown Man was so often called) is fairly common knowledge. A laborer was supposedly digging in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in Sussex in southern England when he found a piece of bone. He passed it to the local amateur archaeologist of the district, Charles Dawson, who verified its antiquity and pronounced that it was part of a skull which was possibly human. Dawson began to search for the rest of the skull and, in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown...


Nebraska Man. False evolutionary model made from a pigs tooth. The pig was still alive too.

Like many supposed predecessors to our current human form. Nebraska man was formed form the minimalist of bones. A single tooth was all it took for evolutionists to come up with the drawing you see [at the site].

In 1922 Paleontologist Harald Cook found a single tooth in Western Nebraska USA in Pliocene deposits that were alleged to be 6 million years old. To find a “Missing link” in the USA is a big thing for a start as most humanoids were thought to be from Africa. Another example of “we will take any proof of evolution”. This Nebraska man tooth was the reason that evolution started to be taught in schools. Before Nebraska man evolution had a hard time getting taught in schools but such was the fanfare of Nebraska man that evolution became the excepted norm. Even so this embarrassing oversight due to the rabidness of evolutionists to “prove” their theory, only lasted a few years before it was found out as a “DUMB” mistake. The pig it belonged too is a species of pig called “prosthennops serus”, this pig was found still alive in Paraguay in 1972.


Java Man is False!

Java man was created from [a] bone fragment...

After years of excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

After returning to Europe in 1895, Dubois went on a lecture circuit and displayed his fossils to the International Congress of Zoology. His discovery received a lukewarm reception, causing him to became secretive, and paranoid, refusing to let anyone else examine the bones. Rudolph Virchow, who had been Haeckel’s professor and is considered the father of modern pathology remarked: “In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”

A later team of German scientists traveled to Java in 1907 to unearth more clues on human ancestry. They hired 75 workers and sent 43 crates of fossil material back to Germany, but no evidence of Pithecanthropus could be found. Instead the German scientists found modern flora and fauna in the strata where Dubois had found his Pithecanthropus. Dr. E. Carthaus, a geologist on the expedition concluded that Pithecanthropus was a modern human.


Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists...

Protsch’s work first attracted suspicion when scientists at Oxford wanted to double-check the authenticity of his dates and verify the ages of many previously reported fossils using modern techniques. Oxford officials insist that this “dating disaster” was discovered during a routine examination, and was not an attempt to discredit Professor Protsch. The fossils he had dated were just in a long line of others that were being rechecked. According to Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax: “[A]nthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago” (as quoted in Harding, 2005). He continued: “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish” (emp. added)...


Neanderthal man, just a modern human with disease

After discovering the first Neanderthal skullcap in 1856 in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, German anatomist Ruldolph Virchow said in essence that the fossil was the remains of a modern man afflicted with rickets and osteoporosis. In 1958, at the International Congress of Zoology, A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton established that it was simply an old man who had suffered from arthritis. Francis Ivanhoe authored an article that appeared in Nature titled “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” (1970). Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal’s ape-like appearance was due to a condition known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction (and deficient calcification) of bone tissue. The disease causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull that had been studied up to that point in time apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels...

Scientists have debated long and hard concerning whether there exists any difference between Neanderthal specimens and modern humans. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans...


Lucy the hominid

Lucy the ape was said to be our ancestor.

Lucy, a hominid ancester to modern man supposedly is really just an extinct species of ape. There is no evidence for or against but evolutionist and geologist Frank Brown of the university of Utah said this, “We’ve always assumed Lucy was our ancestor, and now we need to re-evaluate that idea,”

On this video below we see Dr David menton show how lucy has possibly been fraudelently modified to walk like a human. Its a very interesting video to watch and we can see from the original bones of Lucy that she was a knuckle walker.

As we can clearly see evolutionary scientists do not let science do the talking. Scientists today enter their field of expertise as already converted atheist evolutionists. Subscribing to a theory of faith, they then set out on a lifelong mission to prove their personal beliefs, even to the point of fraud rather than let science speak for itself...


Orce Man.

A skull found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey!

A three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled, so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone which had already been named, Orce Man, for the southern Spanish town near which it had been found. The French caused problems, however. Scientists from Paris showed that Orce Man was a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey. The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters canceling the symposium...


Archaeoraptor is a faked evolution example of a missing link

Fake Dinosaur bird. Evolutionists are so quick to swallow fabrications such is the keenness to prove evolution.

The hoax was most likely an honest mistake not like the Piltdown man fraud of 1908 which combined recent skeletal remains with various animal parts. The name given the find in July 1997 was Archaeoraptor Liaoningenesis Sloan after Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of National Geographic, who wrote, “With arms of a primitive bird and tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” He confidently affirmed, “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals” (“Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pages 98-107.

In the last article of the October, 2000, issue is the embarrassing admission that the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fraud, a combination of fossils. This all happened because of inadequate scientific consideration of evidence...

Kevin Aulenback examined the fossil and wrote that it “is a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens.with a maximum.of five.separate specimens” (Vol. 198, No. 4, page 131). This should have been adequate evidence that it was a fraud; however, not until Xu Xing presented the results of his examination of the fossil was it finally admitted that it was a fraud. “`I am 100% sure..’ Xu wrote, `we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen'” (page 132).Finally it was conceded that “beyond all doubt that the tail belonged to the second fossil”...


Horse evolution fraud

1.In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

2.In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

3.In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?”

The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

So what’s the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

1.If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”. In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

2.There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

3.The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

4.Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

Two horses. Photo copyrighted. Supplied by Eden Communications. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

“I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

yeah---when things are true, we need to not genuinely examine the evidence and/or make things up in order to show it is so!

You're offering a page full of fraudulent misrepresentations of evidence as proof that the evolutionary theory is based on fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence?
Cute!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
This is not quite true. Behe pointed to organs not to DNA when he made his case for "irreducible complexity." The mammalian eye, for instance was too complex to have risen through evolution so must have been created in its current form. The fact of the matter is that the evolution of the eye is quite easily elucidated in any undergraduate course on comparative anatomy. He also chose to claim the steps in blood clotting were too complex to have been framed through evolution, when in fact the necessary steps are easily found in animals that preceded the mammals. Finally, he tried to get cute with the rotating flagellum of a particular singled cell organism, the Euglena. It turns out that each of the proteins that construct the tail were shown to be present in other earlier organisms, although some of the proteins were part of different structures and involve in different physiological activities in their previous forms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The bottom line is that Behe did not bring any new science to the ID endeavour. His was just a series of complaints against the established evidence. Not saying here that it is an error to attack the established evidence. I am saying most emphatically that one does not create a whole new science on the foundation of pointing to errors. Creationists (Intelligence Designers) are guilty of claiming to have a science but they don't because they fail to perform any of the protocols common to a scientific investigation. They continue to make that very same mistake today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The business of judicial appeals is misleading at best. Judges have been asked to make decisions only after hearing presentations by scientists on the one hand and Intelligent Designer advocates on the other. The ID advocates were at first eager to bring their cases before judges, but after a succession of denials they have withdrawn to the low grasses where they can snipe and blame the Evolutionists for the court decisions (almost always brought by parents against school boards who were trying to get equal time for ID in the Biology classroom at the secondary level) ID advocates have acted like circus clowns, in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man”

Let me caution you Miles, that frequently on these Boards people who are uneducated in a topic being discussed will throw a long abstract from a book or magazine and expect us to be bowled over by truth and wisdom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
There are a number of simple organisms that have more genes than Homo sapiens. Proclaiming the opposite is such hogwash. The quoted paragraph is rubbish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Gene number and complexity.
by T. Ryan Gregory, on May 1st, 2007

Leaving aside the difficulty in defining terms such as “complexity” and “gene“, there has been for many decades an underlying assumption that there ought to be some relationship between morphological complexity and the number of protein-coding genes within a genome. This is a holdover from the pre-molecular era of genetics, when it was at first thought that total genome size should be related to gene number, and thus to complexity. Indeed, the constancy of DNA content within chromosome sets (“C-values”) was taken as evidence that DNA is the substance of heredity, and yet it was recognized as early as 1951 that there is no clear relationship between the amount of DNA per genome and organismal complexity (e.g., Mirsky and Ris 1951; Gregory 2005). By 1971, this had become known as the “C-value paradox” because it seemed so self-contradictory (Thomas 1971). (The solution to the C-value paradox was that most eukaryotic DNA is non-coding, although this raises plenty of questions of its own).

Nevertheless, one sometimes encounters arguments that there is a positive correlation between complexity and genome size, even in the scientific literature. Let me put to rest the notion that genome size is related to complexity on the broad scale of eukaryotic diversity. Here is a figure from Gregory (2005) showing the known ranges and means for more than 10,000 species of animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and archaea (click image for larger view).

GENOMIC SIZE

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

You seem to be saying that native Americans of today are a different “species” than that of native Americans of yesterday

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. Pay attention for a change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Evidence?

Yeah, the evidence of the world as it is, with diseases, disasters, and wars and hatred, and religious strife. Clearly whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Fuck these are pathetic arguments you are throwing up here man, absolutely fucking pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Evidence?

Yeah, the evidence of the world as it is, with diseases, disasters, and wars and hatred, and religious strife. Clearly whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit.

And you think that the evidence of the world as it now is evidence that "whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit"?

Really isn't what you see around you more evidence that mankind doesn't have a clue what is good for people and doesn't give a shit?

I suggest you step outside, take a deep breath and imagine mankind and all his works gone and tell me that whoever designed this world didn't know what he was doing.