The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
While Creation Scientists pointed out that
it was another hoax, yet they were never
allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
consisting of bones from several unrelated
creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
not be removed until they have yet another
hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
as 'evolution fact'.
> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> not be removed until they have yet another
> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> as 'evolution fact'.
Lies. Just one lie after another. Don't you know that lying is a
sin?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
On Jun 10, 4:23 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> it was another hoax,
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> BroilJAB wrote:
>> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
>> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
>> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
>> it was another hoax, yet they were never
>> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
>> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
>> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
>> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
>> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
>> consisting of bones from several unrelated
>> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
>> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
>> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
>> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
>> not be removed until they have yet another
>> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
>> as 'evolution fact'.
> Lies. Just one lie after another.
Since you cannot state where, your response
is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
declare that either you...
1. have never sinned, and are sinless,
~ OR ~
2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
And since sin is transgression of the law of God
(such as lying as you acknowledged) then by so
doing you have thereby acknowledged that there
IS a God, and that atheism is a deception.
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
Andrew
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins." 1 Jn 4:10
Andrew said,
You hereby testify that you acknowledge
that there is such a thing as "sin".
And since sin is transgression of the law
of God (such as lying as you acknowledged)
then by so doing you have acknowledged
that there IS a God, and that atheism is
a deception.
BroilJAB said,
No wonder, Andrew, that the atheists fear
to debate you. You take their 'best arguments',
show the internal contradictions therein, and
demonstrate that they really do acknowledge
the very God they had claimed to deny.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> Since you cannot state where, your response
> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
What would you say if someone presented evidence that showed your
buddy Loirbaj lied?
> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
> declare that either you...
> 1. have never sinned, and are sinless,
> ~ OR ~
> 2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
SkyEyes was merely pointing out that within the context of the belief
system Loirbaj supposedly follows, lying is a sin. The word sin can
only be used within such a context.
> And since sin is transgression of the law of God
> (such as lying as you acknowledged) then by so
> doing you have thereby acknowledged that there
> IS a God, and that atheism is a deception.
See above.
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> Andrew
> "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
> that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
> propitiation for our sins." 1 Jn 4:10
> SkyEyes said,
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> Andrew said,
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge
> that there is such a thing as "sin".
> And since sin is transgression of the law
> of God (such as lying as you acknowledged)
> then by so doing you have acknowledged
> that there IS a God, and that atheism is
> a deception.
> BroilJAB said,
> No wonder, Andrew, that the atheists fear
> to debate you. You take their 'best arguments',
> show the internal contradictions therein, and
> demonstrate that they really do acknowledge
> the very God they had claimed to deny.
The funny thing is, when anyone debates with Andrew, he either runs
away, comIng back later to claim victory, or he tries to debate and is
thoroughly trounced.
"Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message > news:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> Since you cannot state where, your response
> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
> declare that either you...
> 1. have never sinned, and are sinless,
> ~ OR ~
> 2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
> And since sin is transgression of the law of God
> (such as lying as you acknowledged) then by so
> doing you have thereby acknowledged that there
> IS a God, and that atheism is a deception.
You have just proven yourself the absolute stupidest person on the planet. Congrats.
On Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:15:26 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message news:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> as 'evolution fact'.
: > > Lies. Just one lie after another.
:
> Since you cannot state where, your response
> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
No, her response is based on her having read many of
loirbaj's posts, and having learned that he not only
lies, but that he carefully crafts his lies so that
everyone will realize that he is intentionally lying,
and thus become infuriated -- his sole motivation in
posting.
When the Weekly World News reports another Bat-Boy
sighting, and I pronounce that a fraud, will you also
comdemn my dismissal as "based on emotion"?
Same paradigm.
Her response is based on that, as well as a basic
knowledge of the history of the field as well.
How many lies would you like?
Piltdown Man was not "taught and published for 40 years
-- it was so out of line with contemporary theory that
it was put up on that shelf the science reserves for
extreme anomalies, and then ignores.
No "Creation Scientist" was denied anything: the
concept of "Creation Science" was decades in the
future.
Disagree? Find me a contemporary reference.
Not even the most rabid creationist sites claim that
Lucy's foot is a fake, a composite.
Disagree? Find me a reference.
:
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
Don't you know that falsely accusing another of lying --
something you just glibly did -- is a sin?
:
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> there is such a thing as "sin".
Tell you what: I'll answer that when you answer
something I've asked you over and over and over without
ever, ever getting a relevant answer. Here we go.
Ready? Good:
I asked:
The last time Andrew and I had a little chat, I
proposed a question to him. To wit: let us suppose
that he has convinced me -- convinced us all -- of the
futility of the sad, so-called "Theory of Evolution".
This he accomplished by merely raising, over and over,
his single unanswerable logical stroke: "pure fantasy".
(a brief aside for those for whom that may appear
puzzlng. In Andrewegian, "pure fantasy" may be
translated roughly as "While I am not familiar with the
biological concept you just mentioned, nor with the
facts and observations that led to its being proposed,
in any event I maintain: NEENER NEENER. Furthermore,
God God God God GOD". Andrewegian being a highly
compact language)
Back to the point: were we ever to get past all this
"evolution" business, his next step would to provide us
with reasons to decide why his particular flavor of god
-- out of all the gods humanity has worshipped, and out
of all the Sentient Creative Things which may lie
beyond our conceiving -- why anyone should come to
think that his brand of god was the one which created
us, created it all.
Andrew still owes me on this one.
Not that he did not reply. He did, and more than once
as I recall.
He just didn't bother with my question.
Thus let it be proposed: no evolution. Creative
entity. How to pick, and most importantly, for what
unanswerable reasons?
On Monday, June 11, 2012 3:06:44 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <N6CdnYwyiKoe_0jSnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "SkyEyes" wrote in message > > news:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > > BroilJAB wrote:
> > >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> > >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> > >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> > >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> > >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> > >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> > >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> > >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> > >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> > >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> > >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> > >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> > >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> > >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> > >> not be removed until they have yet another
> > >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> > >> as 'evolution fact'.
> > > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> > Since you cannot state where, your response
> > is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> > > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> > You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> > there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
> > declare that either you...
> > 1. have never sinned, and are sinless,
> > ~ OR ~
> > 2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
> > And since sin is transgression of the law of God
> > (such as lying as you acknowledged) then by so
> > doing you have thereby acknowledged that there
> > IS a God, and that atheism is a deception.
:
> You have just proven yourself the absolute stupidest person on the > planet. Congrats.
Pretty much. Lying can be cured by applying sufficient
pressure, but ignorance is far harder.
If Andrew had the slightest knowledge of human
paleoanthropology and its history, he would have
instantly have spotted loirbaj's gleeful lying.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274-b80b-ccb6f274651e@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> Since you cannot state where, your response
> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
But I *can* state where, I just didn't. I was, literally, refereeing
a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown was a
forgery; that is incorrect. It was the mainstream scientific
community who did that.
Secondly, what Liarbag wrote about Lucy is a lie. There have been
more than one Afarensis skeleton found, which attested to the accuracy
of Lucy.
> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
> declare that either you...
No, I don't, but LiarBag thinks there is such a thing. Nevertheless,
I did not lie, whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of
time. He's been told all this before, but ignores it.
> 1. have never sinned, and are sinless,
Sin is a religious concept. I am not religious.
> ~ OR ~
> 2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
> And since sin is transgression of the law of God
What god? Got any objective, verifiable evidence that any god exists?
Get back to me when you do.
> (such as lying as you acknowledged) then by so
> doing you have thereby acknowledged that there
> IS a God, and that atheism is a deception.
Horsepucky. You can twist my words to fit your sick religious
concepts all you like, Andrew, and it wonn't change anything - least
of all, the fact of evolution.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> SkyEyes said,
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> Andrew said,
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge
> that there is such a thing as "sin".
> And since sin is transgression of the law
> of God (such as lying as you acknowledged)
> then by so doing you have acknowledged
> that there IS a God, and that atheism is
> a deception.
> BroilJAB said,
> No wonder, Andrew, that the atheists fear
> to debate you. You take their 'best arguments',
> show the internal contradictions therein, and
> demonstrate that they really do acknowledge
> the very God they had claimed to deny.
I'll debate Andrew any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I've
debated him before, and since he's such a slow learner, I'll debate
him again, no doubt. Look upthread for my reply.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:22b9f6da-6c82-4805-88ba-f47b2474e2f9@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> > BroilJAB wrote:
>> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
>> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
>> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
>> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
>> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
>> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
>> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
>> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
>> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
>> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
>> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
>> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
>> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
>> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
>> >> not be removed until they have yet another
>> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
>> >> as 'evolution fact'.
>> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
>> Since you cannot state where, your response
>> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
I see.
> I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
> The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
> was a forgery; that is incorrect.
Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
> It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
> Secondly, what Liarbag wrote about Lucy is a lie. There
> have been more than one Afarensis skeleton found,
Some bone fragments.
> which attested to the accuracy of Lucy.
Or rather to your gullibility.
>> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
>> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
>> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
>> declare that either you...
> No, I don't, but LiarBag thinks there is such a thing.
And you don't?! Soooo you WERE lying!
> Nevertheless, I did not lie,
It is noted that you are very defensive.
You will sleep much better if you confess.
> whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of time.
He was lying? But if in your book that is not a sin, then
why do you make such a fuss?...unless -you- are lying.
>> He's been told all this before, but ignores it.
You want him to believe like you do, so you don't
get upset by having your belief structure challenged.
>> 1. ..have never sinned, and are sinless,
> Sin is a religious concept. I am not religious.
Then you were lying when you said that, "lying is a sin."
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:22b9f6da-6c82-4805-88ba-f47b2474e2f9@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
> >> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> >> Since you cannot state where, your response
> >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
> I see.
> > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
> Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
Are you high? All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
BECAUSE I WAS BUSY. Emotions didn't play into it.
> > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
> > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
> Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
No, read his post. He actually said that.
> > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
> The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
> because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
earlier. Most of the scientific world and their instruments were
concentrated on the war effort during those years.
> > Secondly, what Liarbag wrote about Lucy is a lie. There
> > have been more than one Afarensis skeleton found,
> Some bone fragments.
Actually, Lucy is astonishingly complete, as are several of the other
Afarensis skeletons that have been found.
> > which attested to the accuracy of Lucy.
> Or rather to your gullibility.
For someone who believes the universe and everything in it was poofed
into existence by a magic being, you sure don't know the meaning of
the word "gullibility."
> >> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> >> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
> >> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
> >> declare that either you...
> > No, I don't, but LiarBag thinks there is such a thing.
> And you don't?! Soooo you WERE lying!
You have trouble with simple stuff, don't you?
> > Nevertheless, I did not lie,
> It is noted that you are very defensive.
It is noted that you are a dishonest creep who twists people's words
against them.
> You will sleep much better if you confess.
I sleep just *fine*, thankyouverymuch.
> > whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of time.
> He was lying? But if in your book that is not a sin, then
> why do you make such a fuss?...unless -you- are lying.
To say that sin is a religious concept that I don't recognize is not
the same thing as saying that I think it's okay to lie. I don't. I
think it's wrong. I just don't think there's any such thing as "sin."
> >> He's been told all this before, but ignores it.
> You want him to believe like you do, so you don't
> get upset by having your belief structure challenged.
My belief structure has been challenged for 50+ years, you little
shit. And it has stood the test of time. It's *you* who need to live
in a world where nobody ever disagrees with your magic sky-daddy
concept.
> >> 1. ..have never sinned, and are sinless,
> > Sin is a religious concept. I am not religious.
> Then you were lying when you said that, "lying is a sin."
No, I wasn't. See above.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> SkyEyes said,
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
> Andrew said,
> You hereby testify that you acknowledge
> that there is such a thing as "sin".
> And since sin is transgression of the law
> of God (such as lying as you acknowledged)
> then by so doing you have acknowledged
> that there IS a God, and that atheism is
> a deception.
> BroilJAB said,
> No wonder, Andrew, that the atheists fear
> to debate you. You take their 'best arguments',
> show the internal contradictions therein, and
> demonstrate that they really do acknowledge
> the very God they had claimed to deny.
And you tried hard to dodge the question. In YOUR religious views, is
lying a sin? Your made up nonsense about Piltdown is a lie.
> On Jun 12, 4:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:22b9f6da-6c82-4805-88ba-f47b2474e2f9@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
> > >> > BroilJAB wrote:
> > >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> > >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> > >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> > >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> > >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> > >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> > >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> > >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> > >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> > >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> > >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> > >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> > >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> > >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> > >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> > >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> > >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> > >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> > >> Since you cannot state where, your response
> > >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> > > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
> > I see.
> > > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
> > Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
> What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
> Are you high? All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
> BECAUSE I WAS BUSY. Emotions didn't play into it.
> > > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
> > > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
> > Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
> No, read his post. He actually said that.
> > > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
> > The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
> > because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
> Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
> Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
> Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
> earlier. Most of the scientific world and their instruments were
> concentrated on the war effort during those years.
One other point is that when Piltdown Man was "discovered" the British
Empire was at its zenith, Britannia ruled the waves and rather a lot
of the world's surface, God was clearly an Englishman and it was
obvious that the first ape-man should be English as well. Against
that mind set it's no wonder the BM didn't "need" to allow examination
of the find, even though most other scientists overseas were sceptical
of Piltdown Man almost from the start.
Besides, the the fluorine absorption test that proved it was a fraud
wasn't available until after WW2.
For light reading, Richard Harter has created the web site Piltdown
Man at
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:2ca29b10-488c-42bc-8673-15f361bc17eb@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> >> > BroilJAB wrote:
>> >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
>> >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
>> >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
>> >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
>> >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
>> >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
>> >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
>> >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
>> >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
>> >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
>> >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
>> >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
>> >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
>> >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
>> >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
>> >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
>> >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
>> >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
>> >> Since you cannot state where, your response
>> >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
>> > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
>> I see.
>> > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
>> Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
> What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
Only extreme emotion could interrupt you from a *cat emergency.*
> Are you high?
Yes (just natural endorphins).
> All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
> BECAUSE I WAS BUSY.
Yes, you were very----->"BUSY".
> Emotions didn't play into it.
No.
>> > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
>> > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
>> Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
> No, read his post. He actually said that.
I did. Turns out that you were lying.
>> > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
It was a few honest scientists, rather than MSC.
>> The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
>> because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
> Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD
> WAR. Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
No time to expose the hoax. There is a WAR going on!
> Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
> earlier.
Even if that were the case, the restricted access from that cause
would have been from 1941-1945. Four years, not four decades.
> Most of the scientific world and their instruments were
> concentrated on the war effort during those years.
>> > Secondly, what Liarbag wrote about Lucy is a lie. There
>> > have been more than one Afarensis skeleton found,
>> Some bone fragments.
> Actually, Lucy is astonishingly complete, as are several of the other
> Afarensis skeletons that have been found.
Knuckle walking chimps were not of the lineage of man.
>> > which attested to the accuracy of Lucy.
>> Or rather to your gullibility.
> For someone who believes the universe and everything
> in it was poofed into existence by a magic being,
Evidence points to a Creation by a wonderful Creator.
> you sure don't know the meaning of the word "gullibility."
The acceptance of Piltdown and others occurs because of
..............................."gullibility."
>> >> > Don't you know that lying is a sin?
>> >> You hereby testify that you acknowledge that
>> >> there is such a thing as "sin". Therefore you
>> >> declare that either you...
>> > No, I don't, but LiarBag thinks there is such a thing.
>> And you don't?! Soooo you WERE lying!
> You have trouble with simple stuff, don't you?
If you think lying is NOT a sin, then you were lying.
> It is noted that you are a dishonest creep who twists
> people's words against them.
>> You will sleep much better if you confess.
> I sleep just *fine*, thankyouverymuch.
>> > whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of time.
>> He was lying? But if in your book that is not a sin, then
>> why do you make such a fuss?...unless -you- are lying.
> To say that sin is a religious concept that I don't recognize is not
> the same thing as saying that I think it's okay to lie. I don't.
> I think it's wrong.
If there is no moral standard, then why do you think it's wrong?
> I just don't think there's any such thing as "sin."
On Jun 10, 9:23 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'.
Kenneth Page Oakley who was instrumental in exposing the Piltdown hoax
actually examined and tested the said remains. And guess what? He
wasn't a creationist. As far as I can tell no creationist has ever
been instrumental in exposing any hoax. They have a habit of jumping
on the bandwagon afterwards claiming they knew it was a hoax all the
time.
> Now
> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> creatures.
Australopithecus afarensis is known from several fossils.
40% of the skeleton of the specimen called "Lucy" was recovered on
site.
Examining the angle at the knee joint between femur and shinbone shows
this species was bipedal.
> Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> access to the 'fossil bones'.
Lucy's remains went on tour in the USA in recent years.
And at one location they even did a complete CT scan of the remains.
> Evolution is a
> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> not be removed until they have yet another
> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> as 'evolution fact'.
"Wombat" wrote in message news:96e65189-1e21-449c-a4ec-33466cac273d@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> SkyEyes wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > "SkyEyes" wrote in:
>> > > "Andrew" wrote:
>> > >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> > >> > BroilJAB wrote:
>> > >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
>> > >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
>> > >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
>> > >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
>> > >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
>> > >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
>> > >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
>> > >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
>> > >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
>> > >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
>> > >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
>> > >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
>> > >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
>> > >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
>> > >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
>> > >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
>> > >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
>> > >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
>> > >> Since you cannot state where, your response
>> > >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
>> > > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
>> > I see.
>> > > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
>> > Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
>> What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
>> Are you high? All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
>> BECAUSE I WAS BUSY. Emotions didn't play into it.
>> > > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
>> > > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
>> > Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
>> No, read his post. He actually said that.
>> > > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
>> > The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
>> > because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
>> Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
>> Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
>> Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
>> earlier. Most of the scientific world and their instruments were
>> concentrated on the war effort during those years.
> One other point is that when Piltdown Man was "discovered" the British
> Empire was at its zenith, Britannia ruled the waves and rather a lot
> of the world's surface, God was clearly an Englishman and it was
> obvious that the first ape-man should be English as well. Against
> that mind set it's no wonder the BM didn't "need" to allow examination
> of the find, even though most other scientists overseas were sceptical
> of Piltdown Man almost from the start.
Yes, "no need".
> Besides, the the fluorine absorption test that proved it was a fraud
> wasn't available until after WW2.
Fluorine analysis was developed by Oakley in 1939. But anyone with
a magnifier and access to the thing should have noted the filled teeth
from day one.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:2ca29b10-488c-42bc-8673-15f361bc17eb@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
> >> >> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> >> >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> >> >> Since you cannot state where, your response
> >> >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> >> > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
> >> I see.
> >> > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
> >> Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
> > What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
> Only extreme emotion could interrupt you from a *cat emergency.*
> > Are you high?
> Yes (just natural endorphins).
> > All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
> > BECAUSE I WAS BUSY.
> Yes, you were very----->"BUSY".
> > Emotions didn't play into it.
> No.
> >> > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
> >> > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
> >> Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
> > No, read his post. He actually said that.
> I did. Turns out that you were lying.
What about "While Creation Scientists pointed out that
it was another hoax, yet they were never
allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'." isn't a lie? Which Creation
Scientists said that. Names, please.
> >> > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
> It was a few honest scientists, rather than MSC.
> >> The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
> >> because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
> > Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD
> > WAR. Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
> No time to expose the hoax. There is a WAR going on!
> > Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
> > earlier.
> Even if that were the case, the restricted access from that cause
> would have been from 1941-1945. Four years, not four decades.
Are you aware that the UK went to war with Nazi Germany in 1939! The
US were forced in in December 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbour and the Hitler declared war on the US.
> "Wombat" wrote in messagenews:96e65189-1e21-449c-a4ec-33466cac273d@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> > SkyEyes wrote:
> >> "Andrew" wrote:
> >> > "SkyEyes" wrote in:
> >> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> > >> "SkyEyes" wrote:
> >> > >> > BroilJAB wrote:
> >> > >> >> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> >> > >> >> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
> >> > >> >> While Creation Scientists pointed out that
> >> > >> >> it was another hoax, yet they were never
> >> > >> >> allowed to examine the 'fossil bones'. Now
> >> > >> >> the last 40 years, the new Piltdown Man has
> >> > >> >> been the evolution forgery called 'Lucy' which
> >> > >> >> was 'typed' from Afarensis. The critical foot
> >> > >> >> of Afarensis is a well known composite forgery
> >> > >> >> consisting of bones from several unrelated
> >> > >> >> creatures. Yet, just like Piltdown Man, no
> >> > >> >> Creation Scientist nor is the public ever given
> >> > >> >> access to the 'fossil bones'. Evolution is a
> >> > >> >> series of predictable frauds, and 'Lucy' will
> >> > >> >> not be removed until they have yet another
> >> > >> >> hoaxed fossil in place and ready to present
> >> > >> >> as 'evolution fact'.
> >> > >> > Lies. Just one lie after another.
> >> > >> Since you cannot state where, your response
> >> > >> is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> >> > > But I *can* state where, I just didn't.
> >> > I see.
> >> > > I was, literally, refereeing a cat fight and I didn't take the time.
> >> > Then your retort ~was~ based on emotion, just as I stated.
> >> What, because I was trying to keep one cat from harming an older cat?
> >> Are you high? All it did was cause me to post an abbreviated reply,
> >> BECAUSE I WAS BUSY. Emotions didn't play into it.
> >> > > The first lie is that creation scientists proved that Piltdown
> >> > > was a forgery; that is incorrect.
> >> > Did he actually -say- that, or are you "lying" here?
> >> No, read his post. He actually said that.
> >> > > It was the mainstream scientific community who did that.
> >> > The British Museum which was 'part of' the MSC was in on it,
> >> > because they refused to allow the "evidence" to be examined.
> >> Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
> >> Most of their stuff was put away for safekeeping during that time.
> >> Had it not been for the war, the hoax would have been revealed *years*
> >> earlier. Most of the scientific world and their instruments were
> >> concentrated on the war effort during those years.
> > One other point is that when Piltdown Man was "discovered" the British
> > Empire was at its zenith, Britannia ruled the waves and rather a lot
> > of the world's surface, God was clearly an Englishman and it was
> > obvious that the first ape-man should be English as well. Against
> > that mind set it's no wonder the BM didn't "need" to allow examination
> > of the find, even though most other scientists overseas were sceptical
> > of Piltdown Man almost from the start.
> Yes, "no need".
Pardon. That does not compute.
> > Besides, the the fluorine absorption test that proved it was a fraud
> > wasn't available until after WW2.
> Fluorine analysis was developed by Oakley in 1939. But anyone with
> a magnifier and access to the thing should have noted the filled teeth
> from day one.
Despite looking, I couldn't find the date it was developed. If you
are correct it then took Kenneth Page Oakley 8 years to get around to
PM. Why?
