"Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc"? Hah!

[Roy]

Not to mention the fact that many of the frauds were perpetrated
by the Evo-Faithful themselves. Haeckle, Piltdown, feathered dinosaurs, ...

Oh, look! Jorge is pretending he knows who was responsible for the Piltdown hoax again. I suppose he'll next be ranting about archaeoraptor being examined by multiple PhDs before National Geographic published.

Reminds me of the crook who tried to rob a bank only to discover it had been converted to a physiotherapy centre several years previously.

Roy

[magellan004]

I fully understand that for you, science is wishful thinking. Others disagree, with good reason. In fact, by applying reason AT ALL.

Misrepresenting me does not bolster your case.
You assert that science will uncover all frauds. That is childish thinking.

Magellan

[Jorge]

I'm reminded of a quote by the eminent Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth;

"Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself homo."

*******************************************************

You call yourself "homo" ???

I call myself "Jorge".

Bug off, kiddo.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Continuing to base your faith on the age of the rocks rather than the Rock of Ages.

********************************************************

Nothing of the sort. Yet you do indeed continue with your
sophomoric, myopic view of Christian theology.

Jorge

[USIncognito]

Evo-Faithful such as yourself, R06, Jim, K. Miller, etc ... etc. are world-class
experts at denial, re-writing history and fabricating some evidence while covering up other.

I see $2595 hasn't yet taken the advice to invest in a sense of irony...

J. Wells would not / could not have written his book Icons of Evolution if what you write above is true - it's that simple! Go ahead, get his book and see for yourself - he cites numerous textbooks and references that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that these things you deny are being used even today to mislead people into accepting the Evo-Myth.

Oh brother! Dr. PhD* is citing a guy who actually did get his PhD by lying his way through grad work and has produces nothing since other than the intellectual abortion that is Icons of Evolution. If you it weren't all that clear to everyone reading this forum that you're the punchline to a very unfunny joke, your citation of Icons should seal the deal.

Icons was published in 2000. Do you really think that no one has responded to and debunked it in the 12 years since? Hell, any objective reader of the Wikipedia entry would see it was little more than anti-evolution trash suitable only for toilet paper in a 3rd world country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
But wait, there's more. NCSE (yes, home of Dr. PhD*'s unrequited love) reviewed Icons and gave it, ironically, an F (I wonder if $2595 is informed enough to get that joke). I even linked to an evisceration of Wells' "Peppered Moth" chapter in my post which you quoted and I can safely conclude you never took or read. Here's a link to the entire demolition of Wells' mountain of offal.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution
Icons is a "cdesign proponentists"esque fiasco.

IOW, there is plenty of evidence proving that you, USIncognito, are clueless. No wonder you wish to remain "incognito" - I'd want to remain hidden also!

If you had an ounce of shame or dignity worth salvaging, you'd have asked the admins to change your ID to Alan Smithee years ago. Which I know will be an insult wasted on you since you're too ignorant to get the joke or why it applies to you and the mental vomit you've stained this forum with for so long.

Additional Evo-Faithful con jobs include Archaeopteryx, finch beaks, fruit flies, horse evolution, the "Tree of Life", and many others. Much
has been published on the falsehoods that the Evo-Faithful push on an unsuspecting, uninformed public.

Again, that's that lack of a sense of irony . Archaeopteryx is a legitimate find that stands as a transitional fossil to this day. Finch beaks and fruit flies are examples of natural selection and random mutation in action. Horse evolution is similarly valid, early straight line lineages proved to be incorrect, but horse evolution is powerfully evidenced by the existance of transitional fossils - even if some of them prove to be extinct cousins of the lineage that lead to Equus. And then there's the Tree of Life. $2595 would reject it if there were mountains of evidence and 10s of thousands of papers supporting it because it conflicted with his YECism. Well, actually, there are mountains of evidence and 10s of thousands of papers supporting universal common descent - let's see if he attacks even a single bit of that evidence or just rants, raves, froths and posts a bunch of smilies.
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth

Lastly, one personal comment on Piltdown. That premeditated lie was promoted
for nearly four decades before it was exposed.

I'm sorry, but you're lying here and I'm fully aware of the rules regarding that accusation so I'll defend it. This is not a personal comment since you don't have any personal insight as to the intent of the hoaxer that produced the Piltdown I and II finds. Your connotation is that it was a pius fraud created to impugn Creationism or advance evolutionary theory. Since no one knows who crafted the Piltdown finds, you have no way of knowing what their motivation was. Dawson could have crafted them to advance his career. Someone could have crafted them to advance the idea of British cheauvanism - of course the "most advanced primative man" would be British. There's even a theory that Arthur Conan Doyle propigated the hoax to mock those who mocked his belief in the supernatural. You cannot call it a lie in the context of people using it to proprigate evolution when there's no evidence that it was anything other than a hoax perpetrated by someone whose motivations remain unknown. It's futher a lie to claim that those who promoted it knowingly promoted a lie. Many, like Arthur Keith and Arthur Woodward were taken in by exactly the cheauvanism I mentioned above. I have linked to The Earliest Englishman before:
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_...t_english.html

I cannot help but wonder how many souls were lost due to that LIE because the people were persuaded to believe in Evolution instead of Scripture. Some people are going to have to answer for those lost souls and it ain't gon'na be me. Yes, the fraud was uncovered, but the damage had already been done. How many souls are being lost TODAY because of the lies being propagated by the Evo-Faithful?

Yeah, again, you should have spent that $2595 on a sense of irony because more souls are being lost to evolution in a month because of YEC intransigence, nonsense and chicanery than were ever lost to Piltdown durin the ~40 years the find was taken legitimately by an increasingly small portion of the paleontological community.

[rogue06]

********************************************************

Nothing of the sort. Yet you do indeed continue with your
sophomoric, myopic view of Christian theology.

Jorge

So you didn't make the following statements in which you infer that accepting evolution will result in losing your soul:

I cannot help but wonder
how many souls were lost due to that LIE because the people were persuaded
to believe in Evolution instead of Scripture. Some people are going to have
to answer for those lost souls and it ain't gon'na be me. Yes, the fraud was
uncovered, but the damage had already been done. How many souls are
being lost TODAY because of the lies being propagated by the Evo-Faithful?

It's not like you don't have a track record of claiming things like this:

Some while back I started a thread with the same title. The answer I gave to the question was a very qualified 'Yes'.

The reason for this thread is that, in spite of my qualifications, I've received numerous complaints / objections (not here at TWeb) regarding my answer. There was enough value in these objections that I decided to re-write the original. It follows below ...



Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?

In a theoretical, idealistic sense, yes. In a real-life, practical, intellectually-consistent sense, no, it is not possible.



(Note added by rogue06: Since it is brought up at the start of your post the name of this thread is TAKE TWO : Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?)

You went on to declare it isn't just those who accept evolution aren't real Christians, "To a greater or lesser extent, all TEs, PCs, OECs are just as misguided." Meaning you have to be a YEC to be a True Christian^TM in your eyes.

In later threads you graciously decreed that if a non-YEC is ignorant or mentally deficient that they might be considered Christian since they didn't know better.



But let's get back to some of the other claims you made in this thread.

In light of what several prominent YEC sources have said about it do you want to reconsider your declaration that Archaeopteryx is a "con job"?

In spite of all the accumulating evidence do you still want to pretend that some dinosaurs didn't have feathers (scientists have actually been able to determine the color of some of these feathers)?

dinosaur_feathers_fossil2-660x432.jpg
"Non-existent feathers" on Anchiornis huxleyi



sinosauropteryx-feather-close-up-dinosaur-color_12397_600x450.jpg
Close up of the "non-existent" downy feathers on Sinosauropteryx


After you address these we can get to your unsupported claim that the robust fossil record for horses demonstrating evolution is also a "con job."

[phank]

While we're at it, Gould provides yet another possible culprit for, and motivation for, the Piltdown forgery. He writes:

The third hypothesis is much more interesting. It would render Piltdown as a joke that went too far, rather than a malicious forgery. It represents the "pet theory" of many prominent vertebrate paleontologists who knew the man well. I have sifted all the evidence, trying hard to knock it down. Instead, I find it consistent and plausible, although not the leading contender. A.S. Romer, late head of the museum I inhabit at Harvard and America's finest vertebrate paleontologist, often stated his suspicions to me. Louis Leakey also believed it. His autobiography refers anonymously to a "second man," but internal evidence clearly implicates a certain individual to anyone in the know.

It is often hard to remember a man in his youth after old age imposes a different persona. Teilhard de Chardin became an austere and almost Godlike figure to many in his later years; he was widely hailed as a leading prophet of our age. But he was once a fun-loving young student. He knew Dawson for three years before Smith Wcodward entered the story. He may have had access, from a previous assignment in Egypt, to mammalian bones (probably from Tunisia and Malta) that formed part of the "imported" fauna at Piltdown. I can easily imagine Dawson and Teilhard, over long hours in field and pub, hatching a plot for different reasons: Dawson to expose the gullibility of pompous professionals; Teilhard to rub English noses once again with the taunt that their nation had no legitimate human fossils, while France reveled in a superabundance that made her the queen of anthropology. Perhaps they worked together, never expecting that the leading lights of English science would fasten to Piltdown with such gusto. Perhaps they expected to come clean but could not.

Teilhard left England to become a stretcher bearer during World War 1. Dawson, on this view, persevered and completed the plot with a second Piltdown find in 1915. But then the joke ran away and became a nightmare. Dawson sickened unexpectedly and died in 1916. Teilhard could not return [91] before the war's end. By that time, the three leading lights of British anthropology and paleontology-Arthur Srnith Woodward, Grafton Elliot Smith, and Arthur Keith-had staked their careers on the reality of Piltdown. (Indeed they ended up as two Sir Arthurs and one Sir Grafton, largely for their part in putting England on the anthropological map.) Had Teilhard confessed in 1918, his promising career (which later included a major role in describing the legitimate Peking man) would have ended abruptly. So he followed the Psalmist and the motto of Sussex University, later established just a few miles from Piltdown-''Be still, and know...."-to his dying day. Possible. Just possible.

[USIncognito]

I see $2595 hasn't yet taken the advice to invest in a sense of irony...



Oh brother! Dr. PhD* is citing a guy who actually did get his PhD by lying his way through grad work and has produces nothing since other than the intellectual abortion that is Icons of Evolution. If you it weren't all that clear to everyone reading this forum that you're the punchline to a very unfunny joke, your citation of Icons should seal the deal.

Icons was published in 2000. Do you really think that no one has responded to and debunked it in the 12 years since? Hell, any objective reader of the Wikipedia entry would see it was little more than anti-evolution trash suitable only for toilet paper in a 3rd world country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
But wait, there's more. NCSE (yes, home of Dr. PhD*'s unrequited love) reviewed Icons and gave it, ironically, an F (I wonder if $2595 is informed enough to get that joke). I even linked to an evisceration of Wells' "Peppered Moth" chapter in my post which you quoted and I can safely conclude you never took or read. Here's a link to the entire demolition of Wells' mountain of offal.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution
Icons is a "cdesign proponentists"esque fiasco.



If you had an ounce of shame or dignity worth salvaging, you'd have asked the admins to change your ID to Alan Smithee years ago. Which I know will be an insult wasted on you since you're too ignorant to get the joke or why it applies to you and the mental vomit you've stained this forum with for so long.



Again, that's that lack of a sense of irony . Archaeopteryx is a legitimate find that stands as a transitional fossil to this day. Finch beaks and fruit flies are examples of natural selection and random mutation in action. Horse evolution is similarly valid, early straight line lineages proved to be incorrect, but horse evolution is powerfully evidenced by the existance of transitional fossils - even if some of them prove to be extinct cousins of the lineage that lead to Equus. And then there's the Tree of Life. $2595 would reject it if there were mountains of evidence and 10s of thousands of papers supporting it because it conflicted with his YECism. Well, actually, there are mountains of evidence and 10s of thousands of papers supporting universal common descent - let's see if he attacks even a single bit of that evidence or just rants, raves, froths and posts a bunch of smilies.
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth



I'm sorry, but you're lying here and I'm fully aware of the rules regarding that accusation so I'll defend it. This is not a personal comment since you don't have any personal insight as to the intent of the hoaxer that produced the Piltdown I and II finds. Your connotation is that it was a pius fraud created to impugn Creationism or advance evolutionary theory. Since no one knows who crafted the Piltdown finds, you have no way of knowing what their motivation was. Dawson could have crafted them to advance his career. Someone could have crafted them to advance the idea of British cheauvanism - of course the "most advanced primative man" would be British. There's even a theory that Arthur Conan Doyle propigated the hoax to mock those who mocked his belief in the supernatural. You cannot call it a lie in the context of people using it to proprigate evolution when there's no evidence that it was anything other than a hoax perpetrated by someone whose motivations remain unknown. It's futher a lie to claim that those who promoted it knowingly promoted a lie. Many, like Arthur Keith and Arthur Woodward were taken in by exactly the cheauvanism I mentioned above. I have linked to The Earliest Englishman before:
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_...t_english.html



Yeah, again, you should have spent that $2595 on a sense of irony because more souls are being lost to evolution in a month because of YEC intransigence, nonsense and chicanery than were ever lost to Piltdown durin the ~40 years the find was taken legitimately by an increasingly small portion of the paleontological community.

Here . Whats's the matter, did you decide to flap away yet again so you could suck up to pyscho Bob Enyart?

[rogue06]

So you didn't make the following statements in which you infer that accepting evolution will result in losing your soul:




It's not like you don't have a track record of claiming things like this:




You went on to declare it isn't just those who accept evolution aren't real Christians, "To a greater or lesser extent, all TEs, PCs, OECs are just as misguided." Meaning you have to be a YEC to be a True Christian^TM in your eyes.

In later threads you graciously decreed that if a non-YEC is ignorant or mentally deficient that they might be considered Christian since they didn't know better.



But let's get back to some of the other claims you made in this thread.

In light of what several prominent YEC sources have said about it do you want to reconsider your declaration that Archaeopteryx is a "con job"?

In spite of all the accumulating evidence do you still want to pretend that some dinosaurs didn't have feathers (scientists have actually been able to determine the color of some of these feathers)?

dinosaur_feathers_fossil2-660x432.jpg
"Non-existent feathers" on Anchiornis huxleyi



sinosauropteryx-feather-close-up-dinosaur-color_12397_600x450.jpg
Close up of the "non-existent" downy feathers on Sinosauropteryx


After you address these we can get to your unsupported claim that the robust fossil record for horses demonstrating evolution is also a "con job."

Seems there's yet another feathered dinosaur for Jorge to pretend didn't exist. What makes this one interesting is that it is not in the lineage that birds are believed to have descended from but from a much older group which suggests that many different types of dinosaurs were feathered.