spacer
DISCLAIMER

The content of Yahoo!WebRing's advertising banners and links is solely the product of Yahoo!WebRing and their advertising clients. Yahoo!WebRing's banner advertising is not the product of, endorsed, or approved by The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages (TCCOP) or its webmaster. If you object to Yahoo! WebRing's banner ads, please complain to them.

Deke,
TCCOP Webmaster
ROCCS RingMaster

spacer
spacer
 "DEBATE" WITH AN EVOLUTIONARIAN
-or-
How to combat the pointless rhetoric and personal attacks of a knowledgeless Marxist/Leninist Evolutionarian priest
spacer



 
-- INDEX --
to
HUMANIST, PSEUDO CHRISTIAN, AND NEW AGE DEBATE TACTICS

NOTE: click on "RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH" to return to this list


 

I. 13-POINT LIST OF HUMANIST/PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN DEBATE TACTICS
 

II. EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS OF LEFTIST TACTICS:

Outline:

Application of tactics:

IN THE BEGINNING, Jack, a poorly-disguised Marxist/Leninst Evolutionarian dabbler, was not involved in the evolution debate. I had challenged "The Atheist" (aka "Aindiachai Cladhaire") to debate the scientific merits of evolution. When "The Atheist" ran from the debate challenge, not wating to repeat the humiliating defeat he had suffered at my hands 1997.  I challenged anyone to step into the arena. Jack accepted that challenge, and ended totally defeated, lying about my posts, libeling me and my ministry, and accusing me of fabricating his posts. His "parting shots" were reduced to, and still remain, whining about a strangely prideful and undocumented connection between the hairs on his eyebrows and those on a Chimpanzee's backside, and my not having given him a chance to defend his position. All of those contentions were flagrant lies.

As you read this "debate," please take notice of Jack's near-total failure to provide one shred of credible documentation for any of his claims. The last time I checked, he had not changed that practice. After I quit the debate forum, utterly disgusted with the owner's politically correct censorhip, Jack contined practicing the same ranting, lying tactics on Susan C's Religion I Webforum.

The following list documents the liberal (socialist), Marxist (socialist), Nazi (socialist), and Evolutionarian standard "Big Lie" debate tactics, the same tactics Jack used when he couldn't present anything resembling a rational rebuttal:

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH


One who uses Nazi (socialist) "Big Lie" debate tactics will . . .

1. .... open debates with clumsily-disguised personal asssaults to provoke a negative response so that the attacker may seem like a victim demonized by his opponent.

(NOTE: Jack used this cowardly, character assassination technique against me in late March, 1999, on the Religion I forum. I had been absent from it for three or four days. To my knowledge, he had never posted to that forum before. I had been there for about six weeks.)

2. .... proclaim that he is presenting fact while couching his "facts" in the conditional tense, e.g. "may be," "might be," "could be," "possibly," so that he can never be held to accountability for any position.  Facts are NEVER, by their nature,  "may be," "might be," "could be," or "possibly,"  FACTS are NEVER conditional.

3. .... proclaim his version as"truth" while never answering any questions put to him, and NEVER answering honestly.

4. .... never give a direct answer; always reply to questions with more questions to create confusion.

5. .... answer with personal attacks instead of documented facts when cornered.

6. .... demand documentation but provide little or none for his "facts." If forced to document his "facts" he will provide irrelevant and/or links to undocumented articles on web sites of unknown authorship instead of scientific evidence. Absent other sources that agree with him, he will engage in libel and slander.

7. .... proclaim himself to be Christian while refusing to answer whether he believes that Christ is savior.  In refusing to acknkowledge Christ as savior he proves himself to be a an antichrist and a servant of hell (1John 2:22; Titus 1:16).  He will deny Christ before men (Christ will disown him before the Father, Matthew 10:33), slander God's people, and exhibt the same hatred of God's truth as any other secular humanist.

8. .... refuse to answer all questions concerning the Bible and Bible doctrine while demeaning, demonizing, and libeling any Christian who points out his ignorance and false doctrines.

9. .... change the subject or ignore a question when he is forced to answer anything that will "pin him down" to a position.

10. .... declare victory without ever having made a rebuttal to any opponents position.

11. .... wear down an opponent with endless, worthless rhetorical questions.

12. .... deflect attention from his obviously fraudulent claims, by attacking his opponent's Christianity.

13. .... demonize an opponent who is smarter and more knowledgeable. There's no need to know anything, just generate hatred toward your (his) opponent. ALWAYS PLAY THE PART OF THE VICTIM.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH


If those tactics seem familiar, they should. They're Marxist/Leninist. Jack's entire program is endless, incompetent deceit and personal attack. It is also the reason that I finally cut off debate. There is no value in debating with lying fools and dissemblers. I hope that reading this material will help you to better handle the tactics those like Jack regularly employ to disguise their ignorance. The next paragraphs will show you how Jack used the 12 tactics, above.

Jack has repeatedly and publicly accused that I did not give him a chance to answer because he didn't have access to his VIP. That is a lie. He posted with his VIP on September 14, 1998. On September 16, 1998 I listed in five posts the questions he had not answered, and told him that I would end the debate with a score card if he failed to reply honestly again. He waited to reply until September 23, again with his VIP. He rejected my challenge to answer the questions I had raised and returned to repeating questions I had already answered. I was disgusted with his performance and posted final rebuttal to his arguments on September 25, knowing well from his past performance that he had no intent of re-rebutting them. A short time later, on that same day, September 25, 1998 I posted a "score card" summary of the debate, just as I had said I would NINE days before on September 16. He had lost the debate by a landslide, and attempted to hide his failure by accusing me of not giving him a chance to reply!

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

To this day Jack claims he had no chance to rebut with his VIP, but he already had VIP access for NINE DAYS!!! Instead of trying to re-open the debate, Jack seized the opportunity to run from any further debate byposting a filthy reply.  In that reply he had used the typical Liberal / Marxist / Nazi "Big Lie" technique: character assassination to misdirect attention from his failure and to shift the blame for his gross intellectual inadequacy, incompetence, and ignorance to his opponent. That childish behavior had been expected.  It had been a puerile ploy typical of Jack and other vile liars and was the reason that I ended the debate.

Below is the complete debate, including some side-discussions with several other non-VIP participants, and a six-day break when I was on vacation in early September, 1998. Note the incivility and arrogance of Jack's first post to me. Also note that I have linked many of Jack's later lies (December, 1998)  about my posts to what I ACTUALLY posted, just as I did with ther Mor(m)on heretic, "Dancing," on another web page. There are also two posts which reveal the vile and  filthy, gutter-level mentality which PROVED Jack unworthy of my time.

Contained within brackets, [notes in red text] have been added to many of those December, 1998 posts from Jack which contain the most flagrant of Jack's lies, distortions, and deceptions. Since this page is very long, you might start by searching for the December posts first. They are linked to my earlier posts which refute them.

I have also placed a link back to the Evolution Page at regular intervals on this page. Now or later, If you click on RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE, you will exit this page.


THE ATHEIST RUNS FROM DEBATE . . . . · (2 messages)
Diakon
Thursday August 20, 1998 at 16:21

with people who have knowledge, especially debate on his religion, Evolutionism. His "questions," posted by his many alter-egos as well as under his current moniker, have been answered and refuted many times in the past. His consistent response was cat-calls, accusations, and name-calling -- oh, that's right, he says he doesn't call names -- make that "speculation about our character" instead of "names." He makes specious claims about the validity of his Evolutionarian religion, but runs when challenged with facts which refute his pseudoscientific religious dogma.

Yes, the foul-mouthed atheist who truncates his four-letter words so he won't be kicked off of this forum emits howls of protest when he is called "names." He incessantly claims that he is a moral person who never engages in such behavior -- well, almost never. Of course, the atheist just called one of our newer VIP's "Crows ass," -- oops! -- I guess that's just his "speculation about our character" (or some other kind of "spin"); not "name-calling."

What will he do now? Either he will not reply to my challenges in this post, or he will call reflexively other Christians and me foul names after repeatedly claiming that he never does, or he will launch into a deceitful campaign designed to deflect attention from his failings by destroying our faith while covering up his deficiencies. Sadly, it's easy to make that atheist puppet dance to my tune. Obviously, that is all he can do. Is it any wonder that he is considered a Bill Clinton clone: a phony, a godless deceiver, a hypocrite, and a weasel? Q.E.D.

Galatians 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (NKJ) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/
 

Maybe the problem is simply that .... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday August 20, 1998 at 17:53

you have proven to be too foolish to debate since you tend to create facts and ignore reality. I have watched you often breast beating and strutting about in your "debate" pseudo-victories which are nothing more than the opposition ceasing to shout at a potato.

If you want to expose your wisdom and knowledge, tell me why there are no stone fossils of human bones?

(NOTE: KP 271, the Kanapoi Elbow fossil is 4.5 million years old, and 100% human. I was unaware of this fact until late November, 1998. Until very recently H. neandertalis [Neanderthal Man] had been classified as "modern human," or "Homo sapiens neandertalis," by many physical anthropologists. These include by implication, Rudolph Virchow, the founder of modern human physiology, who held H. s. neandertalis to be the ricketts-infected remains of our ancestors. Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about human paleontology knows history of the H. (s.) neandertalis taxon. Jack did not, or acted like he did not, and in subsequent posts, called me a liar.)


RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

RETURN TO TEXT LINK, ABOVE

JACK, IF YOU'VE . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday August 21, 1998 at 9:48

been here for the past year -- I don't recall your participating -- you might remember the debates that I had with Evolutionarian priests like [an Atheist] (The Atheist), Missing Link, Walt in AZ (a physicist / creationist), Jesse, Darwin, and many others. Following the debate, one of the debaters wrote privately to my ministry saying that he had given up on evolutionism as a viable explanation of origins. The rest of the Evolutionarian crowd utterly failed to refute a single point I made. They have run from my challenges since then. Were you there?

My position was then as it is now: mankind, so-called H. sapiens sapiens (the label is a taxonomic joke which adds another layer of sap to sapiens to the Evolutionarian tree) was created on this planet no more than 20,000 years ago. That is the best answer I can give you for the moment. Before I answer your question further, you will have to define your Evolutionarian "chapter and verse" terms much more clearly. Exactly what do you mean by when you bandy about the term "human"? Do you include so-called prehominids? Do you include the Goodall-forced, reclassifications of H. sapiens? If so, name them.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

Until you can define your taxonomic terms with specificity there is no way I can reply. I can't answer such a poorly-couched, open-ended (in Evolutionarian terms) question. Expose your knowledge by doing a much better job of asking questions if you really want a debate. The ball is in your court, sport!

1John 2:22 "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-- he denies the Father and the Son." (NIV) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/
 

So much space, so little said... · (Empty)
Jack
Friday August 21, 1998 at 12:08

.."human" bones means bones of your species. Not a single stone specimen of any of your human ancestors. Many thousands of plants and animals that are ONLY known by their mineralized fossil remains. Many thousands of primitive plants and animals alive today that are known by their mineralized fossil remains as well as more recent organic remains. Why doesn't all life have some mineralized and some organic fossil records if every lifeform was created simultaneously with "humans like you" and the Great Flood is the only cause of the Great Extinction of the great majority of these lifeforms.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

The TRUTH is life has been on this planet for not 20,000 years but, several BILLIONS of years. The physical evidence is overwhelming. All the "sapiens" have been around for only a few hundred thousand years which is why there are NO STONE FOSSILS. Primitive animals like alligators have existed unchanged for tens of millions of years resulting in some stone and some organic fossils. The GREAT MAJORITY of life on Earth is known ONLY by their mineralized fossil record since they became extinct long before homo sapien sapien evolved.(NOTE: Insects alone comprise more living forms than all of the fossil evidence in existence.)

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

"Man" (currently homo sapiens sapiens) did not suddenly appear 20,000 years ago rather Man as well as every other animal species alive today has an an unbroken chain of progenitors that go back to the earliest life on Earth. Before sapiens appeared, your progenitrix was propagating successfully as some predecessor species so, be proud, you too could have become extinct.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

What physical evidence is there for spontaneous multiple creation of life or an all encompassing flood within the past 20,000 years?


JACK: . . . . · (Empty)
 

Diakon
Tuesday August 25, 1998 at 1:12

OK, enough sparring, let's see what you're made of. I figure either you don't know what you're talking about, or you've demonstrated very little of your knowledge. All you've done so far is to spout Evolutionarian dogma without presenting a scintilla of evidence to back up your claims.

In my first post I asked you to define WHICH H. sapiens your question addressed since there are several possible replies based on that Evolutionarian taxonomy. It seemed that you were unaware of even the hypothetical bases of those assumed "facts." Since your second reply was nebulous, I will provide some facts , not just hypotheses and untestable / unobservable / unverifiable claims.

Among the Evolutionarian pseudoscientific "articles of faith" is YOUR hypothesis of spontaneous generation: life arose from nonliving matter. You asked "What physical evidence is there for spontaneous multiple creation of life . . . .(?)" Answer: THERE IS NONE. Creation and spontaneous generation are mutually exclusive terms. FACT: Spontaneous generation is NOT part of my theology which presumes life begetting life following the LIVING God's plan for and creation of His cosmos, a non- spontaneous event. FACT: Spontaneous generation is part of your "theology" which presumes life arising out of a non-living "primordial soup." Nonetheless, that issue is only ancillary to the subject at hand, and should not be regarded as part of your question re mineralization (another of your poorly-defined terms).

Back to clarifying Evolutionarian human taxonomy. FACT: According to your Evolutionarian priesthood, TWO kinds of HUMAN BEINGS have existed, and one remains. You seem to know that, but did not express it clearly. I reject that taxonomy as nothing less than lexical chicanery which denies reality and scientific standards in favor of Evolutionarian metaphysics. More on that issue later. Obviously you ignored the implications of the Evolutionarian human taxonomy when you posted "..'human' bones means bones of your species. Not a single stone specimen of any of your human ancestors." You clearly failed to integrate the precepts of your religion when you made that statement about YOUR assumed species or subspecies. The Evolutionarian's taxonomic word-games are excellent examples of the ever- changing, wholly unstable, relentlessly debated "conclusions" which I long ago rejected as metaphysical nonsense.

I am not part of a "species," I AM A MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL! I am a genetic descendant of God's special human creation, the TRUE origin of mankind. Your Evolutionarian "truth" is just an evidence-free wild GUESS. My "progenetrix" (sic), the distaff founder of humanity following her creation, was named "Eve," not "Lucy-the- Fraud" or any of the so-called hominidae. DNA evidence is strongly in favor of what scientists call the "Eve hypothesis," but since it points to Biblical TRUTH, Evolutionarians reject it.

CONTINUED

JACK (CONTD.) . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Tuesday August 25, 1998 at 1:13

Now that I've replied to some of your meandering, please try to FOCUS on a single subject or related discipline, such as the hypothesis of human evolution and physical anthropology, instead of wandering into other disciplines (e.g. paleobotany and theology). If you are lacking knowledge in that discipline, this discussion will degenerate into a meandering melange of disassociated hypotheses about physical facts -- a waste of my time. I will be happy to prove you wrong, if not colossally ignorant of the realities of the myths and deceptions you've accepted IF you can stick to one or two related topics.

Despite your inarticulate handling of the Evolutionarian human species / subspecies hoax, I will answer your first poorly-posed question as best I can given the obvious limitations you have imposed in asking it: H. neanderthalis, AKA H. s. Neanderthalis with the "extra-cost Goodall treatment" applied, is not universally accepted by your priesthood. In FACT, they don't agree on much of anything. The Neanderthals are an excellent example of a group of deformed MODERN human beings, H. sapiens / H. sapiens sapiens , whose remains HAVE been found fully fossilized. The Neanderthals, save for the deformation of the skull, are indistinguishable from the common variations of "modern man," and bear a striking resemblance to some of the more popular "knuckle-dragger heavies" in the film industry (the late (?) World Heavywieght Champion, Primo Carnera is an example). The currently- accepted 30,000 year age for the Neanderthals is dubious for a number of reasons, most prominently that there is no experimentally (empirically) verifiable way to observe them. No living person has ever seen a 30,000 year old Neanderthal, so no testing, quantification, verification or re-testing has ever been possible beyond the Evolutionarian-created circular-logic infected systems of radiometric dating. The Evolutionarian presentation of H. Neanderthalis as "early modern man" is just supposition based on an Evolutionarian-biased paradigm.

I do not regard as valid or worthy of general acceptance, the claims of the Evolutionarian priesthood. They have accepted their peculiar, circular- reasoned standard as proven when it is only a guess. That is obvious to anyone who has examined their claims from an objective position. I can say that because I was one of them. So, it is up to YOU to prove that I am wrong using your knowledge of physical anthropology to provide a reasoned refutation of my position on H. Neanderthalis . BTW, do you know about about the "Goodall treatment" I mentioned? Do you understand that it neither includes any kind of corroborative PHYSICAL evidence, nor was the cause of the change so-called hominid, so it is a lexical-taxonomic hoax? I doubt it, even though it is a major flaw which exposes the duplicity of the scientist- priests and who preach your religion.

JACK (END) . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Tuesday August 25, 1998 at 1:14

At least part of one thing you posted isn't totally wrong, according to your Evolutionarian priests. You wrote, " 'Man' (currently homo sapiens sapiens) did not suddenly appear 20,000 years ago, . . . . " Your priests would correct you saying, "You're partially right! H. sapiens sapiens didn't appear suddenly as long as 20,000 years ago! The subspecies appeared suddenly as much as 90,000 years ago -- of course some of our brethren disagree, setting the date as early as 10,000 years ago!" Then you'd be given a slap on the wrist and sent to study hall. You need to do serious study of Evolutionarian dogma and its in-fighting, bobbing and weaving. At least you did get the "suddenly" part right. After all, as you pointed out, there is no fossil evidence for the evolution of YOUR "subspecies": "..' . . . . . Not a single stone specimen of any of your human ancestors." Curious how your total lack of evidence (disregarding H. neanderthalis) proves your "facts," isn't it? Ah, but that's the way Punctuated Equilibrium works!

Now it is your turn to PROVE that my Creationist position is wrong, or at least more dubious than your Evolutionarian religion. If you have evidence against the Neanderthal fossils, or evidence which proves that they are not "modern" humans, present it. If you lack that evidence, as a start, and just to keep the debate field narrowed, please provide the names given to the fossil evidence that proves "Man . . . . has an an unbroken chain of progenitors that go back to the earliest life on Earth . . . ."

Here's an interesting door you opened, an afterthought, an off-topic "tidbit" or two for you to chew on for a while, and one perhaps even worthy of later debate: Evolutionarian scientist-priests have misread the cosmological evidence by proceeding from an atheist bias. Earth is relatively young, not billions of years old. I can show you why and how your priests have misread the evidence (and call God a deceiver because they made the mistake), and you won't be able to refute my position. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility, even if life is hypothesized to have evolved 20 billion years ago on earth. It is such a clearly absurd notion that recently Evolutionarian physicists have advanced the absurd, untestable notion that there are billions of alternative universes, thus making evolution mathematically PROBABLE in this one. LOL!!!

If you can, reciprocate by making a reasonably competent, coherent, informed, topical, and thorough reply to the major points I've posted here on human evolution. Since this is a long post, please take the time to do some research before you post. I will respond some time near the end of the week.

Galatians 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (NKJ) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor,

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

JAaaaaCK! ARE YOU OUT THERE? YOUR ORIGINAL . . . .
Saturday August 29, 1998

posts have scrolled off of this forum, so I am adding a bit to my reply and will re-post the balance in the thread. You asked "Why doesn't all life have some mineralized and some organic fossil records if every lifeform was created simultaneously with "humans like you" and the Great Flood is the only cause of the Great Extinction of the great majority of these lifeforms." You are an Evolutionarian; you should know that answer already. First, fossilization is a VERY rare occurrence. That alone accounts for one of the major flaws in your biased question. Second is your PRESUMPTION that there are no so-called H. sapiens sapiens fossils. This is the same unproveable assumption that caused the oxymoron "living fossil" to be coined. Simply, sport, the only way that anyone can be CERTAIN that a life form is extinct is to be at every point on earth at the same moment. If that can't be achieved, an eryops, an onithomimus, or a coelacanth could as easily as not be hiding only a few feet away. That principle also applies to your biased assumption about so-called H. sapiens sapiens fossils. I will address the human fossil issue more thoroughly in the thread.

The existence of human footprint with dinosaur footprint casts in the Biloxi (the correct name is "Pauluxi") River bed's virgin rock throws cold water on your no mineralized human fossils assumption. Although not fossilized bone, those footprints are clearly human, they form a trail with the dinosaur footprints, and they obviously refute the Evolutionarian time line. Guess why that trail was first ignored, then debunked as a Fraud, and was finally "refuted" with garbage. The Evolutionarian priesthood found some poor fall-guy to publicly write off the clearly human prints as "heel walking" dinosaurs in a P-BS / NOVA broadcast without ANY evidence that such behavior EVER existed and without honestly examining even one of the casts. That is the standard Evolutionarian response to any "anomaly" which doesn't fit their hypothesis (evolution): If the facts don't fit the hypothesis, then ignore the facts.

You can not prove your faulty PRESUMPTION that there are no so-called H. sapiens sapiens fossils. Your alternative is to accept that there may be some that are as yet undiscovered, or if they have been discovered, that they have not been destroyed by Evolutionarian zealots. Ultimately you must resolve: IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE, OR IS IT ABSOLUTE TRUTH?. If you can't cope with the other challenges of this post, you must be able to answer this latter one. Of course, you did proclaim, " The TRUTH is life has been on this planet for not 20,000 years but, several BILLIONS of years. The physical evidence is overwhelming. " Can evolution be falsified or not?
~~ Deke
Bible Teacher and Editor,
The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages

Hold on, Deke, I am having problems.... · (Empty)
Jack (NO VIP)
Monday August 31, 1998 at 3:22

... with my access to this forum which has persisted for a week now. You haven't responded to my queries, first or second post, but I appreciate that you re-posted your dribble for all to see.

Where to start? Yes, that is always the question. Let us start with your assertion that you ,"AM A MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL! I am a genetic descendant of God's special human creation, the TRUE origin of mankind." ROTFLMAO... What low regard to which you hold God. YOU are the BEST the Creator of the universe could muster? Were chipanzees a close but 2nd choice? The chimpanzees have over 98% of the same genetic code as you. Why do you suppose that YOU have toes? Why is your body covered with remnants of the fur of your ancestors? Why can you be killed with rat poison? Why do you think a sentient being that could create and control everything we know to exist would ever want to spend eternity with you? Would it bother you if God intended to spend more of his time with chimpanzees?

Your entire diatribe about H. neanderthalis, is BS since I never mentioned the Neanderthal, or Neandertal, man as an ancestor of you or me. He may be YOUR ancestor but that is not my argument. However, I think that H. neanderthalis will expose you to be a liar. I would appreciate it if your would post a credible source for the petrified Neandertal fossil to which you referred? I don't care or fear that H. neanderthalis is a direct ancestor of mine or not but, apparently, that possibility really causes you distress. Get over it, your ancestors were much more primitive than H. neanderthalis.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

NOW, let us cut to the quick, over 98% of animal life recorded on this planet is known ONLY in the form of petrified (mineralized) skeletal fossils. Sure, there could have been several extinctions when the Great Flood floated Noah's Ark but, wasn't God's primary intent to rid the Earth of hordes of sinning humans? Where are their petrified fossil remains?

BTW, when Noah's Ark settled on Mt. Ararat, how did the kangaroos manage to get to Australia without leaving a single fossil, petrified or not, anywhere in Asia?

Just to set the record straight, I am presuming that you subscribe to the myths of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, and the less than 20,000 year age of the Earth? If not, feel free to refute any of these silly notions?

I have NO intention to run away unless I determine that I am shouting at a potato. Don't bother to bleat victory until your opponent concedes.

JACK???? . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Sunday September 6, 1998 at 17:46

I do not believe the latest post came from you. I will not reply to "your" post, below, unless you re-post using your VIP as you did in the first two. I have a reply prepared, but unless you use your VIP I have no way of knowing who I am debating(?). BTW, the forum had been responding normally for about five days before "you" posted below. Again, I will not waste my time refuting your nebulous, uninformed garbage any further unless you use your VIP. Period!

Galatians 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (NKJ) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages

JAaaaCK! COME ON! ANSWER . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 9, 1998 at 4:31

my challenges. You've avoided and by default lost on every one of them except the issue of Neandertal man, a fossilized group of modern human beings. I'm prepared to expose your ignorance on that issue, too. Is that why you run away when you said you wouldn't?

I will provide you with documentation verifying H. s. neandertalis FOSSILS only if you will either: 1) Re-post your reply using your VIP so you can't avoid taking the heat for your foolhardiness, or 2) verify that the half-baked, non-VIP reply in my "JAaaaCK! ARE YOU OUT THERE?" thread, below, is actually yours. If you won't do either of these, then you have forfeited the debate -- if you could ever debate in the first place. You have a real problem staying on topic, don't you?

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT

I have written in numerous posts that I will not engage in lengthy debate with non-VIP's.I challenged you to debate evolutionism, you responded using your VIP, and those are the conditions you accepted. I have little doubt that you realize I can provide the documentation you demanded which says that Nea(n)dertal remains ARE fossilized, and for that reason you've quit. Be a good little sport and verify your pathetic post -- if it is yours.Don't be a cowardly little weasel running from me pouting and making excuses for your failure.

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT, BELOW

Proverbs 26:8 "Like tying a stone in a sling is the giving of honor to a fool." (NIV) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/
 

IF ANY OF YOU CHRISTIAN VIP'S . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 9, 1998 at 22:34

known to me would like to read my rebuttal of Jack's drivel, I will gladly post this thread if you make a VIP request. I will not post it to "Jack," nor will I post another rebuttal to him UNLESS he is courteous enough to continue using his VIP and verify the non-VIP posts as his. His messages scrolling off of the forum presents no problem. I have copies of all of them.

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT, BELOW

I'm sick and tired of the irresponsible phonies and anencephalic hecklers who post here under any anonymous handle they choose and bear no responsibility whatever for their inane statements. I will no longer respond to non-VIP's unless I am reasonably certain that the non-vip handle belongs to only one person. ~~Deke
 
 

Quit stalling, Deke,.... · (Empty)
Jack (NON-VIP)
Wednesday September 9, 1998 at 12:17

post your rebuttal or admit defeat. Everybody wants to know why you have fingers on your feet and fur on your body. Do you really suppose that God has an appendix, too? I know you are just waiting for the thread with my questions to scroll away but, seriously, you ought to respond before all the parts you don't like end up in a new thread at the top or, you could just admit defeat and failure of your mythical mantras and faux-scientific philosophies.

BTW we were discussing petrified fossils of ANY of your acknowledged ancestors. You know, any of the progeny of Adam and Eve except Noah and his family? Of course, you may reference petrified fossils of Noah's progeny if you think you can find any. Why would you say that fossil evidence is RARE? Fossils of plants and animals have accumulated and petrified for billions of years before "MAN" evolved. You just have NO fossil evidence for your myths. Too bad.

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

NO VIP, . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 9, 1998 at 22:08

no reply. You are not Jack. ~~Deke
 
 

Post your replies..... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday September 10, 1998 at 12:07

..or be a potato, Stud. I may not have ANY access to my VIP for another week or two. My access to this forum is will be quite limited until my current project is completed. If you don't have any sensible replies, just admit it. Don't run and hide.

I'LL WAIT UNTIL . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 11, 1998 at 3:40

"you" have access to that VIP, sport, unless one of the Christians I know well makes a request to read my rebuttal. Two weeks isn't much time. ~~Deke
 

You have admitted defeat... · (Empty)
Arbiter
Thursday September 10, 1998 at 2:20

You are a fraud. Science is beyond your grasp so you choose to succor fools. Answer a simple question, WHERE ARE THE PETRIFIED REMAINS OF YOUR ANCESTORS? You are one of the many false prophets warned of in Revelations. There is a special place in Hell reserved for you, you who will not see.

(Note: Did you catch Jack's mistake?   He proves his total ignorance of Scripture?  Secular humanist fools, inveterate liars who claim to know what the Bible says but have never read it frequently call the Book of REVELATION, "RevelationS.")
 


"SUCCOR" IS PRECISELY . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 11, 1998 at 4:26

what God allows me to provide for His people. Illiteracy and ignorance is the succor you have provided for yourself. An arbiter you ain't, Jack! If you'd care to correct some of your abysmal ignorance CLICK HERE if you have the courage. ~~Deke
 

OK, Mr. Potatohead..... · (Empty)
Jack (Posted with a VIP signature)
Monday September 14, 1998 at 17:45

Post your replies, diversions and faux-science. All previous posts by "Jack" sans VIP are mine.

Doesn't it tell you something when none of the "Christians [you] know well" chose to call on you to reply to my questions? Maybe they don't have enough faith in your ability to bury my arguments?

RETURN TO LINKING TEXT AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE

RETURN TO LINKING TEXT, BELOW

[NOTE: This is the "new thread" in a post, below, from Thursday September 17, 1998 at 2:55.]


(1 OF 4)JAaaaaCK IS BACK, AND . . . . . · (3 messages)
Diakon
Wednesday September 16, 1998 at 1:46

this thread contains what will be my last post to Jack on the deceptions of evolutionism unless he ends his smoke screen diversions and directly answers my challenges to his pseudoscientific myth. I am tired of carrying on a one-sided "debate."

If he fails to rebut all of the points this time, I am going to post all of the points he has failed to rebut, thereby exposing his ignorance. Then I will refuse to engage him in what he thinks is a debate until he demonstrates by answering those challenges, on topic, thus proving that he has even a small amount of knowledge of his pseudoscientific faith. If Jack can not stay on topic and rebut or re-rebut all of the points in this thread, I will save him further embarrassment by ignoring him. I'm sick of wasting my time on dilettantes.

Galatians 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (NKJ) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

(2 OF 4) POOR JAAaaaCK IS BACK, AND . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 16, 1998 at 1:48

he has posted only ONE on-topic argument. I rebutted it. My Christian friends didn't bother to reply because they've seen me destroy Evolutionarians like you before. They're bored with the specious and unsupported claims of evolutionism, and were willing to wait for me to administer the coup de grace when you returned. So far you've only managed to raise a single issue which I will deal with as the first point of debate in this post. You have rebutted only ONE of my points until now. On the other hand, I have rebutted the one point you attempted, and provided more arguments against you. Save yourself the embarrassment; give up and take your pseudoscientific evolution myth back to your sandbox.

1) Stop wasting time. Stick to the subject, Clem. We are not debating THEOLOGY, we are debating evolutionism; specifically, the HYPOTHESIS of human evolution. It ain't testable, verifiable, or repeatable (aka pseudoscience). 2) YOU challenged ME by implying that there are no fossilized human remains. I proved you WRONG by citing H. neandertalis! Now you weasel out by saying you didn't bring up H. neandertalis. Wrong again! H. neandertalis was fully human, and was discovered fully fossilized*. So- called Neandertal man was a fully "modern," upright-walking human being and a fossilized descendant in the lineage of Adam and Eve.

That you didn't mention the Neandertals is irrelevant. You opened the door with your human fossil challenge, and I slammed it on your foot. Here's the proof: *"The Neandertals (named for the Neander Valley in Germany, where one of the earliest skulls was found) occupied parts of Europe and the Middle East from 100,000 years ago until about 30,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record. Fossils of additional varieties of early H. sapiens have been discovered in other part of the Old World."

"Human Evolution," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993- 1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

There ARE more, SOURCES but you can check that out for yourself -- if you know how to do grade-school level research. Try any encyclopedia or any book on physical anthropology which covers H. neandertalis. FOSSILS. Unless, as it seems obvious from your posts, that subject is well out of your depth.

If you challenge me for documentation, Chumley, you'll just look like a fool again. Isn't it curious that one so highly educated and highly placed as you claim to be can't access an encyclopedia, use "dribble" and "drivel" in their proper context, or even stick to a single TOPIC? Engineers / business executives are disciplined and organized in their thinking. You are scatter-brained at best.

CONTINUED

(3 OF 4) POOR JAAaaaCK IS BACK (CONTD.) · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 16, 1998 at 1:50

Maybe you should try following the atheist's lead. At least he made an uninformed / propaganda-driven attempt to refute the FACTS surrounding the Biloxi (Pauluxi) River find. Ignoring his bigotry and reliance on bias-calibrated instruments, most of what he has posted re evolutionism is worthy of your emulation until you have learned more. I've heard the arguments before; obviously you have not. The problem with them is that they are lies about and distorted opinions about the facts. The Biloxi (Pauluxi) River human footprints showed FIVE TOES, not three, but with now exist with varying degrees of definition due to vandalism and erosion. The original impressions bore ABSOLUTELY ZERO resemblance to dinosaur footprints, hence the pathetic Evolutionarian "heel walking" claim on P-BS's Nova. Those human footprints were found in VIRGIN STRATA which was exposed in the presence of LOCAL NEWS MEDIA and multiple video cameras**. There were eyewitnesses, and there was NO fraud.

One of the preserved Biloxi (Pauluxi) River human footprint specimens was slab-sawed and examined for easily-identifiable indications of fraud. The inescapable conclusion was that the particles of sandstone which formed the footprint casts had been compressed when the sandstone was mud. The formation of the casts caused concentric compression ridges and depressions in the sandstone which were IMPOSSIBLE to fake. They HAD TO have been formed by compression of wet mud, not carved from hardened sandstone. Carving sandstone DOES NOT result in concentric compression ridges. The atheist's claims may be WRONG, but at least they followed the TOPIC. You should try, at the very least, to learn to argue from him, pathetic as his sad attempts are. Today, the remaining exposed Biloxi (Pauluxi) impressions have been severely damaged or destroyed by erosion and very Evolutionarian-convenient vandalism.

Jack, ol' sport, if you can't stick to the topic and rebut the points I have made re physical anthropology in my reply, just throw in the towel. So far I have rebutted all of your claims, and you have dealt with none of mine, e.g. "Is evolution falsifiable, or is it absolute truth?" Stop wasting my time with your vacuous, ignorant, elementary school-level evolutionism DRIVEL (not "dribble" as you misspelled and misused it) and endless empty rhetoric. Why should I bother to unless you can show that you have and can reply with FACTS [knowledge], and that you more than just a bag of hot air which insults the intelligence of the members of this forum?

** BTW, my source for the Biloxi (Pauluxi) River story is P-BS's NOVA series.

CONTINUED

(4 OF 4) POOR JAAaaaCK IS BACK (END) · (Empty)
Diakon
Wednesday September 16, 1998 at 1:51

Finally, you were wrong again. Human beings do NOT have FUR on their bodies. That is another Evolutionarian deception. The human body is sparsely covered with HAIR, NOT FUR. Try checking a few fifth or sixth grade science books before you write. There are significant structural differences between hair and fur. You have a great deal to learn.

Now, try to reubt my points as I have to yours. Stick to the topic: evolutionism. Stop raising irrelevant issues, avoiding the topic, and trying to hide your colossal ignorance by changing subjects. Otherwise, admit you have nothing of consequence to offer and withdraw. Until now you have not rebutted a single one of my points. No one should be that ignorant of the evolution religion if they promote it has you have attempted and failed to do here.

If you fail to rebut ALL of my points this time, you admit defeat. You have abjectly failed to address all but one of my previous points on the topic of this debate: evolution (NOT theology). Even with the one and only evolution point that you did raise and poorly address, human skeletal fossilization, you've disingenuously tried to avoid my rebuttal by calling the subject you introduced "irrelevant." Obviously that is because you know nothing about physical anthropology. Smoke and mirrors won't cut it on this forum. You MUST have knowledge. You're out of your depth. I warned you that you are not dealing with someone you can defeat with pap and drivel. Put up or shut up! Until now, the evidence is clear and indisputable: I am the one "shouting at an anencephalic potato." Rebut all of my points as I have yours, or admit defeat.

Proverbs 10:14 "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin." (NIV) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

OOPS! I DIDN'T REBUT . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon Wednesday
September 16, 1998 at 3:37

this point! Jack wrote in an earlier post: "The chimpanzees have over 98% of the same genetic code as you. Why do you suppose that YOU have toes?

Since you make this claim based on comparative DNA, have you completed the Human Genome Project ahead of schedule? Have you also completed a genome for the "genus" Pan? If not, your claims are both specious and speculative.

The similarities between members of God's creation point not to a common ancestor, but to a common creator Who used common plan. This common plan can be observed in the phenotypic structures of anthropoids, catarrhines, platyrrhines, and gibbons. In fact, a common plan can be found in both in mammalians and other living creatures including marine creatures. This creates great problems for the proponents of evolutionism because convergence predicts otherwise.

One troublesome "little" piece of science (physics) seems to have eluded your attention when you made your assertion about chimps, and the claims of evolutionism as well: Given the law of entropy, how is it that chimpanzees and humans are at the "advanced" level they have achieved?

Proverbs 10:14 "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin." (NIV) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

RETURN TO LINKING TEXT

JACK, I POSTED . . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Thursday September 17, 1998 at 2:55

my rebuttal in a new thread. BTW, fossiliztion is an EXTREMELY RARE event. Consider the number of living critters with endoskeletons, exoskeletons, shells, etc. at this moment, then consider the few fossilized specimens which have been found. Fossilization is an EXTREMELY RARE event. Your ignorance of this commonly-known paleontological FACT exposes your profound lack of knowledge. Stop embarrassing yourself by making such ignorant, pseudoscientific claims.

I have adequately dealt with one descendant of Adam and Eve already: the so-called "H. neandertalis", a "modern" human being whose fossilized remains are very well-known, and are the frequent subject of repeated Evolutionarian scientist-priest lies, distortions, and obfuscations. I have posted are more details on the Neandertals in the new thread. ~~Deke
 

Back to my original question, Deeeeke.... · (Empty)
_Jack
Wednesday September 23, 1998 at 1:48

...I am still waiting for you to make a serious response to my original challenge, to wit: "why are there no stone fossils of human bones?" Your expected diversion into the definition of the word "human" was at best, laughable, but nothing more than diversionary. I clearly responded with, "Not a single stone specimen of any of YOUR human ancestors?" You clarified at that time your belief that your human ancestors (mankind, so called H. sapiens sapiens) have only been on the Earth for less that 20,000 years AND LATER that your prime progenitrix (sic) was none other than "Eve" of Biblical renown.

My natural assumption to your remarks was that you therefore adhered to the myth of the six day (measured the same as in modern time) Biblical Creation and the research of Biblical genealogists that have attempted to fix the time of that event at somewhere between 6,000 and 20,000 years ago. Of course, you then launched into your silly tirade about H. neanderthalis which all reasonable scientists believe died off about 30,000 years ago and recent DNA testing show a non-consistent heritage to modern man (the so-called H. sapiens sapiens). Even if H. neanderthalis were your ancestor, you have not referenced a single petrified bone fossil.Look it up, Spud, the "fossils" of H. neanderthalis are all "bone" fragments just like "Lucy" of Oldivie (Sp?) Gorge. It takes millions of years to "petrify" an organic bone.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT ABOUT "LUCY"

RETURN LINKED TEXT ABOUT SEPTEMBER 23 (NEAR THE END OF THIS PAGE)

You really need to establish some baselines to your mythological evolution- free creation. Tell your Biblical Creationist brethren and me whether you subscribe to the six day Creation that resulted in the Garden of Eden less than 20,000 years ago? Do you believe that all land masses were submerged in a Great Flood since that time? Do you believe that the devil places petrified fossils in the earth to fool pious peoples?

You took offense to my reference to the fact that you are part of a "species" and you went into your silly hissy fit about how you were a "MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL" because you had HAIR not FUR like the animals. LOL, which fuzz were you referring to, Spud, your eyebrows, pubics, armpits, beard, or noggin? I will bet that any great orangutang has better "hair" than you. Time for you to open an encyclopedia, Spud. Of course, I never expected you to respond to my question as to why you have fingers on your feet and, you didn't, go figure.

Your obfuscation and babble not withstanding, you are the only one who cannot stay on topic. Answer my original question or admit defeat.


JACK, AS I PROMISED . . . . · (4 messages)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 13:40

my final rebuttal is included in this thread. I am also including a synopsis of this debate, probably in a separate thread. Devoid of substantive arguments, you have returned to your original question which I answered THREE TIMES, including the answer in the final reply in this thread. I have no intent of continuing argument with you because your lack of knowledge presents no challenge. Answering you is a waste of my time. ~~Diakon

FINAL REBUTTALS TO JACK: · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 13:41

Empty-headed Jack-o-lantern, I have answered your question about my human ancestor's fossilized bones at least TWICE. The rebuttal, below, will be the third and FINAL answer. It will provide more than enough evidence that H. s. neandertalis was a fully modern human. PERIOD.

1) H. neandertalis BONES are currently to be found IN THE SAME STRATA AS OTHER HUMAN BONES. Where? In ISRAEL, TODAY! The BONES, not fossils, of Neandertal man and so-called "modern man" have been found WITHIN A FEW YARDS OF EACH OTHER IN TWO CAVES, and in the company of simple tools ON THE SLOPES OF MT. CARMEL, ISRAEL. When examined in the light of the German Neandertal stone fossils, you are proven WRONG.

2) The only conclusion possible given the Evolutionarian's radiometric dating results on the Mt. Carmel bones is that H. neandertalis is fully a "modern human," AKA H. s. sapiens, no matter what name Evolutionarians apply to them. Your "H. sapiens sapiens" ancestors were either H. sapiens neandertalis (full taxonomic description), or were neighbors of H. sapiens neandertalis. Of course, the H. s. neandertalis STONE FOSSILS are represented in the German finds. H. s. neandertalis is either your ancestor, an ancestor of someone in your acquaintance, or an ancestor of some other person you don't know who is living today. If you are too bloody dense to understand that FACT of science, debating with you is a waste of time.

3) Try to THINK; it doesn't hurt: H. s. Neandertalis UN- FOSSILIZED from Mt. Carmel in Israel = H. s. neandertalis FOSSILIZED (STONE) remains in Germany = "MODERN" MAN. H. s. neandertalis, your "modern" relative, is represented by both FULLY FOSSILIZED AND UNFOSSILIZED REMAINS. H. s. neandertalis represented in the "fossil record" as a FOSSILIZED "modern human being" as well as a NON-FOSSILIZED "modern human being." THE TWO FINDS ARE PHENOTYPICALLY IDENTICAL, ONE IS STONE, THE OTHER IS NOT! If a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Fossilized H. s. neandertalis remains = bone H. s. neandertalis remains = "modern" man. Is that simplistic enough for you to grasp?

Not every living or dead human being is closely-related. In fact, most are not. Neandertal men were your 100% human relatives in the line of descent from Adam and Eve. H. s. neandertalis may not be a direct ancestor of yours, but given your "knuckle- dragger" thought processes and WHOLLY undocumented pseudo-arguments, they obviously were close cousins of yours.

FINAL REBUTTALS TO JACK · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 13:42

The biased presumptions behind the dating methods used to identify H. s. neandertalis as being 100k years is a fraud. Their coexistence with "modern man" exposes that fraud. The data from the instrumentation reflects the Evolutionarian BIAS of the people who INTERPRET the data. That H. s. neandertalis and your ancestors LIVED AT THE SAME TIME, ARE PARTS OF THE SAME "SPECIES," and that H. s. neandertalis remains are BOTH FOSSILIZED STONE AND UNFOSSILIZED BONE illustrates and answers your "challenge," to wit: "why are there no stone fossils of human bones?" with specificity. If you can't understand this reply and reject FOSSILS as being STONE, then you are too stupid, ignorant, and uneducated to be bothered with.

You wrote, "Look it up, Spud, the "fossils" of H. neanderthalis are all "bone" fragments . . . . . WRONG!!! The Neander Valley finds were NOT fragments. The German anatomist Rudolph Virchow who examined an H. s. neandertalis SKULL, NOT FRAGMENT, made the telling observation that it bore signs deformation from rickets. Studies of the SKULLS of Neandertal CHILDREN point to other diseases. You are absolutely WRONG and absolutely IGNORANT!

(NOTE: Complete Neandertal skeletons were found in the early 20th Century. The reference is made later on this page.)

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

FINAL REBUTTALS TO JACK (Contd.) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 13:44

Your ignorance again: "Lucy" was NOT found at The Olduvai Gorge (correct spelling, from memory) as you claimed. Since you can't spell Olduvai, I'm sure you don't know where it is, and I am not going to tell you. Curious you didn't even know that Olduvai is a gorge, ain't it, Jocko? Olduvai is where the Leakeys perpetrated their little Evolutionarian game with the APE, Zinjanthropus. I won't bother to give you the names of their other finds -- get a sixth grade science book or read the SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL about your myth of evolution, African Genesis. As for "Lucy," Johannessen "found" "Lucy" NOT in Olduvai, but in Ethiopia in 1974. Look it up, you fraudulent CHUMP!

BTW, progenetrix was a "word" you used (coined?) to describe what your myth hypothesizes as my prehominid ances(tor)(trix?). I only used it so you wouldn't become confused. It didn't help.

FINAL REBUTTALS TO JACK (End) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 13:45

Sport, you are totally ignorant of Physical Anthropology, your assertions are garbage, and you are obviously too stupid and/or too ignorant to understand what I have posted. Since you have failed to address any of my challenges beyond the H. neandertalis issue on which you have shown total ignorance, and you have amply demonstrated your ignorance of Physical Anthro generally, I am going to expose you now by placing a list of your failures to rebut my arguments, and your ignorant and undocumented claims in a new root post. Don't bother to reply; I won't waste my time answering. Of course you ARE stupid and arrogant enough to try an answer, or try to claim victory. Your record will show without doubt that you've lost. I only debate with people who have knowledge. Your performance on this forum proves that you are fundamentally ignorant, a wholly empty-headed Jack-o-Lantern, and a total waste of time. I have better things to do than to teach you Physical Anthro 100.

Proverbs 10:14 "Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin." (NIV) ~~ Diakon Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

RETURN TO THE LINKING TEXT AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE
 

Just for starters..... · (Empty)
_Jack Friday
September 25, 1998 at 21:57

Please cite your reference for the definition of "FOSSIL" which limits that word to "PETRIFIED" remains.

My American Heritage Dictionary defines "FOSSIL" as, "A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geological age, such as a skeleton, footprint, or leaf imprint, embedded in the Earth's crust."

NOTE, Spud, NOT a single word about petrification. Your dead great- grandmother is in all likelihood a certifiable fossil today. Why don't YOU pick up a book and learn what a fossil is and is not before you spurt your ignorance.

As regards the definition of a fossil: · (Empty)
Mr. Webster
Saturday September 26, 1998 at 3:50

My Dear Mr. Jack,

Sir, it would seem quite apparent that the American Heritage Dictionary, or your copy of it, is deficient in more areas than I had previously believed. My Webster's dictionaries, of which there are several, define the word fossil, not including the pronunciation key, and the word itself, as follows:

n. any portion of an animal or vegetable organism or imprint of such, which has undergone a process of petrifaction and lies embedded in the rock strata. (Colloq.) an antiquated person or thing; a. pert. to, or resembling a fossil. - iferous a. bearing or containing fossils. -ize v.t. to turn into a fossil; to petrify; v.t. to become a fossil. [L. fodere, fossum, to dig]

I believe that I am correct in advising, sir, given the definition at hand, that your dictionary is deficient in its scope, and in proposing that you should use the transitive verb forms from my definition as a worthwhile guide to further your understanding of our common verbal heritage. I would also suggest that you might do even better to use the humble product of my efforts when seeking the concise meaning of any word, those most wondrous mechanisms of our magnificent language. Perhaps you would care to purchase one of my dictionaries to aid you in seeking greater knowledge?

Most sincerely yours, N.W.


TO JACK, (and anyone else who is interested): . . . . . · (6 messages)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:00

This thread contains a six-part outline of the PRO and CON points of our "debate" on evolutionism. It includes the rebuttals, re-rebuttals, and failures to rebut each of the arguments which have been posted to this forum for almost a month.

Since this post is quite long the forum might limit the number of segments. So, if the forum truncates the posts as it once did, I will post the balance later in the day. ~~Deke

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 1) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:02

- - - PRO - - -

This first set is comprised of Jack's pro-Evolutionarian arguments (in italics) and my rebuttals (in standard font) are in this first set. Please note that Jack did not offer a single re-rebuttal to any of my responses.

Jack: . . . ."The TRUTH is life has been on this planet for not 20,000 years but, several BILLIONS of years. The physical evidence is overwhelming." " . . . . . 'human' bones means bones of your species. Not a single stone specimen of any of your human ancestors." "The physical evidence is overwhelming. All the 'sapiens' have been around for only a few hundred thousand years which is why there are NO STONE FOSSILS.

Rebutted: H. s. neandertalis fossils are H. sapiens sapiens. Many well-known living human beings exhibit the same characteristics. The Biloxi (Pauluxi) River clearly show human and dinosaur in the same rock. Humans and dinosaurs existed together, and were not separated by billions of years. The razor-sharp Japanese Plesiosaur photos show that dinosaurs still exist.

Jack's re-rebuttal Attempted. A fraudulent, unsupported assertion that Neandertal fossils were only fragments.

Final rebuttal: Earlier quote from Encarta, quote from Dr. Virchow, and the physical evidence from Mt. Carmel H.s. sapiens / Neandertal contemporaneous existence finds.

Jack: "What physical evidence is there for spontaneous multiple creation of life or an all encompassing flood within the past 20,000 years?"

Rebutted but off-topic: Life was created. It did not spontaneously generate. Humans and dinoraurs existed together as demonstrated by the Biloxi (Pauluxi) River casts, and probably still do given the Japanese Plesiosaur photos. Christians DO NOT believe in abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). Abiogenesis is an Evolutionarian religious doctrine. Noah's Flood is off- topic in this debate.

Jack's re-rebuttal: NONE

Jack: "Man" (currently homo sapiens sapiens) did not suddenly appear 20,000 years ago rather Man as well as every other animal species alive today has an an unbroken chain of progenitors that go back to the earliest life on Earth.

Rebutted: H. s. neandertalis fossils, Biloxi (Pauluxi) River human/dinosaur prints. The so-called fossil record does not show any "unbroken chain of progenitors." It has huge gaps with no intermediate species. I challenged Jack to name one of these "unbroken chain(s)." There was no reply.

Jack's re-rebuttal: NONE

CONTINUED

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 2) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:03

- - - PRO (Contd.) - - -

Jack: "The chimpanzees have over 98% of the same genetic code as you. "

Rebutted: Human Genome Project is not complete. No Genome project in the works for chimps.

[NOTE: Other verifiable measurements (blood specific gravity) show humans more closely related to pigs than chimps. This is evidence of a common creator.]

Jack's re-rebuttal: NONE

Jack: "Why is your body covered with remnants of the fur of your ancestors? "

Rebuttal: Human beings have HAIR, not fur on their bodies. Hair and fur are structurally different.

Jack's re-rebuttal: Attempted, and failed. No facts or documentation provided re H. s. neandertalis.

Jack: "Sure, there could have been several extinctions when the Great Flood floated Noah's Ark but, wasn't God's primary intent to rid the Earth of hordes of sinning humans? Where are their petrified fossil remains? "

Rebuttal: H. s. neandertalis is an example of extinct modern human beings. However, the subject of this debate is evolutionism, it is not theology.

Jack's re-rebuttal: Fraudulent claim that H. s. neandertalis fossils were fragments.

Final rebuttal: Virchow, Encarta, et al.: H. s. neandertalis SKULLS from both adults and children. Mt. Carmel, Israel, contemporary existence of "modern" men and H. s. neandertalis .

Jack: ". . . . , I think that H. neanderthalis will expose you to be a liar. I would appreciate it if your would post a credible source for the petrified Neandertal fossil to which you referred." ". . . . BTW we were discussing petrified fossils of ANY of your acknowledged ancestors. You know, any of the progeny of Adam and Eve except Noah and his family?"

Rebuttal: H. s. neandertalis was an upright-walking "modern" man. H. s. neandertalis fossils are documented in Microsoft Encarta 97 and numerous other sources. Encarta quotation provided.

Jack's re-rebuttal: Attempted with fraudulent and non-sequitur "fossil Neandertal fragment" assertion, above. No evidence, no documentation.

Final rebuttal: Virchow, Encarta, et al.: H. s. neandertalis SKULLS from both adults and children. Mt. Carmel, Israel, contemporary existence of "modern" men and H. s. neandertalis .

CONTINUED

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 3) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:23

- - - PRO (Contd.) - - -

Jack: "Why would you say that fossil evidence is RARE? Fossils of plants and animals have accumulated and petrified for billions of years before "MAN" evolved."

Rebuttal: Fossils are extremely rare. Their numbers are miniscule if only compared to living critters today, not to mention the Evolutionarian hypothesis' doctrine proposing billions of years with uncountable numbers of living animals.

Jack's re-rebuttal: NONE

- - - CON - - -

This is the second set of arguments in my debate with Jack. My con- Evolutionarian arguments and re- rebuttals are in standard typeface, as above. Jack's rebuttals are in Italics, as above:

Deke: "My position was then as it is now: mankind, so-called H. sapiens sapiens (the label is a taxonomic joke which adds another layer of sap to sapiens to the Evolutionarian tree) was created on this planet no more than 20,000 years ago. " "Exactly what do you mean by when you bandy about the term "human"? Do you include so-called prehominids? Do you include the Goodall-forced, reclassifications of H. sapiens? If so, name them."

Jack's Rebuttal: Attempted, failed:.." 'human' bones means bones of your species. Not a single stone specimen of any of your human ancestors." No examples or documentation provided.

Re-Rebuttal from Deke: H. s. neandertalis is a fossilized "modern human being."

Jack's Re-re Rebuttal: Fraudulent claim that H. s. neandertalis fossils are fragmentary (non sequitur).

Final rebuttal: Virchow, Encarta, et al.: H. s. neandertalis SKULLS from both adults and children. Mt. Carmel, Israel, contemporary existence of "modern" men and H. s. neandertalis .

Deke: "Evolutionarian's taxonomic word-games are excellent examples of the ever-changing, wholly unstable, relentlessly debated "conclusions" which I long ago rejected as metaphysical nonsense."

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

Deke: "Your Evolutionarian 'truth' is just an evidence-free wild GUESS. My "progenetrix" (sic), the distaff founder of humanity following her creation, was named "Eve," not "Lucy-the- Fraud" or any of the so-called hominidae. DNA evidence is strongly in favor of what scientists call the 'Eve hypothesis,' but since it points to Biblical TRUTH, Evolutionarians reject it."

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

CONTINUED

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 4) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:25

- - - CON (Contd.) - - -

Deke: "The Neanderthals, save for the deformation of the skull, are indistinguishable from the common variations of 'modern man, and bear a striking resemblance to some of the more popular 'knuckle-dragger heavies' in the film industry (the late (?) World Heavywieght Champion, Primo Carnera is an example)."

Jack's rebuttal: Fraudulent claim that H. s. neandertalis fossils are fragmentary.

Final re-rebuttal: Virchow, Encarta, et al.: H. s. neandertalis SKULLS from both adults and children. Mt. Carmel, Israel, contemporary existence of "modern" men and H. s. neandertalis .

Deke: "The Evolutionarian presentation of H. Neanderthalis as 'early modern man' is just supposition based on an Evolutionarian-biased paradigm."

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

Deke: "BTW, do you know about about the 'Goodall treatment' I mentioned? Do you understand that it neither includes any kind of corroborative PHYSICAL evidence, nor was the cause of the change so-called hominid, so it is a lexical-taxonomic hoax?"

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

Deke: "Evolution is a mathematical impossibility, even if life is hypothesized to have evolved 20 billion years ago on earth. It is such a clearly absurd notion that recently Evolutionarian physicists have advanced the absurd, untestable notion that there are billions of alternative universes, thus making evolution mathematically PROBABLE in this one. LOL!!! "

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

Deke: ". . . . IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE, OR IS IT ABSOLUTE TRUTH? . . . . Of course, you (Jack) did proclaim, 'The TRUTH is life has been on this planet for not 20,000 years but, several BILLIONS of years. The physical evidence is overwhelming. ' Can evolution be falsified or not?"

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

Deke: "One troublesome 'little' piece of science (physics) seems to have eluded your attention when you made your assertion about chimps, and the claims of evolutionism as well: Given the law of entropy, how is it that chimpanzees and humans are at the "advanced" level they have achieved?"

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

CONTINUED

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 5) · (Empty)
Diakon
Friday September 25, 1998 at 14:27

- - - CON (Contd.) - - -

Deke: ". . . . a common plan can be found in both in mammalians and other living creatures including marine creatures. This creates great problems for the proponents of evolutionism because convergence predicts otherwise."

Jack's rebuttal: NONE

CONCLUSION

Jack, if you posted any arguments which I failed to rebut, or any I failed to recognize as rebuttals or re-rebuttals to my arguments, please repost them now as replies to the arguments, above. Your performance in this debate -- "charade" in your case -- has been pitiably laughable. You have not provided a SINGLE bit of evidence for your myth-based claims. I did cite studies, cases, and can provide more support for my position. Your side was nothing but smoke and mirrors.

You totally failed to rebut, re-rebut, or even provide rebutting documentation for TWELVE points I made. I rebutted and/or re-rebutted EVERY ONE of yours. The only point I didn't bother to re-rebut was that hair and fur are structurally the same (try Encarta or any encyclopedia). That was becuse you provided ZERO documentation or evidence for your rebuttal. YOU LOSE ON THE BASIS OF YOUR TWELVE FAILURES TO REBUT MY ARGUMENTS ALONE, not to mention your fraudulent claims which you failed to prove or document, and I did rebut and re-rebut !

Your greatest failing in this debate was your obvious inability to respond to two issues: 1) Square evolution with entropy. 2) Is evolution absolute TRUTH, or is it FALSIFIABLE. Until you can handle these two issues, and no Evolutionarian scientist-priest can, Evolution is as vacant as an hypothesis as you are as a debater.

CONTINUED

EVOLUTION DEBATE: A FINAL LOOK (part 6) · (Empty)
Diakon Friday
September 25, 1998 at 14:28

CONCLUSION (end)

Although I have only presented the "tip of the iceberg" of my knowledge about Evolutionism and Creationism and their relationship to REAL SCIENCE, you have totally failed to demonstrate even fundamental knowledge of the teachings of your Evolutionarian religion. I am not going to take the time to educate you further because given your dearth of knowledge and the number of opportunities and clues I have provided, and that you failed to recognize, it is patently obvious that you can not learn, think, or do research. In this debate you are like a three-year-old trying to wade in the Marianas Trench. You were orders of magnitude out of your depth. You WERE warned. I will not reply again to any of your Evolutionarian posts (debate they ain't). You will remain a colossal waste of time until you take at least a few physical anthro classes, but even that won't adequately prepre you to deal with SCIENTIFIC FACTS. My efforts here won't be wasted. I'm going to post this entire "debate," my massacre of Jack-o-Lantern's the Evolutionarian's drivel, to my web site when I have the time to do it.

Galatians 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (NKJ) ~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

RETURN TO LINKING TEXT AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE



 
You are a FRAUD, LIAR, and a POTATO..... · (Empty)
_Jack
Friday September 25, 1998 at 21:44

You lying sack of dog excrement. You are the potato I originally accused you of being. I will post our entire dialog to prove to all that you will state falsehoods and invent facts to support your fraudulent pseudoscience mythology. Tell us all how your eyebrows are hair and an orangutan's flowing coat is fur. I know you have fingers on your feet and now I am beginning to suspect that you also have a tail. The Bible warns of false prophets but, you are clearly the first I have encountered.
more to follow...Spud

(Note from Deke: The "false prophet" accusation is identical to that of "Arbiter," above.)

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT CLOSEST TO THE TOP OF THIS PAGE

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT NEAR THE END OF THE INTRODUCTION

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE


Just Wondering. · (18 messages)
Disruptor
Sunday
November 15, 1998 at 16:09

Did you ever notice that when rabid, atheist, evolution, extremists have their faith exposed as absolutely asinine, (which it clearly is), they always go on a screech fest against God, rather than making a futile attempt to defend their evolutionary religion? Their actions clearly show that they have no defence for their evolutionary faith, and that they are actually just anti-God zealots that try to use evolution, (totally disregarding its implausibility), to explain events that clearly point to intelligent design. They have no respect for God or science.

Apologies . . . . · (Empty)
Diakon
Monday November 16, 1998 at 16:28

to everyone for causing this page to be printed in italics. I didn't notice that my post had been cut-off in mid-quote, which meant that there was no end- italics HTML command. I will be more careful in the future.

Entropy in the Bible: Hebrews 1:10-12: "He also says, 'In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.' " (NIV)

~~ Deke Bible Teacher and Editor, The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages http://www.jps.net/tccop/

Deke is right. · (1 messages)
Truth Seeker
Tuesday November 17, 1998 at 18:30

[The atheist] also said that we have "the evolution of bacteria and viruses observed before our modern eyes." What did they evolve into, [the Atheist]? Or perhaps they did evolve into [the Atheist]? Evolution means a change in species, and not adaptation to an environment.
 

The Bible warned of FALSE PROPHETS..... · (Empty)
Jack
Tuesday November 17, 1998 at 21:38

while FALSE PROPHETS warn of damned liars. Diakon has never explained the difference between his eyebrows and animal fur but, he has all the answers about those fossils that keep screwing up the Creationist myth, doesn't he?

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT

Another Arkansas Road Scholar Speaks.... · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 10:08

but, you, Gramps, are wrong or misled. You can make Diakon's case if you choose.

TRUE or FALSE? 1) Diakon says you and he are not superior to or different from a Neanderthal Man. 2) Diakon says ALL fossils are petrified by definition. 3) Diakon says that humans only have hair and animals only have fur. 4) Diakon says he doesn't know why he has fingers on his feet. 5) Diakon WON'T say that he believes that the Great Flood covered all landmass since your Neanderthal Man ancestors walked the Earth. 6) Diakon is VERY Grateful for simpleminded followers like you. 7) Diakon is a potato. He may have eyes but, no moving parts behind those eyes so he cannot see.

Good luck. I hope you pass, I know any Neanderthal off the streets could. No cheating now, this is a REAL LIFE TEST.

[NOTE: NUMBERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 ARE ABSOLUTE LIES. THE REMAINDER ARE GROSS DISTORTIONS OF THE POSITION I HELD IN THE "DEBATE." DISTORTIONS, LIES, AND PERSONAL ATTACKS WERE JACK'S FORM OF "DOCUMENTED" SUPPORT SAVE FOR A COUPLE OF DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS AND A COUPLE OF WEB LINKS.]

What lies?... · (Empty)
Jack Wednesday
November 18, 1998 at 12:43

...Please point out any lie I have stated and I will refute with Diakon's own words. Use the numbers if you find English a burden.

BTW, why do you feel justified in calling me an atheist? Have I ever discussed my religious beliefs to your awareness or have you simply come to the sad realization that you haven't a single rational response to any of the issues I have raised so "kill the messenger" is the best you response you can muster?


Septic tank scum · (Empty)
Darwin's Conscience
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 16:08

Post any of Deke's statements which support your claims. Include the date and time of the post. If you really do have verbatim quotations you will be able to relate them to a specific post. I agree with Gramps because I read what Deke wrote and saw none of it in your claims.
 

How about this... · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 16:51

Monday November 16,1998 when Diakon said, "I proved that H. Neandertalis was modernman"

Of course the verb "IS", and therefore "WAS", is disputed by our President but I think we can agree that Diakon is clearly saying here that H. Neandertalis-R-U and U-R-H. Neandertalis, you slopeheaded knuckledragger, you. BTW, this quote is from this very thread but, I guess you didn't read it, eh?

On Wednesday, September 16, 1998 1:48 Diakon posted, "Human beings do NOT have FUR on their bodies. That is another Evolutionarian deception. The human body is sparsely covered with HAIR, NOT FUR." Would you care to explain the difference between eyebrows and the fur on a chipanzee?

Then in his most pathetic, on Sunday, August 30, 1998 2:59 he posted, "I am not part of a "species," I AM A MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL! I am a genetic descendant of God's special human creation, the TRUE origin of mankind. Your Evolutionarian "truth" is just an evidence-free wild GUESS. My "progenetrix" (sic), the distaff founder of humanity following her creation, was named "Eve," not "Lucy-the-Fraud" or any of the so-called hominidae." He is lost and leading fools.

I hope you do not think that Diakon is a deeply religious man who posts his crap from a ecclesiastical imperative? You do know that he is just a political wannabe that will say anything to make the world bow to his preferences and biases? What drives him?

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT, BELOW

What drives Diakon?... · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 17:15

On or about September 4, 1997, Diakon said the following,

"I do accept that the geologic strata are a type of time marker, but the time scale is moot. I was an evolutionist with theological leanings until well after the publication of _African Genesis_ . I had some formal training in physical anthropology, had done a good deal of reading on the subject. One of my mentors was a world-famous paleontologist's daughter; his legacy is more famous that he was. I held Roy Chapman Andrews' (Indiana Jones) exploits in awe. I had received in my formative years, an almost exclusively Evolutionarian upbringing, the benefit of a government school education and my father's addiction to esoteric subjects. When _African Genesis_ was published, I first recognized a link between the decay of moral and ethical standards in our culture and the emerging dominance of humanist, evolutionary, atheist, relativistic ideologies. No one was responsible for anything they did, everyone else was to blame; there was no absolute standard for right, and no wrong. I became aware of the carefully hidden controversies within the Evolutionarian religion than were never admitted publicly. I initially rejected Evolutionarian "theology" because of its cultural consequences, and the concealed controversies. The consequence-free non- standard persists today; its youthful victims lay draining their lives away in our nation's gutters. So, I oppose OUR (not the government's) money being used in the continued, singular promotion of Evolutionism and Evolutionarian "theology" in the government schools. Until a new generation is reared under the restoration of consequence-backed moral standards, humanity is doomed to grope blindly "forward" for what they have left behind. When there is accepted no eternal consequence for evil, when there is seen only a nihil beyond the grave, fear gives way to foolhardy bravado, restraint and reason give way to anger and self- righteousness, and the body count accelerates." Hardly the ecclesiastical calling you might expect from such a crusader. Sounds to me that HE is going to punish us until we quit being wicked, to hell with our souls. Truth is rooted in reality and so is God, if he exists. Hiding from reality to perpetuate a myth cannot be God's way.

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

Errata.... · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 17:57

On Wednesday September 16, 1998 at 3:37 Diakon posted, "Jack wrote in an earlier post: "The chimpanzees have over 98% of the same genetic code as you. Why do you suppose that YOU have toes?"

Since you make this claim based on comparative DNA, have you completed the Human Genome Project ahead of schedule? Have you also completed a genome for the "genus" Pan? If not, your claims are both specious and speculative." Please remember, if you actually read all of the dialog between Diakon and me that I NEVER raised the issue of H. Neandertalis or Neanderthal Man as a precusor of H. sapien sapien nor that we are directly related to chimpanzees even if we do have an estimated 98.5% match of DNA with them apes. I personally subscribe to a much longer geneology which makes the genetic blips of H. Neanderthalis, H. sapiens sapiens or Chimpanzees insignificant. I can't imagine how else God could have assembled the universe and life as we know it.

To support a Biblical Creationist theory of construction, please show me the Garden of Eden, the Ark, the bones of the sinners killed in the Great Flood or a petrified fossil of any H. sapiens sapiens, Diakon's pathetic embracement of kinship to H. Neandertalis notwithstanding. The fact is, that last was my original question to Diakon which he never answered except to claim that we are all Neanderthal men. You buy that, don't you?


Quotes · (Empty)
Darwin's Conscience
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 18:52

I do recall those quotes. I also recall Diakon posting a lot of information which you conveniently left out, and which destroyed your ignorant positions. They included his answer about the structural differences between fur and hair which any high school biology student should know. Ask any rapist who was convicted on the basis of hair evidence if anyone bought the idea the victim was raped by an animal because human hair is just like animal fur, you idiot! Diakon raised the issue of Neanderthal man's skulls being both fossilized and unfossilized after you ignorantly said there were no stone fossils of modern man. I think the Neanderthals were social rejects, banished from society at large. Obviously Diakon's proof was beyond your grasp. He proved that Neanderthal man and modern man were only different in appearance, that they existed at the same time in Israel, and that stone Neanderthal skulls were found in Germany while unfossilized Neanderthal remains were found in Israel with the remains of modern man. I never knew those facts before, and they are facts because I checked them out. Diakon's proof that the Neanderthals were modern men destroyed your argument about the lack of modern stone human fossils. You came up with a lame, secondary definition of "fossil" from some low-quality source. Someone claiming to be Webster blew you off with the definition "fossil" from Webster's Dictionary which says in its first definition that fossils are stone, not bone, after you shoved your foot in your mouth by claiming that not all fossils are stone, just as you did on this page. That was after Diakon had defeated your lame arguments, posted your failures, and proved your stupidity and ignorance. Of course, you aren't honest enough to post the whole of Diakon's replies because you engage in continual half-truths and deceptions (lies). By the way, my high school biology teacher taught me that human toes and fingers are structurally different and perform totally different functions. Human toes are not opposable, thumbs are. I learned more from one of Diakon's explanations than from all of the garbage you posted. Diakon was right in blowing you off as ignorant, irrelevant, and I think, a total waste of his time. I agree with him. Go back to your septic tank to soak and sulk in your own ignorance, fool!

Go back to your septic tank, Jerk.. · (Empty)
Darwin's Conscience
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 22:36

Diakon has promised to post all of the debates, including the items I mentioned. You halfwit, it was you who said you had Diakon's quotes, not me. Does it bother you that you can't read or remember what he posted? Damn straight it does. You are the one who is lying here. Diakon did post the material I said he did. Diakon himself will prove it beyond doubt when he posts the entire debate as well as the one he had with another evolutionist on his web site. Don't hold your breath, though. I doubt that he thinks it will be worth the effort given your pitiful performance here and in the debate. Even if I had those posts I wouldn't waste my time posting them to a scum-swilling septic tank bottom-feeder like you. Take your lies to hell with you, maggot food.
 

What do your turds smell like, NIMROD?.. · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday November 18, 1998 at 22:49

...Go ahead and respond to any of my allegations, if you can, or are you just waiting for your false prophet give you the incantations? Surely you know the answers yourself, don't you? Your belief system is not REALLY based on a total stranger's raving hysteria, is it? You can defeat me all by yourself, can't you?

Go back and re-read my 17:15 post and tell me what inspires your faith in this fraud, Diakon? Ask him if HE believes in the Great Flood or the list of begats that declares the Earth to be 10,000 years old. Ask HIM why the Geologic Strata is valid but but the time scale is moot. Do you even know what moot is besides yourself? Now that you have smelled it, lick your finger, loser.

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT

Turd licking loser... · (Empty)
Jack Wednesday
November 18, 1998 at 23:18

...You said, "They [Diakon's responses] included his answer about the structural differences between fur and hair which any high school biology student should know." That is a lie. Diakon SAID there were differences but posted NONE. You may now, if you wish, loser. You said, "Ask any rapist who was convicted on the basis of hair evidence if anyone bought the idea the victim was raped by an animal because human hair is just like animal fur, you idiot!"

Just like murder victims can identify their assailants by DNA, right, Mr. Goldman? Don't let it get you down but, your eyebrows are constructed just like the hairs on a chimpanzee's butt.

You said, "Diakon raised the issue of Neanderthal man's skulls being both fossilized and unfossilized after you ignorantly said there were no stone fossils of modern man."

I agreed that Diakon could find no difference between you and a slopeheaded knuckledragging Neanderthal Man, neither can I. You want me to alert the media?

You said, "Someone [Diakon] claiming to be [be?, BE? Quote from, you idiot] Webster blew you off [sucked wind] with the definition "fossil" from Webster's Dictionary which says in its first definition that fossils are stone [petrified], not bone, after you shoved your foot in your mouth by claiming that not all fossils are stone [look it up yourself, try Webster's second, third or fourth definition of "fossil"]"

Yes, the American Heritage Dictionary is beyond your appreciation and Diakon posted all the definitions of "fossil" from Webster's, NOT!!

Enough, you have not made a single argument of your own except that your high school teacher taught you that there are differences between your fingers and toes, well, gloriousky, NOW tell me why you have toes on your feet at all, loser. It can't be because your ancestors needed them to keep from falling out of trees, could it?

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT


To Darwin's Conscience and Jack · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday November 19, 1998 at 7:00

I am in inveterate collector of facts who enjoyed the highly-charged debate between Jack and Deke. So, I will alleviate a little of your frustration, Darwin's Conscience, in the hope that you will be kinder to those like me who are less gifted with memory. I collected Deke's conclusions about H. Neandertalis, as well as the bulk of that debate. The entire, unedited statement which Jack seems unable or is unwilling to find is posted in two parts, below, in italics.

By the way, someone in this thread replied to me that the HIV virus had recently evolved. Now isn't that interesting! Tell me, poster, what did the HIV virus evolve FROM? A mammal, a reptile -- oh, yes, they are "higher life forms." Perhaps it evolved from the jub-jub bird or the froomious bandersnatch, DUH?

Continuation of "To Darwin's Conscience and Jack": · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday November 19, 1998 at 7:01

3) Try to THINK; it doesn't hurt: H. s. Neandertalis UN-FOSSILIZED from Mt. Carmel in Israel = H. s. neandertalis FOSSILIZED (STONE) remains in Germany = "MODERN" MAN. H. s. neandertalis, your "modern" relative, is represented by both FULLY FOSSILIZED AND UNFOSSILIZED REMAINS. H. s. neandertalis represented in the "fossil record" as a FOSSILIZED "modern human being" as well as a NON-FOSSILIZED "modern human being." THE TWO FINDS ARE PHENOTYPICALLY IDENTICAL, ONE IS STONE, THE OTHER IS NOT! If a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Fossilized H. s. neandertalis remains = bone H. s. neandertalis remains = "modern" man. Is that simplistic enough for you to grasp?

Not every living or dead human being is closely-related. In fact, most are not. Neandertal men were your 100% human relatives in the line of descent from Adam and Eve. H. s. neandertalis may not be a direct ancestor of yours, but given your "knuckle-dragger" thought processes and WHOLLY undocumented pseudo-arguments, they obviously were close cousins of yours.

The biased presumptions behind the dating methods used to identify H. s. neandertalis as being 100k years is a fraud. Their coexistence with "modern man" exposes that fraud. The data from the instrumentation reflects the Evolutionarian BIAS of the people who INTERPRET the data. That H. s. neandertalis and your ancestors LIVED AT THE SAME TIME, ARE PARTS OF THE SAME "SPECIES," and that H. s. neandertalis remains are BOTH FOSSILIZED STONE AND UNFOSSILIZED BONE illustrates and answers your "challenge," to wit: "why are there no stone fossils of human bones?" with specificity. If you can't understand this reply and reject FOSSILS as being STONE, then you are too stupid, ignorant, and uneducated to be bothered with.

The balance of Deke's post dealt other issues which included Jack's erroneous statements that Johannessen's (sp?) "Lucy" had been found at Olduvai Gorge, and that Neandertal (Neanderthal?) fossils were only fragments, among others. But that is not my concern, I won't do more than post the information I have and wait for an answer to my HIV question. By the way, I also have the Webster's Dictionary definition post from one "Mr. Webster," not Deke, which appeared on Saturday September 26, 1998 at 3:50, after Deke's summation of the debate. Lighten up, guys!

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE
 

Thank you for your addition, TT... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday November 19, 1998 at 9:35

...and thank you for your civil and decorous manner. It is about time one opposing evolution do so withoutinvective, slander and character attack such as we have seen from Diakon, Gramps, and Darwin's Conscience in this thread. If you would like to continue discourse, I am sure we can in a civilized manner.

I would think the inadequacy of Diakon's reply to "Empty-headed Jack-o- lantern" since he defeats his own argument in his conclusion. Please notice:

1)There is no difference between H.Neandertalis and H.sapien sapien 2)H.Neandertalis and H.sapien sapien have been found together in Israel. Alleged H.Neandertalis remains in Israel are "un-fossilized", [presumably not petrified] 4) the unidentified German H.Neandertalis remains have no connection to the Israeli remains save Diakon's assertion that both are H.Neandertalis.

Now, may we analyze Diakon's "proof"? He claims that H.Neandertalis IS H.sapien sapien, aka "Modern Man". In other words, the remains of two Modern Men were found in Israel and, guess what? NEITHER were petrified. Why am I not surprised? Then he claims that the remains of ANOTHER Modern Man were discovered "fossilized" in Germany. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has three definitions of the word "fossilize"

1) :to convert into a fossil 2 : to make outmoded, rigid or fixed verb intransitive : to become changed into a fossil

There are two definitions of the word "fossil"

1.1 : to preserve from a past geologic age {fossil plants} {fossil water in an underground reservoir} 1.2 : being or resembling a fossil 1.3 ; of or relating to fossil fuel AND 2.1 : a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust -- compare LIVING FOSSIL [picture of Diakon at this point] 2.2.a. : one whose views are outmoded : FOGY [again, picture of Diakon at this point] 2.2.b. : something (as in theory) that has become rigidly fixed 2.3. : an old word or word element preserved only by idiom (as froin to and fro)

Yes, that may be overkill on definitions but, my point is the word "fossilized" is NOT SYNONOMOUS with "petrified", in fact, I believe that a petrified remains that is seperated from the geologic strata without attribution is NOT A FOSSIL except under definition 1.2 above. Petrification is a long term process which I believe takes longer than H.sapiensapien has been on the Earth and probably longer than H.Neandertalis unless anyone wants to provide a source for a PETRIFIED FOSSIL of an H.Neandertalis dig. Remember, a buried bone is FOSSILIZED. In any case, if there are petrified remains of H.Neandertalis do exist, it is a huge leap to say the H.Neandertalis is Modern Man but, that is the core of Diako's flawed argument.

-(contined)-

continued... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday November 19, 1998 at 9:40

...Finally, I believe thatDiakon blatantly lied when he referred to MY statementsre:"Lucy" or Neanderthal fossil fragmentssince I believe I made no such statements. If you have saved such, I would be glad to see your record. I never entered H.Neanderthalis into our debate, that was solely a "straw man" tactic of Diakon. All I wanted him to do was refer us to a petrified remains of a Modern Man.

RETURN TO INDEX SEARCH

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT

Thank you for your interest and contributions.


Thanks for the "thank-you" Jack. · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday November 19, 1998 at 22:57

I really do not want to be drawn into this, but Diakon was not lying about your statements concerning "Lucy." I will post your statement as I did his because I have it, having not edited out the facts I want to keep. By the way, I am aware of the Mr. Carmel unfossilized Neanderthal man remains. I read about them in a science publication. The article about the Mt. Carmel find might be in a back issue of Science or National Geo. Physically they are the same as the German Neander Valley fossils found around 1890. Perhaps I shouldn't do this, but here is the unedited second paragraph of your post about "Lucy" and the paragraph with Deke's unedited reply. Your post is first, in italics, and Deke's reply follows.
 

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

What is it that drives Diakon?... · (4 messages)
Jack
Friday November 20, 1998 at 17:10

...On or about September 4, 1997, Diakon said the following,

"I do accept that the geologic strata are a type of time marker, but the time scale is moot. I was an evolutionist with theological leanings until well after the publication of _African Genesis_ . I had some formal training in physical anthropology, had done a good deal of reading on the subject. One of my mentors was a world-famous paleontologist's daughter; his legacy is more famous that he was. I held Roy Chapman Andrews' (Indiana Jones) exploits in awe. I had received in my formative years, an almost exclusively Evolutionarian upbringing, the benefit of a government school education and my father's addiction to esoteric subjects.

When _African Genesis_ was published, I first recognized a link between the decay of moral and ethical standards in our culture and the emerging dominance of humanist, evolutionary, atheist, relativistic ideologies. No one was responsible for anything they did, everyone else was to blame; there was no absolute standard for right, and no wrong. I became aware of the carefully hidden controversies within the Evolutionarian religion than were never admitted publicly. I initially rejected Evolutionarian "theology" because of its cultural consequences, and the concealed controversies. The consequence-free non- standard persists today; its youthful victims lay draining their lives away in our nation's gutters.

So, I oppose OUR (not the government's) money being used in the continued, singular promotion of Evolutionism and Evolutionarian "theology" in the government schools. Until a new generation is reared under the restoration of consequence-backed moral standards, humanity is doomed to grope blindly "forward" for what they have left behind. When there is accepted no eternal consequence for evil, when there is seen only a nihil beyond the grave, fear gives way to foolhardy bravado, restraint and reason give way to anger and self-righteousness, and the body count accelerates."

Hardly the ecclesiastical calling you might expect from such a crusader. Sounds to me that HE is going to punish us until WE quit being wicked, to hell with our souls. Truth is rooted in reality and so is God, if he exists. Hiding from reality to perpetuate a myth cannot be God's way.

To the gentle and decent posters... · (Empty)
Jack
Friday November 20, 1998 at 17:27

from this thread. I must leave soon and I fear that this thread may scroll off the forum before I return. Accordingly, I have entered a new topic at the top of the forum and would like to invite any interested in continued civil conversation on the topics raised here to please post there.

If you choose to not continue as I suggest, then I would like to thank you now for your bright, insightful and stimulating contributions.


Fossil / fossilized · (Empty)
Mr. Webster
Friday November 20, 1998 at 2:34

My Dear Mr. Jack, Sir, please permit me to essay a short commentary on the definitions you have provided. My Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines the word fossil, not including syllabification, pronunciation key, etymology, and the word itself, to wit:

n. 1. orig., any rock or mineral dug out of the earth. 2. Any hardened remains or traces of plant or animal life of some previous geological period, preserved in rock formations in the earth's crust. 3. anything fossilized or like a fossil. 4. a person who is old- fashioned or who has outmoded, fixed ideas. --adj. of, having the nature of, or forming a fossil or fossils. 2. found underground in deposits formed in a previous geological period [coal, petroleum, and natural gas are fossil fuels.] 3. belonging to the past; unchanged by progress; antiquated.

I am confident, sir, that I am correct in advising your use of this definition of fossil rather than those you laboriously selected from other sources. This definition is more properly suited to the academic subject at hand, its source being one of my college editions which renders it more pertinent to academic questions than those you have quoted and annotated. Of course, a definition from any other of my dictionaries would be adequate if somewhat inappropriate because they would tend to be less academic and more generalized and colloquial in their scope. I am in like fashion, confident that you will my selection to wholly appropriate if you compare your selections with the one provided.

Most sincerely yours, N.W.
 

We all be neanderthals, NOT... · (Empty)
Jack
Friday November 20, 1998 at 15:50

For those not so enamored with Diakon's omniscience who would rather know the truth about reality, I offer a link to one of many articles that discuss the research that concludes that fossil DNA proves that Neanderthals were not ancestors of humans.

http://expressindia.com/fe/daily/19970712/19355423.html

If my link didn't work.

As far as my discussions with the False Prophet Diakon, I don't really care either way since I never declared H.Neandertalis to be an direct lineal ancestor of modern man. Diakon needed that fraud to try to connect petrified hominid remains to modern man.

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT

Dear Noah Webster... · (Empty)
Jack
Friday November 20, 1998 at 16:12

I appreciate your prompt and courteous reply to my amused observation of the variance between the two postings. My gentle jibe as to potential motivation for the discrepancy was not intended to be in any way hostile. I would just like us all to agree that no one can automatically mean "PETRIFIED" when they say "FOSSILIZED".

I will endeavor to cite my references better but, I do not own and cannot easily access a reference Webster's Dictionary. I will consider purchasing such a scholarly tome.

Since you do have access to one now, would you grace us with complete definitions of the words "fur" and "hair" so we can retire the ancillary issue of the distinctions, if any, between the follicles over Diakon's eyes and those over the eyes of a baboon.

My thanks and appreciation to you, Sir.

This is a continuation of... · (Empty) Jack Friday November 20, 1998 at 17:19

...a thread initiated below by Disruptor on Sunday November 15, 1998 at 16:09. The theme offered by disruptor was as follows:

"Did you ever notice that when rabid, atheist, evolution, extremists have their faith exposed as absolutely asinine, (which it clearly is), they always go on a screech fest against God, rather than making a futile attempt to defend their evolutionary religion? Their actions clearly show that they have no defence for their evolutionary faith, and that they are actually just anti-God zealots that try to use evolution, (totally disregarding its implausibility), to explain events that clearly point to intelligent design. They have no respect for God or science."

Well, once the Creationist zealots ceased screeching, cursing and otherwise making fools of themselves, several rational people entered into a pleasant conversation. This topic has been posted to allow the decent people to continue their dialog should the original thread scroll off the forum.

Gentlemen, please continue...

[NOTE: JACK RECEIVED NO REPLIES OF WHICH I AM AWARE IN THE NEW THREAD. THE OLD THREAD CONTINUED UNTIL IT SCROLLED OFF OF THE FORUM. ]

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE


Darwin's conscience · (Empty)
Darwin's Conscience
Friday November 20, 1998 at 17:44

"Paabo explained that the DNA survived most probably because the fossil came from the cold north of Germany. Efforts to get DNA from fossils from the Middle East had so far failed. . . . . Lindahl also expressed his surprise that the DNA, which usually degrades easily, had survived for so long."

"Outside DNA contamination . . . ." ". . . . surprise that the DNA, which usually degrades easily had survived for so long." Could there be errors in the samples after 30,000 years? Did the researchers determine their sample was not degraded and misleading them? Could they have determined that it was intact without a time machine? Did the shellac alter the DNA rather than preserving it? Do these statements construct a "back door" in case of fraud? Is Anjali Mody's article itself fraudulent? Is that really someone's name? Is there corroboration of this article in any credible scientific journals?

Hoaxes and evolutionary fraud have been common in the past. Some were accepted as genuine for forty years and more. Only time will tell if this article is not bogus, or that the research has any validity if it is not another hoax or fraud.
 
 

Darwin's Conscience: questions and doubts · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Friday November 20, 1998 at 23:06

I agree with your criticisms of the Neanderthal DNA article. I also found one very troubling statement, the same one that proved highly problematic in the O.J. Simpson trial: "The work was difficult, Paabo admits, particularly as the techniques used were sensitive and tended to pick up outside DNA contamination.

I would also be interested to learn if there are any differences between as yet unearthed Neanderthal specimens and the one tested. Oxidation may well have altered the specimen which is 152 years old. That will most certainly take time, and would tend to be ignored or shelved if the resulting data were inconsistent with the current data.

This new DNA data, if not bogus, also raises an theological issue which Deke raised several weeks ago. He holds that there was more than one creation of human beings, the first recorded in Genesis 1, and the second, Adam, recorded in Genesis 2. This new evidence tends to support Deke's theory, but only if it proves not to be a hoax.
 
 

Hair and Fur · (Empty)
Grolier Saturday
November 21, 1998 at 10:59

The following quotations are from my Multimedia encyclopedia. Perhaps they will help to clairfy the issue you are trying to resolve.

Hair

"Hairs are the long, narrow filamentous growths that protrude from the skin of mammals. Dense hair in some animals is called fur or wool."

Fur

"Fur is the soft, hairy coat of an animal that is processed into a pelt and used to make wearing apparel. By definition, a true fur, such as mink, is made up of a soft, thick, insulating layer called underfur, and a top layer of longer, lustrous guard hairs. Furs such as Persian lamb lack guard hairs, however, while others such as monkey fur lack an underlayer. The quality of the pelt of any species varies according to where and when it is taken. Most furs come from cold or temperate climates, and they are usually at their prime in midwinter."
 
 
 

Is Diakon's eyebrows hair or fur?... · (Empty)
Jack
Monday November 23, 1998 at 19:19

...Thank you, Sir Grolier, for your excellent definition of our disputed terms, HAIR and FUR to wit:

. Hair

"Hairs are the long, narrow filamentous growths that protrude from the skin of mammals. Dense hair in some animals is called fur or wool."

"fur

"Fur is the soft, hairy coat of an animal that is processed into a pelt and used to make wearing apparel. By definition, a true fur, such as mink, is made up of a soft, thick, insulating layer called underfur, and a top layer of longer, lustrous guard hairs. Furs such as Persian lamb lack guard hairs, however, while others such as monkey fur lack an underlayer. The quality of the pelt of any species varies according to where and when it is taken. Most furs come from cold or temperate climates, and they are usually at their prime in midwinter."

It should now be clear to Diakon, Darwin's Conscience, S-1, and even, Gramps, that Diakon was lying when he claimed "Human beings do NOT have FUR on their bodies. That is another Evolutionarian deception. The human body is sparsely covered with HAIR, NOT FUR." Poor Diakon, he believes that only dumb animals are have fur on their bodies and HEsays:

"I am not part of a "species," I AM A MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL! I am a genetic descendant of God's special human creation, the TRUE origin of mankind. Your Evolutionarian "truth" is just an evidence-free wild GUESS. My "progenetrix" (sic), the distaff founder of humanity following her creation, was named "Eve," not "Lucy-the-Fraud" or any of the so-called hominidae."

Pretty pathetic since he claims to have been created in the image of God yet he has no appreciation of the body God gave him.


 
You guys can be Neanderthals if you wish... · (Empty)
Jack
Monday November 23, 1998 at 19:35

...but, seriously, Darwin's Conscience and Truth Seeker, are you sure you want to be? Diakon only perpetuated the fraud about the kinship of modern man to H.Neandertalis because he could not find a single credible reference to petrified remains of Modern Man. Why is this important? Simply because there are millions of petrified remains of millions of animal species which have never been seen on the Earth but, nary a one of a Modern Man. Now the devil could have placed all those extinct animal fossils in the dirt OR the Great Flood of the Bible could have killed and buried all those refugees from the Garden of Eden but, if so, where are the petrified remains of all the sinning children of Adam and Eve that were not saved on Noah's Ark? Probably right next to the evolutionary links missing from the geologic record, eh?

I only care about truth and reality since no God I would bow to would expect me to do otherwise. Are you sure your faith is consistent with the one true reality?

There are several links to creditable journals to support the DNA research on Neanderthals. Believe what you will, I choose the truth.
 

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE
 


(Diakon as "One Miffed VIP) (three parts)
Friday, December 11, 1999

"Paleontologists will not be able to identify the species of this hominid, or human forerunner, until all the bones are removed from the rock layers where they are embedded in the Sterkfontein cave, the site of many discoveries of early-human remains."

That is a key excerpt from the New York Times announcement of a new "hominid" (man-like) fossil skeleton discovery. Isn't it curious that these scientists know that the find is a hominid while the remains are still embedded in the limestone? Given the Times' grandiose initial declarations, we must wonder how many scientists will be allowed to view the fossil skeleton and verify its taxonomic assignment. Will it be only a very select few, just like all of the other finds? How many scientists with opposing views will be allowed to view the skeleton? Will it be ZERO, just as in ALL of the other cases? Only a small percentage of "hominid" fossils have been poorly copied (casts) for study, will casts of this find be provided, or be withheld as the vast majority of the others are?

Maybe this skeleton will beat the odds and be presented as a poorly-cast model (without mentioning that fact) to a gullible press, and tongue-dragging paleoanthropologists, just like the small percentage which have been made available. No doubt, P-BS will be ballyhooing the find on NOVA and Bill Nye with Science Lies while ignoring any flaws and fraud as they did with "Lucy." No doubt they will be presenting the find as scientific fact to gullible school children and their parents while the fossil is secreted away in a fortress-like vault, well-protected and unexamined by the vast majority of scientists, most especially the opposition. It is an old shell game that paleoanthropologists have played for a very long time. That game includes the specimens mentioned in the article.

"The discovery of the Taung child's skull in South Africa in 1925 led to the classification of small-brain protohumans in the genus Australopithecus . . . . " declares the Times article.

There are at least two BIG problems hidden in this statement, and there are many more. It ignores the Kanapoi elbow fossil KP 271, which is uncontested and clearly Homo sapiens [1], is 4.5 million years old, predating Taung by AT LEAST 1.5 million years [2], and is deliberately ignored by evolutionists. The Times article also ignores South African Geologist T.C. Partridge's 1973 research at the Taung cave which dated the Taung specimen at only 3/4 million years, far too late to be part of the hominid evolutionary model! Partridge's research was (and is) being ignored because it rejects current beliefs.

Attention Evolutionarian scientist-priests and acolytes! The "orderly" paleoloanthropological "chart" is in chaos with good reason. It is the product of a shell game based on philosophical and religious presuppositions (bias). It NOT science! LIVE WITH THESE FACTS OR SUPPLY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHICH REFUTES THEM! (Don't hold your breath!)

[1] Bryan Patterson and W.W. Howells, "Hominid Humeral Fragment from Early Pliestocene of Northwestern Kenya," Science, April 7, 1967. Note: the geological epoch of this find was later changed. See footnote 2, below.

[2] Bryan Patterson et al., "Geology and Fauna of a new Pliocene Locality in North-western Kenya," Nature, June 6, 1970.

Merry CHRISTmas to all! ~Guess Who??? LINK TO TCCOP
 
 

JACK · (37 messages)
Truth Seeker
Tuesday December 15, 1998 at 12:13

Why haven't you replied to Deke's post about the 4.5 million year old Homo sapiens fossil? Are you so hypocritical as to avoid hard questions based on physical evidence while demanding that Christians provide similar answers for you? That elbow fossil is REALITY, deal with it!

RETURN TO LINKED TEXT
 
 
 

Couldn't possibly be a post by Deke... · (Empty)
Jack
Wednesday December 16, 1998 at 19:42

...since Diakon made it very clear that he would only "debate" with official VIP'd posters and ONLY from behind a VIP.
[NOTE: THESE LINKS: LIE 1, LIE 2, PROVE JACK'S STATEMENT A BALD-FACED LIE] I have seen no VIP posters here for a month or so. Diakon will have to post here WITH his VIP before I can accept anything as his. [NOTE: THIS IS MORE OF JACK'S DISSEMBLING. VIP STATUS HAD BEEN CUT-OFF BY THE WEBMASTER, AND JACK KNEW IT.]

RETURN TO FIRST LINKS NEAR THE TOP OF THIS PAGE

Also, if Diakon were posting here, he needs to acknowledge the DNA evidence that Neanderthals and modern man are separate branches of the hominid family tree. Of course, this admission by Deke would destroy his false contention that Neanderthals and H.sapien sapien are both modern man, ergo Deke's direct ancestors. [NOTE: THIS IS A GROSS DISTORTION AND DEMONSTRABLE LIE ABOUT MY POSITION. UNTIL DNA EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT H. NEADERTALIS WAS A SEPARATE CREATION, PALEOANTHROPOLOGISTS WERE DIVIDED OVER NEANDERTAL'S BEING HUMAN OR AN EXTINCT BRANCH OF NON-HUMANS. I ONLY RECENTLY FOUND CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR THE DNA EVIDENCE HE MENTIONED. UNTIL THEN, I HELD TO THE OLDER THEORY THAT H. NEANDERTALIS WAS A DEFORMED "MODERN" HUMAN. EITHER JACK KNEW THIS FACT AND DELIBERATELY DISTORTED MY POSITION, OR HE WAS COLOSSALLY IGNORANT OF PALEOANTHROPOLOGIC HISTORY.] This only matters because Deke could never offer a single example of a petrified fossil of one of his ancestors. [JACKS STATEMENT IS A BLATANT LIE. CLICK HERE TO LINK TO MY DECEMBER 11 POST ON THE KANAPOI HUMAN ELBOW FOSSIL, WHICH WAS POSTED FIVE DAYS BEFORE HE WROTE THIS. JACK KNEW THAT I HAD MADE THE POST AND LINKED IT TO THIS WEB SITE, AS YOU WILL SEE BELOW.] We all know there should be plenty of petrified fossils of all the human sinners that purportedly died with the dinosaurs in the Great Flood of Noah's Ark fame.

Also, if the False Prophet Diakon were to be posting here under his VIP, he also needs to retract his silly braying about how there is ANY substantive difference between his eyebrows and the eyebrows on a chimpanzee. For that matter, the definitions of hair and fur so kindly provided by "Grolier", I now claim that ALL the HAIR on Deke's body is the remnants of his fully-furred ancestors.

Also, the imposter you referenced only referred to a suspect 4.5 million- year-old fossil . . . . [NOTE: THIS IS ANOTHER OF JACK'S LIES. I POSTED THE KANAPOI
(KP 271) FOSSIL INFORMATION ON DECEMBER 11 (link provided immediately above) AS DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC FACT, NOT 'SUSPECT.' THE REAGAN FORUM HAD REVOKED VIP STATUS SO I WAS UNABLE TO POST AS A VIP AS WERE ALL PARTICIPANTS, BUT I DID PROVIDE A LINK TO THIS WEB SITE. LINK HERE TO THAT POST.] . . . . claim after completely ignoring the REAL find of a 3.2 million-year-old hominid fossil which is anticipated to clearly establish the link between the False Prophet Diakon and his tree climbing ancestors. This is important to explain why Deke has fingers on his FEET. Clearly a remnant of his ape ancestors that needed those fingers to keep from falling out of the trees and hitting there heads.

If the False Prophet Diakon wants to return to acknowledge his false statements and obvious diversions maybe I will stop calling him a potato. Remember, there is NO God that wants any of us to believe a lie, REALITY is what God produced. Seek the Truth and it shall set you free.


 

VIP · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 9:33

It is not my intent to defend Deke. He has done admirably well doing that himself. You are mistaken at best when you write that Deke has never said that "he would . . . . 'debate' . . . . ONLY from behind a VIP." He has engaged many of the old "regular" non-VIP's in debate, but has refused new non-VIP's because they come and go or switch names too regularly. On the other hand, he debated both Eolach and Missing Link a couple of months ago. Both of them are non-VIP "regulars" on this forum. As to an impostor, Deke signed most of his recent posts with a D., and provided a link to his web site. Do you really think his enemies would be stupid enough to provide a link to it? You raise the issue of fur again. Several of the other non-VIP's answered your "question" about fur. Are you saying that similarity proves evolution? Frankly, given your hostility and obnoxious attitude toward Deke after the drubbing he gave you last summer, your obviusly deliberate refusal to reply to his documented statements, and your abject failure to document any of yours, I can't blame him for ignoring you. Your performance on this forum proves that you practice puffery, not debate. E.g., since the 4.5 million year old HUMAN elbow fossil Deke DOCUMENTED precedes the Time's article's (your) 3.5 million year old hominid fossil, how is it that the Time's fossil can be part of human evolution? Also, if you have credible, published scientific documentation from any scientific journal to present in rebuttal which shows that the similarity between ape fur hand human eyebrows is any kind of proof for your faith, then present it. So far you have NEVER presented a single source from any credible scientific journal for any of your claims. Deke has. Finally, if you have proof that Deke is a "false prophet," present it. Without proof for your statements, you are not posting facts, but unsupported personal attacks.
 
 

Sorry, Truth Seeker... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 10:33

...Diakon said, "Sunday September 6, 1998 at 17:46 I do not believe the latest post came from you. I will not reply to "your" post, below, unless you re-post using your VIP as you did in the first two. I ave a reply prepared, but unless you use your VIP I have no way of knowing who I am debating(?). BTW, the forum had been responding normally for about five days before "you" posted below. Again, I will not waste my time refuting your nebulous, uninformed garbage any further unless you use your VIP. Period!"

Now at that time I was working away from my office and posted to explain to Diakon that due to technical problems, it was impossible to post under my VIP.

The False Prophet Diakon later said, "I have written in numerous posts that I will not engage in lengthy debate with non-VIP's. I challenged you to debate evolutionism, you responded using your VIP, and those are the conditions you accepted. I have little doubt that you realize I can provide the documentation you demanded which says that Neadertal remains ARE fossilized, and for that reason you've quit. Be a good little sport and verify your pathetic post -- if it is yours. Don't be a cowardly little weasel running from me pouting and making excuses for your failure. "

Well, that is how Diakon claimed victory by simply disallowing my arguments posted without VIP. [NOTE: THIS, AND THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH IS A LIE. I REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED JACK TO POST USING HIS VIP SO THAT I WOULD NOT BE WASTING MY TIME WITH BOGUS WRITERS. HERE IS THE LINK TO THAT POST. THE QUOTATION HE CITED, ABOVE, IS MINE FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 1998. HE POSTED WITH HIS VIP ON SEPTEMBER 14, I REPLIED TO IT WITH HIS VIP ON SEPTEMBER 14 AND SEPTEMBER 17, 1998. HE REJECTED MY REPLY ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 AND CONTINUED POSTING UNSUPPORTED GARBAGE AND A LIE THAT I HAD NOT RESPONDED TO HIS PSEUDINTELLECTUAL CHALLENGES. WHEN IT WAS OBVIOUS HE COULDN'T AND WOULDN'T ENGAGE IN HONEST DEBATE, I TALLIED THE SCORES AS I HAD SAID I WOULD. HE DIDN'T JUST LOSE, HE WAS DESTROYED.]

Diakon is a FALSE PROPHET because he intentionally misrepresents REALITY to lull the gullible into believing he believes as they do. Neanderthals are NOT modern man except to Diakon because he cannot find a petrified fossil of a modern man. Petrification takes hundreds of thousands of years and modern man just has not been on earth long enough to petrify. Neanderthal man has been around much longer and may well have petrified remains. There are hundreds of thousands of extinct plants and animals which are known only by their petrified fossil remains because they were on earth or even extinct millions of years before modern man. Does Diakon believe that all life was created IN THE SAME WEEK a few ten thousand years ago? Does Diakon really believe that a Great Flood killed all life on earth save that on Noah's Ark since that time? Does he really believe that every distinct species on earth today debarked from that Ark in Asia Minor then dispersed to their present locales with ZERO evidence of the migration? Does he believe in the Garden of Eden, as he has said, or does he just so the folks that believe in a literal translation of the Bible will think he is one of them?

The False Prophet Diakon will distort the facts of reality to for secular purposes and those who follow him should be warned.

[NOTE: THIS DESPICABLE LIAR, JACK, NEVER ONCE OFFERED A SCINTILLA EVIDENCE FOR HIS REPEATED ACCUSATIONS LIKE THAT IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS POST. NEITHER DID HE EVER PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF MY DISTORTING ANYTHING FOR "SECULAR PURPOSES." HE IS A DISSEMBLER, AN ACCUSER OF THE BRETHREN, AND A SPIRITUAL CHILD OF THE FATHER OF LIES, SATAN.]

As to others, Truth Seeker... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 10:39

...there are many here that do not deserve a reading or response. Their arguments are defeated by their own words and I will happily let them self-destruct.

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

A repeat post from Grolier... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 11:18

Saturday November 21, 1998 at 10:59

The following quotations are from my Multimedia Encyclopedia. Perhaps they will help to clairfy the issue you are trying to resolve.

Hair - "Hairs are the long, narrow filamentous growths that protrude from the skin of mammals. Dense hair in some animals is called fur or wool."

Fur - "Fur is the soft, hairy coat of an animal that is processed into a pelt and used to make wearing apparel. By definition, a true fur, such as mink, is made up of a soft, thick, insulating layer called underfur, and a top layer of longer, lustrous guard hairs. Furs such as Persian lamb lack guard hairs, however, while others such as monkey fur lack an underlayer. The quality of the pelt of any species varies according to where and when it is taken. Most furs come from cold or temperate climates, and they are usually at their prime in midwinter.

Now, if Diakon, you and I are mammals, then any distinction between hair and fur is based on density NOT species. Diakon's eyebrows are not substantially less dense than those of a chimpanzee. If Diakon wants to declare that animals have fur and humans have hair then I say he is an ape or a chimpanzee is human. But then we are talking species again and you know what that does to Diakon...

I am not part of a "species," I AM A MAN, NOT AN ANIMAL! I am a genetic descendant of God's special human creation, the TRUE origin of mankind. Your Evolutionarian "truth" is just an evidence-free wild GUESS. My "progenetrix" (sic), the distaff founder of humanity following her creation, was named "Eve," not "Lucy-the- Fraud" or any of the so-called hominidae. DNA evidence is strongly in favor of what scientists call the "Eve hypothesis," but since it points to Biblical TRUTH, Evolutionarians reject it.

Pathetic rant of an animal in a God suit. Ask him about Biblical TRUTH if you want but, don't even suggest that God created him as an animal.
 


Rhetoric · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 11:22

Do you have any concept of the difference between empty rhetoric and evidence? All you have posted in this thread is unsupported opinion, not scientific fact. Again, Deke presented the 4.5 MILLION year old Kanpoi (sp?) HUMAN elbow fossil with documentation from Science Magazine and Nature, two of the most respected scientific journals in the world. As usual you have provided ZERO documentation for your claims in this thread, you have totally failed to refute his post on that HUMAN fossil with what you have posted in this thread, and you have failed to support your claim that Deke would only debate with VIP's. I would submit that had he posted such a claim about you, you would have called him a liar. Isn't that true? If you desire to gain some measure of believability on this forum, again I challenge you to present the credible scientific sources for your claims as Deke did for his. I would be very interested in seeing those sources, but I won't hold my breath. Absent credible documentation for your claims I must conclude, as Deke probably has, that you are intelligent but lacking both the basic knowledge which can support your beliefs as well as the skill and knowledge required to ferret out the credible scientific sources which may provide that support. Simply, Jack, put up or shut up!

Jack · (Empty)
Curious
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 11:49

If human eyebrows and chimp hair indicate a relationship between humans and chimps, does that mean the similarity between other human and animal body structures indicate an evolutionary relationship between the two?

Jack · (Empty)
Curious (again)
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 11:52

What is this "Eve hypothesis" that you posted about?

Facts · (Empty)
S-1
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 13:02

Superficial morphology, Jack, does not prove anything. Be it hair density or the structure of a digit, the way it looks under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the way it appears to you eye are entirely different. That is the case with human hair and animal fur. There may be a difference in what we call them, but even greater differences are observed with an SEM. But, not even that piece of equipment is required to point out one striking dissimilarity between ape hairs and human hairs. Ape hairs are *never* tightly-curled while human hairs frequently are. That includes eyebrow hairs in elderly humans. That fact can be seen easily with the naked eye. Of course you may want to make the case that black Americans are apes as Darwin's followers did, unless you recognize that tightly curled hair is not a characteristic of chimpanzee hair. You have a lot to learn.
 

In response to Curious and S-1... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 14:56

...The significant corollary between the eyebrows on chimpanzees and modern humans is that they are both mammals similarly constructed with body parts that function the same ways to the same effects. I think the chimpanzee got his eyebrows from the same place that Diakon got his, probably from a recent common ancestor. If eyebrows on a chimp are fur, then eyebrows on Deke are fur. If you prefer to call eyebrows hair, then it is hair on the chimp as well as on Deke. If Diakon wants to claim a common Creator using a common plan at a single point of time in our past, then he can explain why there are no petrified fossils of modern man and nothing but petrified fossils of the vast majority plant and animal fossil record. The problem is that Diakon just cannot accept that he is one of many animal species on the earth and some animals were only here in antiquity while others, such as modern man, have only recently arrived on earth.

You will have to ask the False Prophet Diakon what he meant when he referred to the "Eve Hypothesis" as I was just quoting him. How did you read his rant? It sounded to me like he wants to claim direct kinship to the only mother without a navel in the Garden of Eden but, then that would mean that he also claims direct kinship to Mrs. Noah of the Ark fame since all of Eve's sinning offspring died in the Great Flood, eh?

As far as your analysis, S-1, I also believe that the equipment and techniques you refer to is also used to correctly identify the hairs of two different modern humans, does that make each of them to be a separate species? I am also certain that your equipment and techniques can distinguish hairs from any number of different breeds of dog yet we are quite certain that all modern dogs today are breeds within the same species which have been bred from a common ancestor all within the past twenty thousand years or so. In time, chiquaquas may no longer be able to be bred to great danes but, they can today because of their common ancestors. If that ability is lost, there will be two species, but their physiology will always be comparable. Likewise, the False Prophet Diakon's physiology is today very comparable to an ape's physiology so I compare them.

To: Jack and Curious · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 15:58

I thought you might know something about evolutionism, Jack. I will answer your question, Curious: Anyone even a little familiar with modern evolution theory is also aware of the "Eve Hypothesis." It was even presented to the "great unwashed" in an episode of P-BS's NOVA several years ago. The hypothesis is also known as the "Mitochondrial Eve Theory." It is a controversial DNA study entitled Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution which was published in Nature, on Jan. 1, 1987, pp. 31-36, by three Berkeley microbiologists: Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Wilson. Their investigation was an attempt to prove the out-of-africa evolution hypothesis. They ended up unwittingly in support of the Biblical model, complete with an Eve. I doubt, though, that any knowledgeable creationist or evolutionist would accept their work. It was founded on very bad assumptions. I am certain that Deke mentioned that theory to prove his contention that you are ignorant about evolution theory. I am beginning to agree. I see that you, Jack, still have not cited any credible scientific sources for your claims about evolution. Note that I have. I also think that "Curious" asked you a very good question: "If human eyebrows and chimp hair indicate a relationship between humans and chimps, does that mean the similarity between other human and animal body structures indicate an evolutionary relationship between the two?" Please directly address that question, Jack. Consider that I am also asking it.

LINK · (1 messages)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 16:12

Here is a link, Jack, to scientifically-documented proof of your demand for "petrified fossils of modern man."
 

Do you?... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 16:16

"Do you have any concept of the difference between empty rhetoric and evidence?

Every thread here and for the past several weeks that I have participated in all began with my simple challenge to the False Prophet Diakon to reveal a single petrified fossil of modern man, (ie. one of his acknowledged ancestors). The rhetoric flowed as the False Prophet Diakon ludicrously attempted to claim Neanderthals as modern man no different than you only because he could find petrified fossils of Neanderthals but no credible H.sapien sapien petrified fossils. Even the Romans buried in Pompeii under 50 feet of ash and lava flows at Mt Vesuvius are still bone and not petrified so where did all the petrified fossils come from except animals that lived hundreds of thousands of years before man ever set foot on earth? When I provided a credible source for evidence that DNA tests have shown that Neanderthal man is not modern man nor even an ancestor, Diakon disappeared and never retracted his claim of kinship to Neanderthals nor did he ever provide a petrified fossil of modern man.

You may wish to claim the Kanapoi elbow as a petrified fossil of modern man but the noted researchers dispute the facts on this case and neither Diakon nor I are in any position dispute their conclusions. If it is the petrified fossil of a modern man AND it is 4.2 million years old, than it is a single anomaly great mass of archeological evidence that otherwise supports a timeline and chronology of hominid evolution. If you think it proves anything to cite the arguments of opposing experts that disagree with the scholars Diakon cited, I don't know what that would be since the experts are in disagreement. We certainly won't PROVE anything that way, will we?

I would next expect the False Prophet Diakon to bring up Skull 1470 was very modern in its appearance but was found in rock previously dated at 2.9 million years--much too old for a modern skull. but it too is disputed and we once again get into the battle of the experts. When Aindaichi cited a credible reference disputing Deke's "human" footprints of a "modern man" out walking his dinosaur, Deke never responded. After all, it was credible expert against credible expert.

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE

Untitled Message · (1 messages)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 16:23

I also think that "Curious" asked you a very good question: "If human eyebrows and chimp hair indicate a relationship between humans and chimps, does that mean the similarity between other human and animal body structures indicate an evolutionary relationship between the two?" Please directly address that question, Jack. Consider that I am also asking it.

I responded to Curious, "I think the chimpanzee got his eyebrows from the same place that Diakon got his, probably from a recent common ancestor.

what part of my answer did you not understand?

Poor quality reference there... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 16:35

...Kanapoi elbow fossil KP 271, which is uncontested and clearly Homo sapiens [1], is 4.5 million years old,

The label Homo sapiens for KP 271 is contested and it is not clear at all that this specimen came from a modern man. In any case, I guess this cite means that the False Prophet Diakon repudiates the Genesis Creation story and Biblical timeline from the Creation to modern times since no serious Biblical Scholar can create a literal timeline greater than 10,000 to 20,000 years. The False Prophet Diakon wants to claim a 4.5 million year old fossil. Just when did Eve birth his ancestor?


Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 18:27

Stop stonewalling and posting unsupported claims, Jack. Provide credible scientific references or fold.
 

Yes · (Empty)
Curious
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 18:43

Truth Seeker is right. Is all you can post just hot air? Cite the credible scientific sources for your claims, Jack. Try Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, Science xx, or any similar publication for starters. Where's the beef???
 

Jack, if . . . · (Empty)
S-1
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 18:58

KP271 is contested by (your words) ". . . . noted researchers [who] dispute the facts on this case . . . . , " then NAME THOSE REASEARCHERS AND THE PUBLICATIONS where their arguments can be found. If you can't, Truth Seeker is right. Your posts are just hot air and stonewalling.
 
 
 

Try these... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 19:27

Fossil DNA proves Neanderthals were not ancestors of humans

Rutgers University - New Pre-Human Species Identified

Of course, the Journal Nature is not on-line that I can find but all the fundy debunkers at any cost are. There is truth not on the internet. Just because one author Lubenow is splashed all over the internet does not make him correct. The Rutgers team examining the fossils had much more than an isolated elbow and they saw a hominid precursor to H.sapien sapien. Even Lubenow only claims that KP 271 merely appears to be a H.sapien sapien fossil. He doesn't appear to have any comment about the other fossils found at the site.

OK, Boys... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 19:32

...show me where the fact that the Kanapoi Elbow is UNCONTESTABLY from an H.sapien sapien?

In case you haven't noticed... · (Empty) Jack Thursday December 17, 1998 at 19:45

...it is ONLY the literal Creationists that are searching for evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey and they will be all over the internet whenever they find a scrap of wood. There will be NO SCIENTIFIC studies to refute the specious claims of the Ark hunters because it is NOT SCIENCE!! The Kanapoi Elbow is just one of a great many fossils found at that site but the rabid anti-evolutionists think it is the only evidence from that dig. It was not and to build a case against evolution by focusing on that one anomaly is NOT SCIENCE either.

Seek the Truth and it shall set you free.

Speaking of Noahs Ark... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 20:04

...All this bandwidth can't be wrong, could it?

Now I have provided a reference, all I ask is for any of you to cite ANY credible scientific sources for [opposing] claims with NAME[S OF] THOSE REASEARCHERS AND THE PUBLICATIONS where their arguments can be found that repudiate and debunk the claims made at this website.

By volume, there has to be a pony under all that manure, I mean an Ark has GOT TO BE on that mountain. The TRUTH of the Ark's existence and location is on that page proven to the eternally gullible because it is uncontested and clearly true because they saw it on the internet.

Correction... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 20:21

...the Journal Nature is not on-line that I can find.

Wrong, I found it.

Nice try Jack · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 20:43

You have provided ZERO again. First, the Rutgers site is the only credible site you have posted. Second, the East Indian newspaper is not a scientific publication by any stretch of the imagination, if it is even real. Their claims are not footnoted with supporting documentation from even one credible scientific journal. So, that puts the burden of proof on you. Third, the Rutgers site does not mention anything about KP271. It refers to finds made in 1995. That was just more stonewalling on your part. Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found KP271, the Kanapoi elbow in 1965. Neither of the web sites you cited provided any information on, or even discussed that 4.5 M year old modern human fossil. Again, stop laying smokescreens and stonewalling. Provide citations from respected scientific journals which support your claim that KP271 is not a modern human fossil.
 
 

On-line? · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 20:44

P.S. Try a library!

RETURN TO EVOLUTION (ORIGINATING) PAGE
 
 

Are you Diakon masquerading as... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:07

...Truth Seeker? He, too, possessed a pompous and arrogant attitude towards anyone who did not spend their waking hours in a library but, look at what a fool he made of himself. I work for a living, not in academia, so libraries are a time luxury I seldom enjoy.

The article about Neanderthal DNA clearly referenced the original article in the very scholarly Journal "Cell". Since you have so much free time to wander about libraries, you go look it up. I need go no further to know that the False Prophet Diakon was wrong or lying when he claimed that neanderthals are "modern man" (ie. no different than you or me).

Why don't you end this fraud, Deke? Everybody has noticed that you have not posted here under your original handle "Diakon" ever since I exposed your lies and secular motivations. You and I both know that you are a FALSE PROPHET leading the gullible away from the TRUTH about REALITY. Declare your position on Biblical Creation:

How long ago was the week in which every living and dead thing (including fossils) was created? How long ago was the Great Flood which left the Ark of Noah as high as 13,000 feet up Mt Ararat? Where did all the fossils of the sinners killed in the Great Flood go? Where did all that water go? How did the kangaroos get to Australia, the Kiwis to New Zealand? Are you a Creationist or just a nitpicker of REAL SCIENCE? Why do you have fingers on your feet?

Excuse me, Truth Seeker, I probably should not have suggested that you were becoming like, or are Diakon since I am rather pleased that we have all held to fairly high standards of civility for which I am grateful. You go ahead and try to answer my questions for Ol' Dekey Boy, though, if you wish.

While you are at it... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:17

...show me where the credible source that the claims Kanapoi Elbow is UNCONTESTABLY AND CLEARLY from an H.sapien sapien?


Lies and more lies · (Empty)
Curious
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:24

Quoting Marvin L. Lubenow, from The Bones of Contention, A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, 1992, p. 57: "It is obvious that looks isn't everything. Even though KP271 is shaped exactly like Homo Sapiens, the time element is wrong . . . . because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines. . . . " (emphasis added). No creationist, including Deke and Lubenow, accepts your unproven assumptions about geologic time. We only use them against you. Jack, why did you lie this evening at 19:27 when you wrote, "Even Lubenow only claims that KP 271 merely appears to be a H.sapien sapien fossil." ? Why did you lie last summer when you posted that H. Neanderthalis fossils were only "fragments" when you, highly educated evolutionist that you are, most certainly knew that a complete Neandertal skeleton had been discovered in 1908? You, sir, are a real False Prophet -- a lie peddling fraud-monger of your evolutionist religion.
 
 

Thanks, Jack. · (Empty)
(unknown)
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:49

Thank you for equating me with Deke. Deke's well-documented and reasoned post from last week on KP271 really eats at you, doesn't it? Of course, if I were him you would have a very tough time proving it. I'm not the only poster on this forum who has knowledge about the dirty secrets of evolutionism. I am willing to provide credible references when I make statements. You would do well to follow that example. Obviously you don't spend any time in libraries or reading opposing ideas. Perhaps you should try reading a few books at home. Try Lubenow's book which "Curious" mentioned. You can obtain it from a public library, or most bookstores which don't engage in censorship.
 
 
 

"Looks exactly like" is NOT "is".. · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:50

...an authenic H.sapien sapien fossil. Neither is the elbow of the plastic skeleton at the local university. So post your scholarly journal that claims uncontested and clear evidence that KP 271 is nothing but a fossil of modern man as Diakon claimed.

What other handles are you hiding behind?


Jack · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:51

That last post was from me. I neglected to enter my handle. Again, do read Lubenow's book. It is a worthwhile effort for anyone with an open mind.
 
 
 

Take pride where you can I guess... · (2 messages)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 22:58

...but why don't you take my challenge at "Speaking of Noah's Ark...". Find the scientific rebuttal to any of the theories there. I'll give you a clue, REAL scientists don't need to spend time proving things that are not consistent with reality. Prove me wrong if you can.

It can be rather frustrating researching... · (Empty)
Jack
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 23:40

...Creationist theories since they so often go to such great lengths dodge reality. I recently came across a rather scholarly dissertation about Neanderthals which ultimately got to the point that that Neanderthals were the Nepthelim (?) of the Old Testament. The article simply explained that these creatures were hybrids of humans and space aliens which explained the large size and excessive cranial capacity of Neanderthals. This article was cited and just as well constructed as any of Deke's fantasies and just as well founded in REALITY.

I expect Lubenow would be similarly biased but if I have a chance, I will read it. I just get frustrated with evolution debunkers that present no credible alternative to how reality came to be. I have cited several examples to establish that some animals have existed on earth long before man which is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Biblical Garden of Eden but consistent with current evolution theories. Deke claims to be spawn of Eve in the Garden of Eden but, when does he claim that event to have occurred? All my other questions are similarly intended to challenge simple Biblical interpretations which appear to conflict with reality.

Wrong again, Jack! · (Empty)
Curious
Thursday December 17, 1998 at 23:40

Another quote from Marvin L. Lubenow, from The Bones of Contention, A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, 1992, pp. 57-58: "Was the original owner of that Kanapoi elbow a true Homo sapiens? I do not know. I was not there. . . . . What we can say with confidence is that all of the scientific evidence points in that direction, and that there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. Science can only go that far. . . . That the only oldest human fossil ever found -- skimpy as it is -- reveals that man was virtually the same 4.5 million years ago (on the evolutionist time scale). . . . . " (emphasis added). You wrote "'Looks exactly like' is NOT 'is' an authenic H.sapien sapien fossil." in reference to Mr. Lubenow's statements about KP 271. Mr. Lubenow doesn't share that assessment, Jack. You've put words in his mouth. Over and over you have proven yourself to be the False Prophet of your religion.
 
 

Jack · (Empty)
Truth Seeker
Friday December 18, 1998 at 0:29

I hope you enjoy Lubenow's book. Perhaps you will share your assessment of it after you have studied his position? I would look forward to that. I'm certain that Deke feels the same.
 

Lubenow. · (Empty)
Poor Ol' Charlie D.
Friday December 18, 1998 at 0:52

I hope that Jack does take the time to read Lubenow's book. It is thoroughly documented and well-written. He addresses the issue of evolution believing scientists, their version of "reality," and the ways in which they address and/or avoid it. If any creationist or evolutionist has considered writing an objective book, the 25 years of research which resulted in Lubenow's _Bones of Contention_ is as close to objectivity as any creationist or evolutionst will ever get.


CONCLUSION

Although I was unaware of the Neandertal DNA evidence, my position of H. [s.] Neandertalis being a deformed population of modern men was widely held before the DNA evidence of their non-human origins was known or even possible. In August and September, 1998, I was relying on that outdated theory. Instead of being honest and presenting the new data, Jack repeatedly accused me of lying. This was a perfect example of his despicable "win at any cost" character. He finally produced an internet link to a dubious web site on November 20, 1998, ALMOST TWO MONTHS after I ended the debate on September 25, 1998.

It is obvious to the most casual observer that Jack's best efforts at "truth" proved to be nothing more than clumsy dissembling, despicable lies, and outright distortions. The are the cat-calls of an accuser of the brethren which remain totally unproven. Not once did that despicable, PROVEN LIAR, give any evidince that I am a "false prophet." To the contrary, each of his distortions and lies proved him to be one, and proved him to be an unconscionable, unethical, and fundmentally ignornant fool. That he mentions God should be highly offensive to any Christian for like his spiritual father Satan, there is nothing in him but lies.

RETURN TO EVOLUTION PAGE

Hosting by WebRing.