0
   

Archaeoraptor: Yet Another Case of Evolutionist Fraud

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 06:29 pm
Ya know, after looking at the deconstruction figures that were done at U Texas, Im damn proud to be a geologist and associated with the kind of thankless work that somebody, pro bono, did to expose what was a pretty good forgery. The fossil fakery work was , obviously done by an accomplished person with some detailed knowledge of taxonomy. It appeared that the sections that were married togethere were skillfully cranked out.
Having said that, I think the Smithsonian should celebrate , in a special showing some of the more famous forgeries and fossil fakes of history. I think it would be a ripping good show. It would draw Creationists and those open to science. I dont think it would hurt anybody , in fact it may send a message that science is always on the lookout to smoke out its own errors.
Whaddya think? should we call Dr Sinkankas? Whatever happened to Bob Fri?
Everybody left the Smithsonian since Bush came into town.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 08:36 pm
raprap wrote:
Microevolution is an adoption of ID, that was invented by a Soviet Lamarkist. Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Genetics doesn't differentiate between micro and macroevolution---there is only evolution.

The microevolution argument is another strawman of convenance. But then I've said this to you before.

Rap

The first time I ever saw the word 'microevolution' was in a Scientific American article. They seemed to have no trouble with the word, though I couldn't understand why it became necessary to replace the perfectly good word 'adaptation'. I just figured it was a feeble attempt to convert religious fence sitters. Micro><Macro=same thing.

After reading all the posts by my religious friends in this forum, I can certainly understand why evolutionarians have disdain for any competing explanations of reality. In a way, I'm dumbfounded. The religionist arguments are jejune, yet I have difficulty articulating the viability of my own approach. (Which is neither unique nor complex - it's just not widely known)

I shall continue reading and cogitating until I can add something of value. Until then, let me leave you with my broken record speech: Organized religion is the chief obstacle to human enlightenment and the cause of every abomination known to history. But that does not relieve us of an obligation to God.
0 Replies
 
Badboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 09:16 am
Let me see now,Archaeoraptor? was a fake put together in China.


Now if these fakes etc prove evolution is wrong,what about those fakes said to be from Solomon Temple, they prove the Bible must be wrong.

Where does that leave us?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 11:33 am
This would be a story that a number of A2kers would like to read. I wonder why gungasnake just shut up about it after trying his "micro v macro" evolution debate with rap.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 03:55 pm
A question for the scientifically minded. I'm reading (struggling) with Teilhard de Chardin "The Phenomenon of Man". I know it's an old book, I have literally been reading it for years - on an off (I'm not that slow a reader I just put it down for a few years and then pick it up again).

But some questions.

Is Chardin still "valid"? I'm halfway through the book. It seems to me that Chardin is arguing that evolution and Christianity can co-exist. Is that still the view of his work or has it been revised?

I've recently read some reports that the Catholic Church is now unhappy with his views.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 04:31 pm
Chardin was a recognized authority in paleoanthropology but, after his insistant support of the Piltdown Man was found to be a forgery (and after all Teilhard had found the tooth that was later found to have been "doctored") his reputation was not so great as before. He did confer with Roy Chapman ANdrews on Andrews first expeditions into the Gobi.
Teilhards biggest proposal, that of the "noosphere" was based upon a theistic assumption that good is inherent in our makeup as a species. There still is nothing that argues against a compatability of evolution and religion. Its just that the evidence that some use to find the "footprints of God" in evolution are tenuous at best.
Thats all Ill say so as not to be too argumentative.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 05:49 pm
I knew you had mellowed fm.

You're on your way boyo.

BTW-The farmers here are on a three day strike because the city lot want free milk.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2005 07:09 pm
Thanks for that farmerman, it helps me to put some ideas into perspective. The Noosphere thing was bugging the whatsit out of me as well. I can continue reading with less scratching of the head now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 02:00:28