[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[BobRyan]

As for L.K's argument for "Nebraska pig" being touted as "ape man" (Nebraska man) being an honest lie for darwinists to tell when they held in their hand -- nothing more than a pig's tooth!!

A lie is a deliberate intent to deceive, in other words it is a fraud.

Hmm Piltown, Earnst Haekles Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny fraud, Neanderthal ages dating fraud, Simpson's horse series fraud, oh no wait you are talking about THIS one..!

TalkOrigins -- thanks to L.K -

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception - APPLAUDING him for taking steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the pigs tooth -- WHEN that truth is not FAVORABLE to the darwinist's story telling!

I have never used the phrase 'honest lie' and your attempt to imply I did is itself a falsehood. Hesperopithecus was an honest error

Is the part where your OWN LINK reminds us "THERE IS NO WAY Osborn COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN"???


viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=345#p398589

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS (L.K's own reference site for the sake of this discussion)

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:2hobrm9b]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

L.K -- since you brought this Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example up -- I have to assume you simply did not read these details carefully.[/quote:2hobrm9b]

Your proclivity to gloss over inconvenient detail appears to be endless.

Oh no wait!! That's the part where you DON't BELIEVE your own linked source!! ;-)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line as we saw above - Osborn began with a thinly-construed story about a tooth that he knew even his OWN team warned against doing -- all in the name of atheist darwinism and sadly Osborn got caught -- tangled up in his own story telling.

notice how Osborn foists his ill-advised storytelling onto the public as though such a weak position constitutes "irrefutable evidence"??

Osborn - May 1925
What shall we do with the Nebraska tooth? Shall we destroy it because it jars our long preconceived notion that the family of manlike apes never reached the western world . . . ? Or shall we continue our excavations, difficult and baffling as they are, in the confident hope, inspired by the admonition of Job, that if we keep speaking to the earth we shall in time hear a more audible and distinct reply? Certainly we shall not banish this bit of Truth because it does not fit in with our preconceived notions and because at present it constitutes infinitesimal but irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wandered over from Asia into North America. (Osborn, 1925a, pp. 800-801)

And yet "there was NO WAY Osborn could not have KNOWN" the super THIN NATURE of this wild claim to "irrefutable evidence" for "APE MAN"!!


And so at the end - he had one last act of deception to perform as TalkOrigins pointed out above.

YET for a Darwinist all of that is really quote stellar morally honest behavior to hear L.K tell it and TalkOrigins appears to agree to the point of encouraging the reader to sympathize with Obsborn last act of hiding truth from the public ALL in service for atheist darwinism (like we would ALL go there as quickly as L.K does).

L.K question for you -- how is it you think it helps your argument to continually have the reader reminded about the details you keep needing to gloss over to make your argument in favor of Osborn's junk-science antics and deceptive methods? What kind of strategy is that??

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bottom line, Bob, is that your claims of fraud in the case of Hesperopithecus are themselves deceitful and you have no answer to the points I have made except assiduously to avoid replying to them and reiterating your own. Pitiful.

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast I appeal to the details in these two posts that you seem to pleased to gloss over and ignore -- (starting at the link below)

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&start=135#p399843

Simply ignoring the posts and then -- hurling empty accusations instead of responding to the points raised is not serving you as well you seem to imagine.

Or do you do this because you hope that I will continue to summarize the very points you are glossing over?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, that you ignore my arguments in response to your faulty claims does not add to your credibility when you accuse me of glossing over those faulty claims.

ETA: Or am I mistaken and you did, in fact, respond to each of the arguments and points I put forward in this post?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&start=135#p398776

 

[turnorburn]

G-Day Mate what about Bob was a movie what about Laminin was my question care to retort?

 

[lordkalvan]

G-Day Mate what about Bob was a movie what about Laminin was my question care to retort?

I presume you're asking Bob this question as I gave you my first thoughts about this in previous posts on this thread?