hezekiah jones

Can't you flipping read? Even John Morris recognizes the fact that Nebraska Man was not introduced at the trial, whether orally or by written affidavit.

Oh, now the trial itself was "nearly irrevalent." Five minutes ago the trial itself was the "evolutionists largest propoganda campaign."

You're slippery, randman.

By the way, please learn how to spell the word "propaganda" correctly, since it's so obviously critical to your paranoid, conspiratorial worldview.

pseudobug

Multiple types of proves what invalidate common descent: 1.) use of radically different codons in different species 2.)no means transfer of genetic information, etc. You are too ignorant to understand that and too damned dishonest to admit that common descent is what the evidence shows when directed to it or when you have had it spoon fed to you.

No it hasn't, it has been spread by overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence that fulfilled the predictions of Darwin's theory. It has been spread by multiple scientists in multiple fields finding idependent, confirmatory and corraborating evidence in differnt parts of the globe for over 150 years.

Here are some:

Wrong again--speciation is macroevolution. Speciation has been demonstrated in a laboratory and observed in the wild. Paleontological evidence showing the progression and modification of body plans or parts of body plans demonstrate this. You have been shown the evidence time and time again, yet you continue to play your creationist shell game.

Yeah, the first part is correct. Embryologists have known since the late 1920's that recapitulation is false. It was discarded by practicing scientists then. The structural similarities to predecessors are still their in developmental stages--but functional similarities are not the same. Regarding the lat part, it isn't science's fault you had ignorant teachers. Perhaps if they were required to take more science courses instead of a bunch of touchy feely education courses some of tehm would be be better equipped to interpret what is in their texts that they use for teaching.

No recent paleontologists/anthropologists have said it was--as you have been told ad nauseum. Another in an increasingly long line of outdated ideas that you continue to hold.

If you would read something besides your LiesInGenesis web site you might have a chance of reversing your ignorance. Might I suggest <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html" target="_blank">this link of prominent Hominid fossils</a> as a starting point.

Yep, but it was exposed and corrected by scientists, many of whom were suspicious from the very beginning. You can read more about the Piltdown hoax and its refutation at <a href="http://http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html" target="_blank">http://http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html</a>. We all know you won't, though, as you have a documented habit of perpetrating lies and ignoring evidence which counters the creationists lies you so love to spread.

Same story as Piltdown--more creationist hyperexaggeration. You can read more about it <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html" target="_blank">her</a>, but again, you won't as your interest is in hypocritical handwaving about something paleonology was able to police itself over long ago. As usual, you dishonest creationist continue to ignore that and perpetrate falsehoods--but, hey, that is to be expected as creationists have 2000 years of perpetrating a book full of falsehoods and contradictions--The Bible.

Patently untrue as you have been shown over and over for four months. Again, just a small sampling:
<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm" target="_blank"> The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"</a>—an extensive refutation of the “no transitional fossits” claptrap from creationists.
<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/fossil_record.htm" target="_blank"> The Fossil Record
Including Transitional Fossils</a>: A host of links to different examples.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">Transitional Vertebrate fossils</a>
<a href="http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/webdoc17.htm" target="_blank">Transitional fossils</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/" target="_blank">Fossil hominids</a>
<a href="http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm" target="_blank">Transitional Fossil FAQ</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html" target="_blank">The Archaeopteryx FAQs</a>
Archaeopteryx:
Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record;
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/transitional.html" target="_blank"> A Critique of Wallace: "There are no transitional fossils"</a>
<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm" target="_blank"> Fish to Amphibian Transition</a>

Again, an opinion reached from your use of a quote out of context. You simply choose to ignore the fact that other horse fossils have been found since the late 1800's and that concepts of science are pliable in the wake of new discoveries unlike the paradigm of creation "science" that rejects anything out of hand that contradicts Genesis or special creation by a supernatural being.

For real information regarding horse evolution, instead of creationist caterwauling and mumbo-jumbpo lies, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/" target="_blank">click here</a> and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html" target="_blank">here</a>.


You amaze me rantman--you are like a broken record spouting the same lies over and over.

RA: Edit to fix links.

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

MrDarwin

and:

Key part? And in the transcripts, no less? That would make it a matter of public record. Yet I have been unable to find any mention of Nebraska Man (or Hesperopithecus, as the tooth was first named) in any of the transcripts of the trial, or in any of the notes made by observers. I'm going to have to assume randman's source on this claim is about as reliable as his source on his claims about Pakicetus.

<a href="http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/darrow.html" target="_blank">http://www.uncc.edu/jmarks/darrow.html</a>

<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes2.htm</a>

Dr Rick

The evidence supporting evolution has been affirmatively stated and posted numerous times on this forum. Direct answers to inquiries about this evidence have been provided, as well.

The theory of evolution is based on a vast body of evidence and is not a "negative;" on the contrary, support for creationism is no more than weak attacks on evolution rather than stand-alone data.

Randman is dishonest. He doesn't support his beliefs but instead misrepresents science with misquotes and lies mixed with stories of the few missteps that are common in any human endeavor and then claims his religious beliefs must therefore be correct. He cannot even acknowledge that the few claims in the continuing growth of evolutionary theory found to be false were refuted by those who do research and work in fields supporting evolution and not by creationists. That's because creationists don't do scientific work; they just twist the truth and demand real scientists prove a negative.

Randman misrepresents the process of reviewing scientific data as "evidence" that science must be flawed. He couchs his religious beliefs in pseuodoscientific terminology, ignores rational discourse and discussion, and belittles all those that do not accept his sky-daddy story.

<strong> Randman's attempts to pass-off his lies have failed. His dishonesty and ignorance are just too obvious for him to be taken seriously.

hezekiah jones

Day 7:

infidels: What do you think?

randman: I do not think about things I don't think about.

infidels: Do you think about things you do think about?

randman: Well, sometimes.

(Laughter in the Forum)

phlebas

Randman, you had your chance to change your lying ways, but your failed once again. Checking the pool, I see no one bet that you would behave any differently.

Moved to RRP. randman, if you must post, just post there.