Two quick articles on human evolution:

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
I quote this from another post from one of your people:
"Oscarr is spouting a very large load of infantile, uneducated, ill-informed tom-foolery and I was recommending ignoring his posts so that he gradually dries up and withers away. But there you go."
What are your comments about that?
Have I ever on these posts accused you or any one of your people of being infantile, uneducated, and spouting ill-informed tom-foolery because you are debating and disagreeing with me?

What is wrong with it? It is not flaming. It is accurate. And it is your posts that are infantile etc.. He did not make that claim about you personally.

The truth is sometimes not pretty. There is a cure. You could try to learn. It is not as if you do not have the intelligence, but your posts indicate not even a high school level understanding of the sciences.

I offer to help you with the basics endlessly. Not to put you down. That would be the easy thing to do. But to help you to learn so you can see your own errors and correct them.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
I just read the account of when scientists actually analysed the bones themselves and found that only one of the bones was actually human and the others were non-human. I don't think that the anthropologists were willfully lying - just fitting in what evidence they had to make up their theory that this was an ape-human and part of the missing link between apes and humans. This is because evolutionary anthropologists are trained from high school through university in evolutionary theory so that by the time they gain their degrees they are thoroughly convinced that evolutionary theory is so true that is is fact for them. This is not wilful lying, but a strong faith in their belief system.

A willful liar is one who knows what the real truth is and seeks to deliberately deceive people. I don't think that most evolutionary scientists are like that at all, and I don't think that Creation scientists are any different.

But to deliberately construct a hoax like the Pitdown man to deceive people when the people who made it up knew exactly that it wasn't an ape man at all but a deformed human being, is willful lying, and it worked to deceive scientists for years until the hoax was exposed.

Right, Piltdown man was a hoax against evolution. There are all sorts of false Christians out there. Faith healers, televangelists, etc.. By your Piltdown Man argument that charlatans that abuse the Christian religion "disprove" Christianity. When you complain about one hoax you are throwing stones from a very fragile glass house.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

pitabread said:
You seem to be projecting an awful lot onto what you think anthropologists actually do.

Piltdown Man was a real hoax. However, it's the only hoax I know of when it comes to hominid fossils that was perpetuated by those in the field.

No one has ever been able to find a fossil that shows that an ape-man actually existed, which must be a frustration for many because until they do, they can't really progress beyond having just a set of theories.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
But it was proved by examination that the bones came from different animals and the picture of the shape of the skull does not match the artist's impression of the actual baby. By the shape of the skull, which was of an ape, the face depicted on the artist's picture should have had more ape-like properties and not a human shape face.

From the bones collected, which incorporated less than a third of the complete body, the missing parts were constructed by an artist to show what the full body might have looked like.

Nope, now you are conflating Lucy and the Piltdown Man. You are not even understanding your own false creationist sources. You cannot support that claim. In fact it is a blatant faslehood.

And please, drop the ape nonsense. You are an ape. It does not help you when you try to claim Lucy was an ape because just like you she was an ape too. Some other apes look even more human than Lucy. Your complaints have no merit.

pitabread · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
No one has ever been able to find a fossil that shows that an ape-man actually existed, which must be a frustration for many because until they do, they can't really progress beyond having just a set of theories.

There are numerous examples of hominid fossils. Are you unfamiliar with them? Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
No one has ever been able to find a fossil that shows that an ape-man actually existed, which must be a frustration for many because until they do, they can't really progress beyond having just a set of theories.

That is a rather strange claim. You simply do not know what an ape is. But as to Lucy she was real. And you seem to keep forgetting that she was not the only Australopithecus. In fact if I showed you a chain of fossils from modern man to Lucy and her predecessors you would not be able to draw a valid lined between "man" and "ape".

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
What is wrong with it? It is not flaming. It is accurate. And it is your posts that are infantile etc.. He did not make that claim about you personally.

Okay. It must have been another Oscarr then.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
Okay. It must have been another Oscarr then.

I have not noticed much of a change yet. You could prove me wrong and try to learn the basics.

Speedwell · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
"Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause."

Seeing that I am a Creationist and a Christian, then being accused of being a wilful liar, which has the penalty of being thrown into the lake of fire, what is your opinion of the post I quoted here?

It s not necessary to be a creationist in order to be a Christian (at least not in the real world outside CF) and not all creationists are Christians. Many Muslims and even a few Jews take the creation stories of Genesis to be literal history.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
"Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause."

Seeing that I am a Creationist and a Christian, then being accused of being a wilful liar, which has the penalty of being thrown into the lake of fire, what is your opinion of the post I quoted here?

Who has accused you of being a willful liar? You have broken the Ninth Commandment, but it is a mistake to think that Commandment only covers lying. You could be accused of being willfully ignorant. You may not be a liar but the sources that you use have quite a few lies in them.

Shemjaza · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
No one has ever been able to find a fossil that shows that an ape-man actually existed, which must be a frustration for many because until they do, they can't really progress beyond having just a set of theories.

That is staggeringly dishonest.

In another thread I posted to you about: Homo habilis and Homo erectus
"Two tool using, but extremely primitive species both clearly not what we would call a human, but far more human like then any modern ape."

To be clear, I not only provided this example for you, but you responded.

So, your post isn't just false... it's so easy to demonstrate as such.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
I have not noticed much of a change yet. You could prove me wrong and try to learn the basics.

I'm still asking the same question about providing just one single item of proof that evolutionary process is scientific.

Shemjaza · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
I'm still asking the same question about providing just one single item of proof that evolutionary process is scientific.

Fossils; a pattern of genetic similarity; lab tested examples of variations and selection; observed instances of speciation; the list goes on.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
I'm still asking the same question about providing just one single item of proof that evolutionary process is scientific.

Please, when are you going to learn the scientific method? Such nonsensical questions only tells us of your ignorance.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Shemjaza said:
Fossils; a pattern of genetic similarity; lab tested examples of variations and selection; observed instances of speciation; the list goes on.

Unfortunately since he does not understand the concept of evidence he will only deny it.

Shemjaza · Apr 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Unfortunately since he does not understand the concept of evidence he will only deny it.

I'm sure, but when something is so simply false, it's nice to have it responded to so an innocent viewer won't see any support for some kind of:
"I asked the evolutionists and they never have an answer!"

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

Shemjaza said:
That is staggeringly dishonest.

In another thread I posted to you about: Homo habilis and Homo erectus
"Two tool using, but extremely primitive species both clearly not what we would call a human, but far more human like then any modern ape."

To be clear, I not only provided this example for you, but you responded.

So, your post isn't just false... it's so easy to demonstrate as such.

Without complete skeletons or fossils, all you have to go on are guesses and artist impressions of what they might have looked like. If you are going to accuse me of dishonesty that you have to remove the reasonable doubt that I have about these "ape-men" existence by substantive proof, and the only way you ca do that is to show photographs of complete skeletons or fossils.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

Shemjaza said:
Fossils; a pattern of genetic similarity; lab tested examples of variations and selection; observed instances of speciation; the list goes on.

But no fossilised evidence of the gradual development of one creature family into another. All the observed fossils, that are supposed to be millions of years old show organisms, sea life, bees, fish, and other animals as exactly the same as they are today. There are cave drawings that show a dinosaur along side a domestic cow if the man who drew those was someone who lived millions of year ago, how come he saw dinosaurs, and that the domestic cow has never changed?

There is more evidence that show a reasonable doubt about evolutionary process, than shows that it is absolutely true beyond doubt.

Subduction Zone · Apr 12, 2020

Oscarr said:
But no fossilised evidence of the gradual development of one creature family into another. All the observed fossils, that are supposed to be millions of years old show organisms, sea life, bees, fish, and other animals as exactly the same as they are today. There are cave drawings that show a dinosaur along side a domestic cow if the man who drew those was someone who lived millions of year ago, how come he saw dinosaurs, and that the domestic cow has never changed?

There is more evidence that show a reasonable doubt about evolutionary process, than shows that it is absolutely true beyond doubt.

That is a falsehood. If you accept any conviction in a court of law by the same standards you would need to accept the theory of evolution.

If you understood the concept of evidence I could help you and I am still willing to go over the concept of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Both concepts that you have demonstrated that you do not understand. Until then all you get are corrections and offers of help.

By the way, there are no cave drawings of dinosaurs. You have been lied to again.

Presbyterian Continuist · Apr 12, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
That is a falsehood. If you accept any conviction in a court of law by the same standards you would need to accept the theory of evolution.
Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause.

If you understood the concept of evidence I could help you and I am still willing to go over the concept of scientific evidence and the scientific method. Both concepts that you have demonstrated that you do not understand. Until then all you get are corrections and offers of help.

By the way, there are no cave drawings of dinosaurs. You have been lied to again.

Two quick articles on human evolution:

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency