Evolution Fraud and Myths

[lionofjudah60]

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

you mean like : Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java Man, Orc Man - and who knows how many more - who were composites / fakes

Banging on about fakes proves nothing and adds nothing to the argument. The Turin shroud has been scientifically shown to be a fake, but I've never heard any atheist use that as proof that Jesus never existed or was never crucified.

---

During the Middle Ages there were enough pieces of the "True Cross" floating around Europe tofill a small forest. Could I use them to argue that there never was a true cross and the crucifiction never happened?

---

Please! You are mistaking me for someone that believes in "True Crosses" and "Turin Shroud" ???? As well as the other codswallop that the Catholics (and others) go on about??

I am not arguing that evolution never happened. I have tried to tell you dozens of times that I fully comprehend the evolution (adaption) among various species. I have even happily agreed that within it's genus (sp) two or more species of the SAME ANIMAL - eg elephants can exist. BUT THAT IS A VERY LONG STRETCH from saying that Man and Ape have a common ancestor.

---

 Not exactly sure what it is you don't understand if you actually "fully comprehend evolution" yet you're still quoting frauds/hoax. 

Why is it hard to understand that man and ape have a common ancestor?? I can understand it's harder to imagine a fish turning into a dog. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@**bob_on_the_go** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

you mean like : Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java Man, Orc Man - and who knows how many more - who were composites / fakes

Banging on about fakes proves nothing and adds nothing to the argument. The Turin shroud has been scientifically shown to be a fake, but I've never heard any atheist use that as proof that Jesus never existed or was never crucified.

---

During the Middle Ages there were enough pieces of the "True Cross" floating around Europe tofill a small forest. Could I use them to argue that there never was a true cross and the crucifiction never happened?

---

Please! You are mistaking me for someone that believes in "True Crosses" and "Turin Shroud" ???? As well as the other codswallop that the Catholics (and others) go on about??

I am not arguing that evolution never happened. I have tried to tell you dozens of times that I fully comprehend the evolution (adaption) among various species. I have even happily agreed that within it's genus (sp) two or more species of the SAME ANIMAL - eg elephants can exist. BUT THAT IS A VERY LONG STRETCH from saying that Man and Ape have a common ancestor.

---

 Not exactly sure what it is you don't understand if you actually "fully comprehend evolution" yet you're still quoting frauds/hoax. 

Why is it hard to understand that man and ape have a common ancestor?? I can understand it's harder to imagine a fish turning into a dog. 

---

Now Bob. You know I didn't say that I 'fully comprehend evolution' - what I said was "I fully comprehend the evolution (adaption) among various species" - ie how a dog can evolve into a different shape, colour, longer legs, hairier etc based on environmental factors.  I also agree than man has evolved by adapting to environment - eg hot climate - dark skin, cooler climate light skin etc, but as far as I know, an eskimo hasn't evolved a thick skin to keep out the cold - he still has to wear bear skins etc for that purpose. While we are on that subject, WHY hasn't an eskimo evolved a thick skin or a layer of blubber like a seal???

[cmcoins2000]

It was Abraham Lincoln - I think.

So not so much an oxymoron.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@**bob_on_the_go** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

you mean like : Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java Man, Orc Man - and who knows how many more - who were composites / fakes

Banging on about fakes proves nothing and adds nothing to the argument. The Turin shroud has been scientifically shown to be a fake, but I've never heard any atheist use that as proof that Jesus never existed or was never crucified.

---

During the Middle Ages there were enough pieces of the "True Cross" floating around Europe tofill a small forest. Could I use them to argue that there never was a true cross and the crucifiction never happened?

---

Please! You are mistaking me for someone that believes in "True Crosses" and "Turin Shroud" ???? As well as the other codswallop that the Catholics (and others) go on about??

I am not arguing that evolution never happened. I have tried to tell you dozens of times that I fully comprehend the evolution (adaption) among various species. I have even happily agreed that within it's genus (sp) two or more species of the SAME ANIMAL - eg elephants can exist. BUT THAT IS A VERY LONG STRETCH from saying that Man and Ape have a common ancestor.

---

 Not exactly sure what it is you don't understand if you actually "fully comprehend evolution" yet you're still quoting frauds/hoax. 

Why is it hard to understand that man and ape have a common ancestor?? I can understand it's harder to imagine a fish turning into a dog. 

---

Now Bob. You know I didn't say that I 'fully comprehend evolution' - what I said was "I fully comprehend the evolution (adaption) among various species" - ie how a dog can evolve into a different shape, colour, longer legs, hairier etc based on environmental factors.  I also agree than man has evolved by adapting to environment - eg hot climate - dark skin, cooler climate light skin etc, but as far as I know, an eskimo hasn't evolved a thick skin to keep out the cold - he still has to wear bear skins etc for that purpose. While we are on that subject, WHY hasn't an eskimo evolved a thick skin or a layer of blubber like a seal???

---

Eskimos have adapted to the extreme cold by retaining layers of fat on their faces for additional warmth. Populations in northern Asia and the Arctic tend to have broad, flat faces as these reduce the effects of frostbite. People living in cold, dry climates generally have smaller, longer and narrower noses. This type of nose moistens and warms the incoming air. This is over a very short space of time now imagine going from thousands to millions and millions of year. 

Please read an actual science book Rabit. There are answers to your questions if you can be bothered to look it up. I'm not even a scientist and I can tell where the evidence points. If you want to say God created it. Please explain to me how the Kangaroos got to Australia from Noah's Ark. You have to be bat **bleep** crazy to believe that. 

[***super_nova***]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

, WHY hasn't an eskimo evolved a thick skin or a layer of blubber like a seal???

---

If they keep living on ice for another few million years they might.  You may as well ask why they have dark skin.  Maybe because their diet is so full of vitamin D that they did not need to absorb it through their skin.

Now that we are able to do DNA profiling we are much better able to see the connection between different species and see which branches of primates are closer to us than others.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

"Please read an actual science book Rabit. There are answers to your questions if you can be bothered to look it up. 

I was challenged to read Darwin's "Species" - I read it. Didn't change my mind.

Darwin, in whom you place so much credence believed that blacks and Australian Aboriginals were less evolved than whites in fact that they were equal to gorillas. Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary
ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

"Please read an actual science book Rabit. There are answers to your questions if you can be bothered to look it up. 

I was challenged to read Darwin's "Species" - I read it. Didn't change my mind.

Darwin, in whom you place so much credence believed that blacks and Australian Aboriginals were less evolved than whites in fact that they were equal to gorillas. Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary
ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

---

There's no such thing as less evolved. Try most adaptable. BTW Darwin's book was written almost 150 yrs ago. We know a lot more now and have proven the basic premise of Darwin's theory. Darwin got things wrong too which he was ignorant to then.

We have evolved to be more humane and care about the less fortunate in society. That's evolution. 

[chachardarw]

---

@**bob_on_the_go** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

"Please read an actual science book Rabit. There are answers to your questions if you can be bothered to look it up. 

I was challenged to read Darwin's "Species" - I read it. Didn't change my mind.

Darwin, in whom you place so much credence believed that blacks and Australian Aboriginals were less evolved than whites in fact that they were equal to gorillas. Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary
ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

---

There's no such thing as less evolved. Try most adaptable. BTW Darwin's book was written almost 150 yrs ago. We know a lot more now and have proven the basic premise of Darwin's theory. Darwin got things wrong too which he was ignorant to then.

We have evolved to be more humane and care about the less fortunate in society. That's evolution. 

---

in 150 years?That is not evolution.That is a change in attitudes and beliefs.According to you evolution takes millions of years.Areyou now saying it takes only 150 years?

And he claimed women were below the intelligence of men.You cannot defend that fool.You just cannot admit to being wrong.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Please! You are mistaking me for someone that believes in "True Crosses" and "Turin Shroud" ???? As well as the other codswallop that the Catholics (and others) go on about??

No, Rabbit, I'm sure you believe, just as I do, that those pieces of the 'true cross' were nothing more than fakes created to work on the credulity of gullible people. What I am saying is, just as those fakes do not prove the crucifixion never happened, so faked fossils do not prove that homo sapiens and modern apes did not evolve from a common ancestor.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@chachardarw wrote:

---

@**bob_on_the_go** wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

"Please read an actual science book Rabit. There are answers to your questions if you can be bothered to look it up. 

I was challenged to read Darwin's "Species" - I read it. Didn't change my mind.

Darwin, in whom you place so much credence believed that blacks and Australian Aboriginals were less evolved than whites in fact that they were equal to gorillas. Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary
ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

---

There's no such thing as less evolved. Try most adaptable. BTW Darwin's book was written almost 150 yrs ago. We know a lot more now and have proven the basic premise of Darwin's theory. Darwin got things wrong too which he was ignorant to then.

We have evolved to be more humane and care about the less fortunate in society. That's evolution. 

---

in 150 years?That is not evolution.That is a change in attitudes and beliefs.According to you evolution takes millions of years.Areyou now saying it takes only 150 years?

And he claimed women were below the intelligence of men.You cannot defend that fool.You just cannot admit to being wrong.

---

I've had a few glasses of wine so maybe I'm not reading it correctly. Can you read it again.