An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

Excellent! See, now this is more like it.

(1)Viceroy, who exposed the Piltdown Man hoax? Creationists or scientists?

I am not sure so I won't presume. But when it was discovered why was another hoax put in it's place? And then another? And then another after that?

(2)When the hoax was exposed, did it convince the people who exposed it that creationism was therefore self-evidently true?

As I understand it the "expose" was really, really quiet like. As are all of the "expose's." The fact is that great hoopla is made in favor of evolution when ever a new monkey bone is unearth and when it is exposed for what it really is, it hardly makes a mention in any news paper or magazine. So I would say; No! Because people can't be convinced of that which people are hardly aware of.

(3)Has anybody who was not desperately trying to disprove evolution ever claimed that the Piltdown Man was an essential proof of evolution, without which the whole theory would fall apart?

I only suggested to player that we begin with the piltdown man. It was never a bases for anything. Only an attempt to keep it simple, man!
But to answer your question, I don't know if anyone who was, "not desperately trying to disprove evolution ever claimed that the Piltdown Man was an essential proof of evolution, without which the whole theory would fall apart?"
But I would imagine, No! But that is not even the point, sir.

(4)Has any "pro-evolution" argument even suggested since 1953 that it was not a hoax?

Again, I do not know the answer to this question if it has or has not. But I would imagine that it has not because why argue to prove something true that has already been proven a fraud?
But my response to that question would be that if evolution is true and has been true right from the start, then why even make some thing up if there is proof to show that evolution is true. And if evolution is true then why continue to make shit up when there is no need to do so.
The last thing made up is Australopithecus. At first there were no bones presented when the face was drawn.


Looks remarkably human for a 2 million year old monkey, wouldn't you say? Evolution must have taken the back road in more modern examples of the "Homo" family since currently the exhibits of early ancestors to Man appear more animalish in nature and appearance???


Then when the skull bone finally came out it was actually thought to be that of a Lemur or appeared that way at least that of a small primate creature. Hardly resembling the original artist conception drawn up in that first photo. And so now there is actually confusion of what family A. Sebida is actually from?

"It is not certain whether the species, which had long arms, a small brain and a thumb, was a direct ancestor of humans' genus, Homo, or simply a close relative."
http://www.scoop.it/t/amazing-science/p ... =astronomy

[AndyDufresne]

It is only fitting that the 1000th reply to this topic was the above one by Viceroy.


--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

So we can dismiss the Pilktdown man as completely irrelevant, just as it has been for the last 50 years.

[Viceroy63]

So we can dismiss the Pilktdown man as completely irrelevant, just as it has been for the last 50 years.

I would not say that exactly.

If a man is accused of rape, the fact that he has not raped a woman in fifty days does not exclude it from the evidence presented in a trial of law. It goes towards Character establishment. If Darwinist continue to prop up false and misleading information and duping the public then to me it's the same old, same old and there is no statute of limitations where we can say, "Oh that don't count anymore because the man has not even beat up on his wife in the past month. So let's just leave that out because it's 'completely irrelevant.'"

I'm just saying?

Perhaps I am wrong in that though? =)

[jonesthecurl]

Remind me what your views on the Ica stones were...

[Viceroy63]

Remind me what your views on the Ica stones were...

these stones completely destroy the general theory of evolution.

The following is an excerpt from the article "Are the Ica Stones fake or real?" This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

Are the Ica Stones fake or real?
Author: Christopher J. E. Johnson
Published: Sept 12, 2011

In some of our CLE seminars, I show pictures of large stones with drawings carved into them called "Ica Stones." Originally collected by a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera, these Ica Stones portray clear and detailed dinosaurs, as well as complex medical surgery, and other devices such as telescopes and magnifying glasses.

To take an absolute stance that they are all real or all fake would not be wise because there are some fakes out there, but vice versa, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn't mean the real ones are discredited. However, there are many evolutionists that take the position that they are all fakes and frauds because one of these stones being real would disrupt the entire evolution religion, and that is a scary thought for many people who scoff at the Bible.

There are many articles and documentaries made that have, in their own words, "proven" these Ica Stones to be fakes, but the whole truth is not told. [Viceroy63: if something is a half truth, then it is a whole "LIE!"] Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that wants to prove them fraudulent. For example, a man by the name of Philip Coppens wrote an article on his website that attempts to squelch any credibility to the Ica Stones, but the extent of his research is seen in his labeling of Dr. Cabrera's father:

Dr. Cabrera's father's name is Dom Pedro. This may not seem that important, but I say this to emphasize the lack of research that is being done, and this is but one of many such mistakes in articles written on the subject of the Ica Stones. [Viceroy63: To not really look into a subject and then post it as truth or self evident, is a "LIE!"]

[Note:]
For a fraud to carry on from one generation to the next is a very Mayor undertaking for a small town community where everyone knows your business even before God Himself knows it. I know this because I live in a small town. This is truly an elaborate hoax???
-Viceroy63

Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a way around the scientific and archeological evidence. For example, these stones were first discovered and reported by the Spanish in 1535.

"Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain."

[Note:]
Ah yes, 1562; Of course! That was the year that the "Dentist Drill" was invented???
-Viceroy63

Are we to believe that 500 years ago someone, living in South America, was carving thousands of these stones, just to fool the evolutionists? However, they must believe such things in order to reconcile their theory with the evidence.

[Note]
Man, are those evolutionist smart. Even 500 years ago, they were already plotting the debunking of these Ica stones as fackes!
-Viceroy63

In 1967, Dr. Cabrera picked 33 stones out of his collection and sent them to Maurico Hochshild Mining Company in Lima, Peru to be examined for age, and test to see if they had been recently deposited by a grave-robber who was carving them just to make extra money. Eric Wolf, geologist who worked at the MHMC laboratory sent back his signed analysis which read:

"The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves, by which age should be able to be deduced..."

Erich von Daniken analyzed these stones on a microscopic level, and found the following:

"Right angled clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisms could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera's stones under a fine glaze... that was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones."

Though shows, like NOVA, will attempt to convince an audience that the stones' cuts have been made recently, F.G. Hawley, an experienced chemist and archaeologist, said:

"Many [artifacts] in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years."

[Note]
How Shocking that LIES would be spread on the airwaves influencing the minds and thoughts of our little children to believe in a LIE!
-Viceroy63

Under microscopic analysis, we can see that the real Ica Stones can be verified. Yet, commonly, evolutionists will still attack the authenticity of the Ica Stones without the evidence, and commonly I find they do not provide any references to what they are talking about.

Another common evidence used against the Ica Stones is the farmer Uchuya, who was said to be making the stones and selling them to tourists. However, before we analyze this story, let's assume it to be true for the moment.

If it is true that he is making some stones and selling them, does that account for the stones found 500 years ago? Do his fake stones account for all the Ica Stones discovered over the past few decades? Using this admission of forgery does not disprove the Ica Stones altogether.

This is about the same as someone taking a picture of a stick in the water, claiming it as a picture of the Lochness monster, and then when it is proven fraudulent, the evolutionists will jump on it and say that all accounts are disproven because one person lied. (This is also called a "false dilemma" logical fallacy, claiming they're either all real or all fake.) This emphasis on forgeries, without considering all the evidence, is an immature childish tactic used to persuade an audience, not a method used by researchers seeking the truth.

In addition, Dr. Cabrera alone had over 11,000 stones in his collection, so where is the gigantic crater that would be required to have dug up that many stones? And how could these two people have done all this by themselves without anyone noticing? Hamilton Forman, archaeologist researching the Ica Stones, said:

"If one family did this, they must have had an army of elves helping them."

A Peruvian jail sentence is almost the same as an American death sentence. They don't feed you. They don't cloth you. They don't help you in any way. If your family does not come to give you food and assistance, you will die in a Peruvian jail. Selling Peruvian treasures without government authorization is against the law, so when police officers brought in Irma and Basilio, both said they make the stones and sell them, because if the two confessed to digging up the stones and selling them, they would be immediately thrown in Peruvian jail. [Viceroy63: Sure they did! That makes perfect sense when you put it like that??? ]

Even Philip Coppens, who writes against the authenticity of the Ica Stones, wrote:

"When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; but later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to avoid imprisonment."

[Note:]
Oh, Come on People; Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that any police, any where on the planet, would try to coerce a confession from a suspect? Ha, ha, ha, Get real???
-Viceroy63

There is still a lot to be learned by the Ica Stones, but few people are willing to pay for the research because, after all, these stones completely destroy the general theory of evolution.

Who would want to pay for research that destroys the only presupposition evolutionists have to help them reject true Biblical history?

If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn't have to be so skeptical.

[jonesthecurl]

So: one hundred years ago, somebody made up a fake fossil. Quite likely it was Tielhard de Chardin, leading Christian philosopher. (Incidentally, you and any believers who want ammunition in the "How could God allow nasty things" argument should read his "On Suffering").
This somehow invalidates the whole of science.

And:The Ica stones: many of them have been shown to be modern forgeries, based on comic books, to the satisfaction even of Erich von Daniken and Christopher J E Johnson. But that does not invalidate them...

Got any authenticated pictures of the ones found "500 years ago"?

[jonesthecurl]

So we can dismiss the Pilktdown man as completely irrelevant, just as it has been for the last 50 years.

I would not say that exactly.

If a man is accused of rape, the fact that he has not raped a woman in fifty days does not exclude it from the evidence presented in a trial of law. It goes towards Character establishment. If Darwinist continue to prop up false and misleading information and duping the public then to me it's the same old, same old and there is no statute of limitations where we can say, "Oh that don't count anymore because the man has not even beat up on his wife in the past month. So let's just leave that out because it's 'completely irrelevant.'"

I'm just saying?

Perhaps I am wrong in that though? =)

So if any evangelists or creationists have ever been found to lie or commit fraud that would invalidate the whole of Christianity?

[jonesthecurl]

Incidentally, von Daniken, whose evidence your article takes at face value, is a convicted fraud. It was a long while ago but by your own logic we have to discount anything he says. Which I personally am happy to do.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sorry; was there a question in there some where?

Yes, yours... answered, but the answer was ignored, as usual.

Why can't we focus on one thing at a time?

Sure I wrote a lot in my article but nothing is being dissected and discussed; Only counter arguments offered that dismiss the details and go right over all that I have posted. If you did that then you would be addressing the issue. Why don't we begin with Pilt down Man? Make you point and your questions about just that one thing and lets see if we can't get some place with that?

Done.
Piltdown is a hoax, as noted, it perpetuated for a long time, but when you look at the world events of the time, its not really all that remarkable, after all, that this particular bit went unchallenged for as long as it did . [edit.. previously referred to the Depression, WWII, both of which rather took scientists away from their normal pursuits].

Because to jumble it all together into some heavy soup with many, Many questions, and then say that I am the one who is ignoring all of the evidence and questions posted is surely not right! Not for anyone.

Well, the above is a nice example. See, you keep pretending that we are claiming Piltdown is something other than a hoax, and seem to be inferring, further, that the information of this hoax was hidden by some evolutionist conspiracy and challenged by those opposing evolution. The facts are otherwise. That you insist on bringing this up again and again is pretty much an example of your refusal to honestly discuss this.


OR... how about the way you keep bringing up this picture of a dinosaur painting and insisting that it would somehow refute evolution. It doesn't necessarily indicate that a dinosaur was alive at the time or in any recent time (as has been explained several times to you), but more importantly, even if it were an accurate photograph, even if ou found such a dinosaur alive today, it would not refute evolution. It might, possibly change how we see a small section of the story, but it would in no way, shape or form refute it.

OR.. how about my whole prior response to your post, in particular the recent one where I tell you that your entire idea of evolution and what theories mean is just wrong....

You can start with any of those.

What if I just pick one, just to keep it simple and honest. OK.

Done.
Piltdown is a hoax, as noted, it perpetuated for a long time, but when you look at the world events of the time, its not really all that remarkable, after all, that this particular bit went unchallenged for as long as it did . [edit.. previously referred to the Depression, WWII, both of which rather took scientists away from their normal pursuits.

If Piltdown man was the only example of this then I would have to agree with you that it could just be an over sight. But the facts are that every single example used to portray evolution as fact even down to the geographic layers, the "Sedimentary Column," is sadly misrepresented and twisted and even fabricated to prove that evolution is a "factual" theory. The sad part is that the truth is, at the same time suppress.

Who said Piltdown was the only example of fraud or error? Creationist "scientists" maybe, not real scientists
..and that is the REAL point.

Also, as was noted above in the simplified version, was it creationists confronting evolution or scientists confirming evolution that found this particular fossil..... and the other frauds. AND, did they in any way consider their own discoveries of this fraud to be refutation of the theory of evolution?

For example:
Evolutionist always say that no human bones are ever found in that layer of the earth where the dinosaurs are because man and Dinosaurs are separated by 65,000,000 million years of evolution. But human bones and human foot prints are found in those very layers of sedimentary rocks and fossilized foot prints along side with those of the dinosaurs. But we never hear about this in schools or museums. Why do you suppose that is?

Actually, it is brought up, as a classic example of a fraud.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=178

Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.

That website will answer a lot of your "questions", by-the-way.

(moved the rest to my next post, now have time to answer it)

[Lootifer]

I find it quite curious that the only google results I get from "human remains found in cretaceous atrata" are young earth websites. Now dont get me wrong, I am not commenting on their legitimacy. I just find it weird that there arent a few "scientific American" or "national geographic"r references.

This kind of discovery is surely within those types of organizations reporting scope?

[Lootifer]

Oh wait....

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

So once again comes back to carbon dating...

[AAFitz]

So we can dismiss the Pilktdown man as completely irrelevant, just as it has been for the last 50 years.

I would not say that exactly.

If a man is accused of rape, the fact that he has not raped a woman in fifty days does not exclude it from the evidence presented in a trial of law. It goes towards Character establishment. If Darwinist continue to prop up false and misleading information and duping the public then to me it's the same old, same old and there is no statute of limitations where we can say, "Oh that don't count anymore because the man has not even beat up on his wife in the past month. So let's just leave that out because it's 'completely irrelevant.'"

I'm just saying?

Perhaps I am wrong in that though? =)

So if any evangelists or creationists have ever been found to lie or commit fraud that would invalidate the whole of Christianity?

Many think so.

[PLAYER57832]

In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument.

continued, from earlier post....



The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some of the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.

You can read the rest of this at...

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%2 ... trata.html

hmmm, and yet it seems they missed several details in their "scientific analysis", in particular that the formation where these bones were supposedly found are not the "same as" those found in Dinosaur National Monument. (a pretty big error, that.. such sloppiness leads nothing to the credibility of the claim at all!)

In 1971 a rockhound named Lin Ottinger was leading a field trip in the Big Indian Copper Mine (more recently called the Keystone Azurite Mine) near Moab, Utah, when he discovered major portions of two human skeletons bearing an interesting greenish color. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and inadvertently damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by archaeologist John Marwitt, who at the time was serving as Field Director for the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey.

Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, describing the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand, in contrast to the consolidated, hard sandstone further from the bones, comprising the host formation at the site. He also indicated that all the bones were unfossilized, that is, not heavily altered or replaced with secondary minerals, and looked essentially modern, other than the greenish staining due to contact with the copper bearing sediments immediately surrounding the bones. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, probably only hundreds of years old.

Marwitt conveyed his observations to a local reporter from the Times Independent newspaper in Utah, who also came to review the find. Unfortunately, as Marwitt later lamented, apparently the reporter was more interested in a "story" than the truth, and ended up presenting the find as a geologic "mystery" and ignoring much of what he described about it.

Subsequently strict creationist Clifford Burdick (1973) discussed the finds as likely out-of-place fossils in a CRSQ article, perhaps basing his article mainly on the newspaper account. The find was similarly sensationalized as "mysterious" in a longer story in Desert Magazine (Barnes, 1975), and a brief account in a 1978 book entitled Weird America by Jim Brandon, both of which neglected or misrepresented several aspects of Marwitt's observations.

During the mid-1980's Paluxy "man track" enthusiast Carl Baugh purchased one of the skeletons from Lin Ottinger. Baugh subsequently displayed the bones in his little "Creation Evidence Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas, as alleged examples of "out of order" fossils.

However, the largely unfossilized condition of the bones from the 1971 finds was personally confirmed by Ron Hastings and myself when we inspected them and visited with Lin Ottinger at his rock shop in Utah in 1988. Although we could not do any invasive work, we found, as others before us had, that the bones were rather were light-weight and largely modern appearing human bones, except for the green staining. Hastings, Kirk Person, and others also inspected the bones Baugh had in his museum around the same time, which appeared largely similar, that is, largely unfossilized.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.

In late 1997 and 1998 strict creationists Don Patton and David Willis claimed in an internet discussion group led by Jim Moore (which I participated in) that some green bones recently excavated in Utah represented stupendous anti-evolutionary evidence, showing supposed human bones in a Cretaceous deposit. They called the new finds as "Malachite Man" in reference to the green mineral malachite, the presumed source of the green color. However, the web site Willis referred us to, developed by Don Patton and his associate Dave Rudd, showed several photos which turned out to not be from recent excavations, but from the earlier excavations showing Lin Ottinger and the original "Moab Man" bones. A revised version of the web site, located at http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm better distinguishes between the 1971 and more recent finds, which did take place in the early 1990's. However, it omits most of the history described above and continues to make a number of unfounded claims about the site and bones, while neglecting mainstream work and writings, and even failing to cite creationist articles on the topic. Patton's web site (which he does not dispute as having been written by him, but which oddy omits his name as the author), states that the bones at the site included at least 10 individuals, including women and children, but provides no specific analysis of the bones to demonstrate how he came to this conclusion.

Patton's asserts that the bones under discussion contradict the geologic timetable and demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs lived together. The latter claim he attempts to bolster by stating that the bones are in the same Cretaceous, Dakota sandstone as the dinosaur bones at Dinosaur National Monument. However, as all geologists know, the bones at Dinosaur National Monument are in the Morrison formation, a Jurassic deposit, approximately 50 million years older than the Dakota Sandstone by conventional dating. Furthermore, since other workers report that the bones at Blue Indian/Keystone Azurite mine indicate that the bones were intrusive burials, the host formation is not particularly relevant to the case, even if it were the same as the one at Dinosaur National Monument, which it is not.


....

The article goes on for a couple of pages, pretty well detailed, pointing out more inconsistencies and errors by the young earth claimers as well as contrasting their "findings" with the analysis by true scientists.

The full article can be found here:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

Why is it that only those scientists who have creationist beliefs ever reach the types of conclusions you seem to think are "just given".. and instead say exactly the opposite?

You are more than welcome to bring up any example you think will prove your case.

So the question are:

1.)
Either modern man lived 65,000,000 years ago, or how else to you explain this?

There were some bones found, but as explained in the article I cited, the bones were not truly from the time of dinosaurs.
ONLY folks intent on trying to prove the earth young continue to cite this becuase it is just a nonsense claim.

The real question is why the young earth "scientists" insist on twisting every piece of data they get instead of just acting scientifically and reporting the facts as they actually happen?

2.)
Dinosaurs lived with man for thousands of years and there is some wrong with the explanation of the "Sedimentary Column" display used to explain evolution? And most importantly...

So, one find, shown to not be what you claim is enough to disabuse millions of other points of evidence?

Nice try, but no.

3.)
Why would this not make headlines all around the world?

I would think that a discovery like this would simply change everything!

It would, but most reporters do a better job of checking and verifying than this one guy who originally "reported' the story did.

Also, even if it were true a far more likely possibility would be that there were a remnant population of dinosaurs that persisted in that location into the time of human beings. in truth, the evidence does NOT show that the human remains existed in the time of dinosaurs at all, though.. it was a case of a false report, taken up by young earthers desperate to prove their "cause" and willing to pull up the flimsiest of "evidence".

So far I posted links that showed that Dinosaur Blood and Fresh DNA were discovered. Even Fresh Dinosaur Bone, not fossilized but recently dead dinosaurs bones.

We all know that there was DNA found in fossilized bones. The issue is your claim that this means they were fresh, rather than that the DNA was preserved. Your claim is just wrong. The information is remarkable, but not a dispute of evolution, as you try to claim.

Again, an honest reporter, scientists or student would address the real information and facts, not just pick out something that "seems to fit" and then proclaim it as proof that millions of points of real evidence are false.

Also I have posted links with the "Ica Stones" proving that man has seen living dinosaurs no more than 800 years ago tops and that the cave etchings by American Indians were also approximately 500 hundred years old.

YOu have shown some etchings and drawings, not proof that the people then saw living dinosaurs.

HOWEVER, even if they did, you have not explained why you believe this would utterly disprove evolution. Many ancient remnant populations have been found, in no way shape or form does this defeat the theory of evolution. Such claims just show that you don't understand the theory of evolution or what proof entails.... at all.

If it were just the Piltdown down man, then man, would I be so wrong and so very sorry and so humbly apologetic that it would embarrass even you. Oh, for shame, I would leave CC and not even come back under a different name because I would simply feel so terrible about myself, that my shame would not even let me get a good nights sleep. I would be a completely repented human being and ever so silent that I would not make another comment on any internet topics comments anywhere at all.

If it were just the piltdown man than you would be oh, so right in judging me a fool! But it is not just the Piltdown man but every single last exhibit that is used to portray evolution as factual and that is why I am not sorry in the least.

LOL

If you mean that almost every exhibit of human evolution has included that progression of man including the bit abotu "neaderthal to modern man", then sure, there are errors in most exhibits, though you fail to state that in most cases there is now (not in the past, but now) also an accompanying explanation to those drawings.


But... beyond that, I and others here have never disputed that there have been plenty of errors made in the study of evolution. You will find that to be the case in just about any field of science.. the broader and more encompassing, the more the errors. Errors and fraud, both. Errors are honest scientists who put forward ideas that wind up being proven false... of course you neglect the part about even the original submissions of these errors present them as theories or ideas, not "absolute facts". Per the fraud.. sure, you get thousands of people doing anything and some will be frauds (or steal or embezzle.. etc).
Happens in every (large) Christian church, too.

I have pointed out one very classic example.. that of the the 2 guys who finally proved that ulcers come from bacteria, and who got the nobel laureate just recently, but who up until shortly before that were considered laughing stocks. Unlike young earthers, though, they did not go out and make a campaign to say every other scientist was presenting false data, lying. They DID say other scientists were mistaken in their conclusions and just went about proving their case.

I also used to believe that evolution was true and even spoke in support of evolution but when I really looked at it, What was I really supporting and why? I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus. And believe me that when your young children know the truth and tell your neighbors young children the truth, you hear about it from your neighbors! Not the children but the parents. "What the hell is wrong with you sir...."

But I don't want my children growing up believing that I ever lied to them about anything and for nothing, and so I simply don't practice it.

WElll, too bad.. as long as you continue on this creationist track you are perpetuating a lie... and since you seem to tie it so heavily to your faith, you will find that they wind up challenging that as well.

Believe me, I have talked to more than a few young earthers going through crisis when they studied real biology and geology in the university.

[AAFitz]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

You may not want to do that, but that's exactly what you are doing.

[PLAYER57832]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

You may not want to do that, but that's exactly what you are doing.

Actually, the more I read of his "discussion", the more convinced I am he is just a troll, having fun, and not truly a young earth believer.

Most true believers actually try to counter opposition. He just stops and says "no, you lie"... and then posts the most idiotic website to try and prove his case.

[comic boy]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

You may not want to do that, but that's exactly what you are doing.

Actually, the more I read of his "discussion", the more convinced I am he is just a troll, having fun, and not truly a young earth believer.

Most true believers actually try to counter opposition. He just stops and says "no, you lie"... and then posts the most idiotic website to try and prove his case.

I came to that conclusion several months ago

[crispybits]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

You may not want to do that, but that's exactly what you are doing.

Actually, the more I read of his "discussion", the more convinced I am he is just a troll, having fun, and not truly a young earth believer.

Most true believers actually try to counter opposition. He just stops and says "no, you lie"... and then posts the most idiotic website to try and prove his case.

I came to that conclusion several months ago

As I have already said:

[tzor]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

It figures you would lie to your children about historical facts ...

Saint Nicholas (Greek: Ἅγιος Νικόλαος, Hagios Nikólaos; Latin: Sanctus Nicolaus) (March 15, 270 – 6 December 343),[2][3] also called Nikolaos of Myra, was a historic 4th-century saint and Greek[4] Bishop of Myra (Demre, part of modern-day Turkey) in Lycia. Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker (Νικόλαος ὁ Θαυματουργός, Nikolaos ho Thaumaturgos). He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos". His reputation evolved among the faithful, as was common for early Christian saints.[5] In 1087, part of the relics (about half of the bones) were furtively translated to Bari, in southeastern Italy; for this reason, he is also known as Nikolaos of Bari. The remaining bones were taken to Venice in 1100. His feast day is 6 December [O.S. 19 December].

The historical Saint Nicholas is commemorated and revered among Anglican,[6] Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox Christians. In addition, some Baptist,[7] Methodist,[8] Presbyterian,[9] and Reformed churches have been named in honor of Saint Nicholas.[10] Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, thieves, children, pawnbrokers and students in various cities and countries around Europe. He was also a patron of the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors, who protected his relics in Bari.

[jonesthecurl]

What he doesn't have is a Sanity Clause.

[Viceroy63]

I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus.

It figures you would lie to your children about historical facts ...

Saint Nicholas (Greek: Ἅγιος Νικόλαος, Hagios Nikólaos; Latin: Sanctus Nicolaus) (March 15, 270 – 6 December 343),[2][3] also called Nikolaos of Myra, was a historic 4th-century saint and Greek[4] Bishop of Myra (Demre, part of modern-day Turkey) in Lycia. Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker (Νικόλαος ὁ Θαυματουργός, Nikolaos ho Thaumaturgos). He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos". His reputation evolved among the faithful, as was common for early Christian saints.[5] In 1087, part of the relics (about half of the bones) were furtively translated to Bari, in southeastern Italy; for this reason, he is also known as Nikolaos of Bari. The remaining bones were taken to Venice in 1100. His feast day is 6 December [O.S. 19 December].

The historical Saint Nicholas is commemorated and revered among Anglican,[6] Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox Christians. In addition, some Baptist,[7] Methodist,[8] Presbyterian,[9] and Reformed churches have been named in honor of Saint Nicholas.[10] Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, thieves, children, pawnbrokers and students in various cities and countries around Europe. He was also a patron of the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors, who protected his relics in Bari.

So then, this is the guy who climbs down your filthy chimney in the middle of the night in a red costume that never gets dirty, to leave presents for your kids for being good all year long, eats the cookies and milk and does it again the next house over and over and over again, all night long on December 25th for over 2 billion homes around the world?

"Geez; And they call me Punchy?"

He doesn't even look all that 'jolly' to me. More like a Catholic Pedaphile, er, I mean priest if you ask me.

Who would want to tell children about him? "Kids, if you don't behave, Saint Nick is going to get you???" Talk about Child abuse!

[PLAYER57832]

Viceroy... you never did answer the last evolution post.

[tzor]

So then, this is the guy who climbs down your filthy chimney in the middle of the night in a red costume that never gets dirty, to leave presents for your kids for being good all year long, eats the cookies and milk and does it again the next house over and over and over again, all night long on December 25th for over 2 billion homes around the world?

You realize that this description was invented in the Victorian Era in an attempt to take the horrid season of Christmas (where beggars would go from door to door demanding food and drink) and turn it into a family centered occasion.

Cookies and milk was a 20th century invention sometime after he was abducted by the cola industry.

The original saint left presents in children's shoes on his feast day earlier that month.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, our current vision of Santa was essentially created by a Saturday Evening Post cover.

[Viceroy63]

So then, this is the guy who climbs down your filthy chimney in the middle of the night in a red costume that never gets dirty, to leave presents for your kids for being good all year long, eats the cookies and milk and does it again the next house over and over and over again, all night long on December 25th for over 2 billion homes around the world?

You realize that this description was invented in the Victorian Era in an attempt to take the horrid season of Christmas (where beggars would go from door to door demanding food and drink) and turn it into a family centered occasion.

Cookies and milk was a 20th century invention sometime after he was abducted by the cola industry.

The original saint left presents in children's shoes on his feast day earlier that month.

But what does that have to do with the "Santa Claus" that is told to little Children now in the present. They are two very different things. The "Santa" that is told to little children with the reign deers and the North Pole and the presents, should not be told to anyone at all. Because it just is not true!

I personally was very heart broken when I found out the truth. Just being honest here. Why should any child be put through that? Even if it's just a mild heart break? Do we think that perhaps we are preparing our children for the realities of life? By lying to them???