[_ Old Earth _] How scientists dupe the public

[jwu]

Now I'm not saying that every scientist is out to dope us over, or that every scientist is off his or her rocker, but some have been known to go the extra mile and arrange the so called evidence in order to boaster there finding.

Those cases usually are exposed by...drumroll....other scientists, and result in the loss of any credibility of the perpetrator.

:o There are so many holes in that skull it looks like a sieve! :o In fact, rarely have I seen a skull that is pieced together in such an inexact fashion! : If that's what you call science then your theory doesn't hold water any more than that skull does! :

Again, which part is out of place and belongs to another skull? Answer this.

 

[kiwimac]

I'd be interested in Heidi showing how that particular skull could possibly have been put back together any other way too.

 

[John]

I'd be interested in Heidi showing how that particular skull could possibly have been put back together any other way too.

How can one show transitions through these skulls ?

 

[jwu]

Well, the ToE predicts where which fossils should be found. Every such successful prediction supports it.

My request to Heidi still stands. Which part of this skull is misplaced or belongs to a different skeleton?

 

[John]

Well, the ToE predicts where which fossils should be found. Every such successful prediction supports it.

I am still skeptical on that matter, did the ToE predict the "Java Man" , "Peking Man", "Cro-Magnon Man" ," Neanderthal Man", "Lucy" , " Nebraska Man" , "Piltdown Man 1 & 2" ? all these are fakes by the way. if you wish i can make a thread about each one.

 

[jwu]

I am still skeptical on that matter, did the ToE predict the "Java Man" , "Peking Man", "Cro-Magnon Man" ," Neanderthal Man", "Lucy" , " Nebraska Man" , "Piltdown Man 1 & 2" ?

Depends. Much of the ToE regarding human evolution was postulated based on fossils, e.g. the first neanderthal man fossils date back to the 19th century. Back then the ToE wasn't really worked out yet.

But it does predict where (in which strata) we should find which type of fossil, yes.

all these are fakes by the way. if you wish i can make a thread about each one.

Please, go ahead. What exactly is fake about java man? For some time the femur was mistakenly attributed to it, but the skull cap is genuine, isn't it?

Piltdown man is the only actual fake which i see in this list - a fake which was exposed by...drumroll...scientists.

 

[John]

Ah great now your gonna make me stay up all night writing, my fingers are numb already :D

You can predict all you want, but if the evidence is not upholding then your predictions fail.

You find a skull cap in the dirt, please tell me how you know anything about anything from it.

 

[Dunzo]

No it's not because those skulls and bones could easily have been washed up together into the same basin by a flood. But since scientists don't look at all the evidence and only pass along what they want to pass along, then their processes are hardly, scientific. :roll:

Then why do they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle? Why aren't there duplicates or excess parts?

By the way, have you found out what makes the planet mars give off light yet?

They don't fit together like a jigsaw puzzle which is precisely why scientists have made up new creatures! it's not hard to piece a skull together to make it look like no creature on earth. All one has to do is put pieces together that don't belong together which is exactly what scientists have done. Sorry. ;-)

BRING SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE TO THE TABLE! STOP REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.

 

[Heidi]

BRING SOME Loving EVIDENCE TO THE TABLE! STOP REPEATING YOUR flowers smell purdy STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.[/quote]

The evidence is the funny looking skulls they've pieced together that don't fit quite right. :

 

[Dunzo]

BRING SOME Loving EVIDENCE TO THE TABLE! STOP REPEATING YOUR flowers smell purdy STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.

The evidence is the funny looking skulls they've pieced together that don't fit quite right. :[/quote]

Are you fucking blind? There's absolutely no way you can deny that the skull shown above fits together perfectly.

 

[Heidi]

BRING SOME Loving EVIDENCE TO THE TABLE! STOP REPEATING YOUR flowers smell purdy STORIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.

The evidence is the funny looking skulls they've pieced together that don't fit quite right. :

Are you Loving blind? There's absolutely no way you can deny that the skull shown above fits together perfectly.[/quote]

So if it fits together perfectly, then why not call it a human or an ape skull instead of a fictitious beast? :o The answer is simple; because it doesn't look like anything known to man. :

 

[Dunzo]

Because it doesn't look like either of them! "Duh!" doesn't really cover it here. It's a different species.

 

[Heidi]

Because it doesn't look like either of them! "Duh!" doesn't really cover it here. It's a different species.

it doesn't look like either of them because those pieces obviously don't all belong to the same skull! And as i said earlier, there are so many holes in that skull it looks like a sieve! So you are in error when you claim that the pieces all fit together perfectly. :roll:

 

[John]

even with that skull, what does it prove ?

 

[Dunzo]

Because it doesn't look like either of them! "Duh!" doesn't really cover it here. It's a different species.

it doesn't look like either of them because those pieces obviously don't all belong to the same skull! And as i said earlier, there are so many holes in that skull it looks like a sieve! So you are in error when you claim that the pieces all fit together perfectly. :roll:

Some pieces are missing you dullard. Finding a complete, non-damaged skull that has lasted thousands of years would be incomprehensibly fortunate.

even with that skull, what does it prove ?

Common ancestry, more or less.

 

[John]

Yes one could interpret that.

I say its either a ape or similar primate or human.

 

[Dunzo]

Yes one could interpret that.

I say its either a ape or similar primate or human.

And you say that based on religious conviction and an ignorance of evidence.

 

[Heidi]

Yes one could interpret that.

I say its either a ape or similar primate or human.

And you say that based on religious conviction and an ignorance of evidence.

The point is, that making conclusions based on bone fragments is no more scientific than my son finding a bone in the dirt and drawing a a picture of what the animal or person looked like. : Even criminal investigators can't tell if the bones they find next to each other are from the same body without DNA to prove it. So once again, you're easily duped by anyone who has a Ph.d.

 

[John]

Yes one could interpret that.

I say its either a ape or similar primate or human.

And you say that based on religious conviction and an ignorance of evidence.

its either one or the other ape or similar primate or human is it not ?

 

[Dunzo]

Yes one could interpret that.

I say its either a ape or similar primate or human.

And you say that based on religious conviction and an ignorance of evidence.

The point is, that making conclusions based on bone fragments is no more scientific than my son finding a bone in the dirt and drawing a a picture of what the animal or person looked like. : Even criminal investigators can't tell if the bones they find next to each other are from the same body without DNA to prove it. So once again, you're easily duped by anyone who has a Ph.d.

And you're easily duped by old men smoking weed 2000 years ago.
Scientific analyses are carried out on these findings in great detail. Stop trying to diminish the accomplishments of scientists who devote their lives to this sort of study - study YOU benefit from.