Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
So, you deny that Piltdown man, Lucy, fossils glued together, Nebraska man, are not hoaxes?

Science is conducted by fallible humans. So what?

reply to post by helldiver


Sorry i forgot about who i was talking to there and i already know your answer. Yes plasmids replicate within a cell but the point is that perfectly transcriptional nucleic acids can exist outside of a cell.

Originally posted by helldiver
Yes plasmids replicate within a cell but the point is that perfectly transcriptional nucleic acids can exist outside of a cell.

What could you possibly mean by that? Are you perhaps mixing up transcription and replication? What do you mean by "perfectly"? There's no perfect DNA polymerase..

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Your using argument from ignorance to bash abiogenesis and then guilt by association to try and conclude that that extends to evolution.

Evolution is independent of abiogenesis. I know creationists just don't get this, but the theory does not concern itself with the origins of life at all, it just deals with diversification.

You are being very deceptive here.

You know what's deceptive? Naming a topic "Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies" and then presenting as supportive evidence nothing but hoaxes and desperate lies from creationists.

So, you deny that Piltdown man, Lucy, fossils glued together, Nebraska man, are not hoaxes? Do educate me as to how I have deceived anyone. You just don't like the facts and are trying to ignore facts.

If nobody else will address this then I will be glad to... Piltdown, yes. It was a deliberate Hoax. Nebraska Man, not a hoax. It was certainly an egregious error but not a purposeful deception. The purposeful part is what does or does not make a hoax so there was none in that case. Lucy? Not a hoax either You've given absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that Lucy was a hoax aside from anecdotes. You also claimed that Neanderthal was a hoax as part of your OP. Not even CLOSE to being a hoax The Neanderthal you described was not the first set of remains to be found that are now known to be from Neanderthal. It was indeed a Neanderthal who had arthritis, not some random guy with arthritis as you claim. we've found many, many remains of Neanderthal at this point and as science does, we adjust as new evidence comes in as opposed to standing on a bible and making absurd claims. I read through your links and Neanderthal is not a hoax because ONE scientist fudged data to make himself look good. You seem to forget the part that he was discovered by OTHER SCIENTISTS who were double checking his work which showed him to be a conman. You are also attributing falsely a link between the work of Professor Reiner Protsch and Neanderthal. the remains he was identifying as 36,000 yrs old(which turned out to be approx. 7500 years old if I remember correctly) were never attributed to Neanderthal. He was claiming it was an intermediary species, the first German if you will. Another Hoax being perpetrated in this thread is by you. It's that "evolutionists", whatever the hell an evolutionist is, teaches that something came from nothing. Its just patently untrue and as deliberate a hoax as Piltdown was. In 10th grade biology you may have learned about the origins of life from a Biologist but I have never once had a teacher so confused that they taught abiogenesis as part of evolution. I've never heard it put in that context at all prior to this thread. Thus my conclusion is that you are the bigger hoaxer or just a giant troll that people can't stop feeding after 50+ pages

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by helldiver
Yes plasmids replicate within a cell but the point is that perfectly transcriptional nucleic acids can exist outside of a cell.

What could you possibly mean by that? Are you perhaps mixing up transcription and replication? What do you mean by "perfectly"? There's no perfect DNA polymerase..

No mix up, plasmids are transcribed before their genes are expressed. I never mentioned DNA replication or polymerase, perfect or otherwise.

You're nit picking the word "perfectly". My point is that nucleic acids can exist outside a cell which are perfectly capable of being transcribed. Competent bacteria could be said to be perfectly cable of transformation.

reply to post by peter vlar


Bravo, very well said. I missed that earlier on.

Originally posted by helldiver


No mix up, plasmids are transcribed before their genes are expressed. I never mentioned DNA replication or polymerase, perfect or otherwise.

You're nit picking the word "perfectly". My point is that nucleic acids can exist outside a cell which are perfectly capable of being transcribed. Competent bacteria could be said to be perfectly cable of transformation.

None of that proves evolution. None of that shows how you go from a cell to an animal and from that species to a completely other kind. So, while it is all interesting, it does not show how the code of DNA is anything but intelligently designed. Do you disagree that the best examples evolutionists have offered to prove their intermediate fossil theory were wrong and some outright lies and fraud?

I would love to see a real one, but as yet they do not exist.

reply to post by peter vlar


They purposefully created a whole example of a missing link from an extinct pigs tooth! You know that smacks of an agenda.

They deliberately gave LUCY human hands and feet when we know they are ape like and yet it's still used to show a missing link, again a lie.

They ignore the facts presented like the vestigial pelvis of the whale being completely necessary for mating and thus have nothing to do with a whale once walking around the world. Same with snake anatomy saying the spikes are remnants of legs when they are used in mating.

They still say human embryos have gill slits when they KNOW those are for hearing and other uses in the human and thus do not link back in any way to our once having gills like fish. They say the appendix is vestigial when it's KNOWN to be part of our immune system now.

They use the truth about natural selection and adaptation WITHIN a species to link to the preposterous idea of common ancestry.... "OH Darwin saw 14 different finches!" Guess what, They were all finches! I will say this for the umpteenth time now, we are not talking about micro evolution being the issue. The word should be change not evolution because the catch all term evolution has been pushed and images have been used over and over and over to try to convince people Evolution from different species is a fact when they cannot prove it.

I will post this video, but I must say, Heinz Lycklama bugs the crap out of me cause he can't seem to pronounce a damn thing right and it makes listening to him difficult, but I can ignore his apparent difficulty and listen to the facts presented

Here is a great presentation by the author of "Icons of Evolution" Jonathan Wells:

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by helldiver


No mix up, plasmids are transcribed before their genes are expressed. I never mentioned DNA replication or polymerase, perfect or otherwise.

You're nit picking the word "perfectly". My point is that nucleic acids can exist outside a cell which are perfectly capable of being transcribed. Competent bacteria could be said to be perfectly cable of transformation.

None of that proves evolution. None of that shows how you go from a cell to an animal and from that species to a completely other kind. So, while it is all interesting, it does not show how the code of DNA is anything but intelligently designed. Do you disagree that the best examples evolutionists have offered to prove their intermediate fossil theory were wrong and some outright lies and fraud?

I would love to see a real one, but as yet they do not exist.

Well I hate to break it to you but you most certainly are not intelligently designed. I'm now convinced you're taking the mickey so good day. And if i'm wrong and you are in fact genuine, then you are a very poor soul indeed, misguided and betrayed into devoting your life to a silly fantasy. Such a waste. Intelligent design?! pffff!!!

Pretty disturbing that we're in the 21st century and some people still think evolution is a lie. Though hardly surprising when they ignore all evidence presented and rely on pisspoor sources.

If you honestly believe you've disproven evolution then send your workings to a journal, let the world know and make a few million in the process; or you could just carry on posting it on a conspiracy site.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by tremex
By saying that, you support your opponent's opinion: If "evolution is the exact opposite of 'by chance,' '' then evolution is a process based on a design.

Non sequitor.

False dichotomy.

Did the wind turbine blade developed in the youtube vid I posted above have a designer? Someone wrote the code and defined the parameters, sure, but he did not come up with the shape of the blade - random mutations sorted by 'natural' selection did.

You failed to notice that I didn't reply to your post with turbine blades, which, btw, are not living organisms.

Non sequitur and false dichotomy are fallacies that address something else than you think they do, otherwise you wouldn't mention them.

Your turbine blade example is taken out of main context, where realities concerning evolution molecular modeling are established the correct way.

Conclusion. The considered models of course can't explain the real life origin process, because these models are based on various plausible assumptions rather than on a strong experimental evidences. Nevertheless, quasispecies, hypercycles, and sysers provide a well defined mathematical background for understanding of the first molecular-genetic systems evolution. These models can be used to develop the scenarios of the first cybernetic systems origin, they can be juxtaposed with biochemical data to interpret qualitatively the corresponding experiments, and can be considered as a step for developments of more powerful models.
pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You are so far off base on so many varied points that continuing to discuss it with
You us about as wise as playing leapfrog with a unicorn. If ignorance is bliss... You must be having an amazing day. Nebraska man was NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM ON PURPOSE. As for Lucy, scientists make educated guesses all the time. Further discoveries or testing will lead to changes in prevailing theory. That doesn't ever happen in religion. The only deliberate hoaxes in this thread are your OP and further responses. Best of luck to you in your quest for the truth that you create as you go.

Originally posted by Lawgiver
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

deconstructing religion is a constant and ongoing endeavor to understanding god. deconstructing the very tenets of the science book are never done and frowned upon.

Incredible.

The exact opposite is true in the real world.

So what have we learned so far from beating this dead horse to hell and back?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So what have we learned so far from beating this dead horse to hell and back?

Mostly that debating creationists is a waste of time?

Originally posted by tremex

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by tremex
By saying that, you support your opponent's opinion: If "evolution is the exact opposite of 'by chance,' '' then evolution is a process based on a design.

Non sequitor.

False dichotomy.

Did the wind turbine blade developed in the youtube vid I posted above have a designer? Someone wrote the code and defined the parameters, sure, but he did not come up with the shape of the blade - random mutations sorted by 'natural' selection did.

You failed to notice that I didn't reply to your post with turbine blades, which, btw, are not living organisms.

Non sequitur and false dichotomy are fallacies that address something else than you think they do, otherwise you wouldn't mention them.

Your turbine blade example is taken out of main context, where realities concerning evolution molecular modeling are established the correct way.

Conclusion. The considered models of course can't explain the real life origin process, because these models are based on various plausible assumptions rather than on a strong experimental evidences. Nevertheless, quasispecies, hypercycles, and sysers provide a well defined mathematical background for understanding of the first molecular-genetic systems evolution. These models can be used to develop the scenarios of the first cybernetic systems origin, they can be juxtaposed with biochemical data to interpret qualitatively the corresponding experiments, and can be considered as a step for developments of more powerful models.
pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

edit on 21-8-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)

I thought you were presenting a mutually exclusive choice - that something must either completely random or the product of design. This is a false choice and what I was referring to.

If that is not what you meant, then I am sorry.

These topics are pointless.

Creationist makes claim A:

Opponent raises counterpoints and posts evidence to directly contradict claim A:

Creationist ignores all evidence and counterpoints and repeats claim A:

Ad infinitum

I really wish one day the argument could progress beyond the original claims but it never does.

reply to post by Barcs




Ah yes...The cycle of ignorance is the creationist favorite ride.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Where do organic chemicals come from? Living cells? How do you have organic chemicals if you don't have organisms to create?

You misunderstand.

Organic chemistry is a specific branch of chemistry dealing with complex carbon molecules. That's it. It doesn't deal with the more weighty subjects of biochemistry, which I think you are confusing it with.

Any molecule containing carbon, is by definition an organic molecule.

To answer your question, then, organic compounds are rife in nature. And no, you do not need living cells to produce them.

edit on 20-8-2013 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: (no reason given)

I think uric acid was the first synthesized organic compound. BOOM! "Organic" chemistry from "regular" chemistry.