notto

As opposed to trying to use 3 pages of a 2000 year old book written by an ancient people to describe the entire history of the world (of which the writers knew nothing about)?

MrDarwin

Ah yes, I just knew randman wouldn't read the article about Nebraska Man. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

randman

"Your source seems to be implying that Henry Mc Henry is stating that if an entire specimin was found that this would still hold true. That is not what McHenry is saying as can be seen by looking at the entire quote. This is taking what McHenry says OUT OF CONTEXT"

That's a typical bald-faced lie. He is not trying to imply anything. He is stating a fact.
If you want to contest that fact, you can do so.
Your old take it out of context arguments are just BS as has been shown. What you assume is that using any bit of data that an evolutionist uses, but drawing a different conclusion is taking it out of context. You remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I can predict their answers. Why not plug the pitifully inaccurate and deceptive Talkorigns site, and just let them talk for you.

randman

"Yes. The French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, in a series of studies from 1911-1913, argued that H. neanderthal were apelike in posture. His reconstruction was nearly entirely based on on one skeleton out of many; the "old man " from La Chapelle. Later analysis showed that many of the "ape like" post cranial features ascribed to H. n.s were due to misdiagnosed pathology."

Thank you, DRGH. I have continually been called a liar for posting facts here.
The thing is by the 1970s, textbooks should not have contained depictions based on this faulty analysis, but they did, and I wouldn't be surprised if they still do.

RufusAtticus

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

notto

So then we can agree that the fact that he is stating is that the arm bone in question can't be distinguised from modern man. How does this knock a hole in evolutionary theory? (if anything, it makes this one specimin inconclusive as a way to assess morphology - 1 down, thousands to go).

MrDarwin

I'll let randman speak for himself:

notto

Don't even get me started on the fact that they are still teaching Newtonian mechanics even though Relativity has been around for a hundred years!

MrDarwin

Now, would that Talkorigins site be more pitifully inaccurate, or less pitifully inaccurate, than the Harun Yahya web article you plugged on "walking whales"? Because you've already let Harun Yahya talk for you, and what he said isn't very nice.

randman

Let me give you an example of how evolution is falsely taught. I just went and opened up my 1995 Worldbook Encyclopedia and looked up "evolution."
The article is written by Jerry A. Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He still states "recapitulation" which I think most scientists now agree is bunk is a major evidence for evolution. He still states vestigal organs are a major evidence of evolution despite the fact that in the past this has led to outright false conclusions. The idea of vestigal organs is at best speculative, and most likely nothing but our own ignorance. He also states the fact that some crayfish have no eyes but eyestalks as evidence of evolution. No dounbt he is aware this alone is not evidence for evolution as postulated, namely common descent. The fact that a species can change is in itself fully consistent with creationism, and thus not proof of common descent.
He also increduously states "creationists beleive no species evolved from one another."
This guy is a professor at one of the most prestigious universties in the world. Are we to really beleive he is unaware of the fact creationists predict rapid speciation? Remember this is from 1995, and there have been many public debates prior to this and numerous articles by IDers and creationists citing their beleifs.
Does he he deliberately mistates facts in order to bolster his argument? If it is an honest mistake, then I certainly don't think he is qualified to teach at the University of Chicago, nor write for an encyclopedia.
But this is just typical of evolutionists, if you ask me.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>