Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The New Piltdown Evolution Forgery
83 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
Jun 10, 2012, 4:23:27 PM6/10/12
to
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'.
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'.
SkyEyes
Jun 10, 2012, 5:33:11 PM6/10/12
to
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
Syd M.
Jun 10, 2012, 9:04:18 PM6/10/12
to
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,
Another blatent lie.
> 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,
PDW
Andrew
Jun 10, 2012, 11:15:26 PM6/10/12
to
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
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
> 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
>> 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.
is based on emotion rather than evidence.
> Don't you know that lying is a sin?
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
JTEM
Jun 11, 2012, 12:53:13 AM6/11/12
to
BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
So you're saying that it doesn't even come close
> The epic evolution fraud Piltdown Man was
> taught and published as 'fact' for 40 years.
to the disgrace of the bible fraud.
Interesting.
BroilJAB
Jun 11, 2012, 6:30:40 AM6/11/12
to
SkyEyes 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.
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".
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
of God (such as lying as you acknowledged)
that there IS a God, and that atheism is
a deception.
BroilJAB said,
a deception.
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.
Devils Advocaat
Jun 11, 2012, 7:50:59 AM6/11/12
to
On Jun 11, 4:15 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
buddy Loirbaj lied?
system Loirbaj supposedly follows, lying is a sin. The word sin can
only be used within such a context.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@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
> >> 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.
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
> > 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".
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.
> 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.
>
Devils Advocaat
Jun 11, 2012, 7:52:54 AM6/11/12
to
away, comIng back later to claim victory, or he tries to debate and is
thoroughly trounced.
Andrew, remember the book.
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 11, 2012, 6:06:44 PM6/11/12
to
In article <N6CdnYwyiKoe_0jS...@earthlink.com>,
You have just proven yourself the absolute stupidest person on the
planet. Congrats.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
planet. Congrats.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
v.infe...@gmail.com
Jun 11, 2012, 10:07:28 PM6/11/12
to
On Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:15:26 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message news:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@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
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message news:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@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.
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".
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?
Seth
Seth Lepod
Jun 11, 2012, 10:13:02 PM6/11/12
to
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.
Seth
> JD
>
> "the lybian lier"
BroilJAB
Jun 11, 2012, 11:07:07 PM6/11/12
to
'V.Inferna' being a Nym of Freepers said that
Piltdown Man was NOT a forgery.
The Afarensis foot is NOT a forgery.
BroilJAB said,
You need to publish your new findings,
as your claims completely topple
known science history, Freepers. LOL
Piltdown Man was NOT a forgery.
The Afarensis foot is NOT a forgery.
BroilJAB said,
You need to publish your new findings,
as your claims completely topple
known science history, Freepers. LOL
Devils Advocaat
Jun 12, 2012, 12:53:44 AM6/12/12
to
And I'm not that poster, just as I'm not the poster called Free Lunch.
Just as before Loirbaj retreats into delusion.
Spouting lies as he runs.
Pity him.
SkyEyes
Jun 12, 2012, 1:39:55 AM6/12/12
to
On Jun 10, 8:15 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@d6g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
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.
I did not lie, whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of
time. He's been told all this before, but ignores it.
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.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:d775ded7-5c91-4274...@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
> >> 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.
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,
> > 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...
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.
> 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
What god? Got any objective, verifiable evidence that any god exists?
> ~ OR ~
>
> 2. you have sinned, and you are a "sinner".
>
> And since sin is transgression of the law of God
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.
concepts all you like, Andrew, and it wonn't change anything - least
of all, the fact of evolution.
SkyEyes
Jun 12, 2012, 1:41:37 AM6/12/12
to
debated him before, and since he's such a slow learner, I'll debate
him again, no doubt. Look upthread for my reply.
Andrew
Jun 12, 2012, 7:20:28 AM6/12/12
to
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:22b9f6da-6c82-4805...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> 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,
> "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.
>> > 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.
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,
> 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,
You will sleep much better if you confess.
> whereas he *has*, copiously, over long periods of time.
why do you make such a fuss?...unless -you- are lying.
>> He's been told all this before, but ignores it.
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."
> Sin is a religious concept. I am not religious.
SkyEyes
Jun 12, 2012, 4:24:45 PM6/12/12
to
On Jun 12, 4:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:22b9f6da-6c82-4805...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
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.
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.
Afarensis skeletons that have been found.
into existence by a magic being, you sure don't know the meaning of
the word "gullibility."
against them.
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."
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.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:22b9f6da-6c82-4805...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
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.
> > 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.
Uh, there was a little shindig going on called THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
> > 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.
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
> > Secondly, what Liarbag wrote about Lucy is a lie. There
> > have been more than one Afarensis skeleton found,
>
> Some bone fragments.
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
> > which attested to the accuracy of Lucy.
>
> Or rather to your gullibility.
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?
> >> > 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.
It is noted that you are a dishonest creep who twists people's words
> > Nevertheless, I did not lie,
>
> It is noted that you are very defensive.
against them.
>
> You will sleep much better if you confess.
I sleep just *fine*, thankyouverymuch.
> 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.
To say that sin is a religious concept that I don't recognize is not
> > 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.
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
> >> 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.
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.
> >> 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."
tirebiter
Jun 12, 2012, 6:29:39 PM6/12/12
to
lying a sin? Your made up nonsense about Piltdown is a lie.
---
a.a. #2273
Wombat
Jun 13, 2012, 1:33:29 AM6/13/12
to
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
snip
Andrew
Jun 13, 2012, 7:38:54 AM6/13/12
to
"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:2ca29b10-488c-42bc...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
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.
>> > 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.
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."
> "Andrew" wrote:
> Are you high?
Yes (just natural endorphins).
> 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.
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.
>> > 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."
..............................."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."
"Don't you know that lying is a sin?"
~ Brenda
Devils Advocaat
Jun 13, 2012, 8:17:25 AM6/13/12
to
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
> 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'.
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.
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'.
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'.
Wrapped in lies.
Pity him.
Andrew
Jun 13, 2012, 9:34:38 AM6/13/12
to
"Wombat" wrote in message news:96e65189-1e21-449c...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> SkyEyes wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > "SkyEyes" wrote in:
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:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > "SkyEyes" wrote in:
> Besides, the the fluorine absorption test that proved it was a fraud
> wasn't available until after WW2.
a magnifier and access to the thing should have noted the filled teeth
from day one.
Wombat
Jun 13, 2012, 10:31:26 AM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 1:38 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:2ca29b10-488c-42bc...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
What about "While Creation Scientists pointed out that
Scientists said that. Names, please.
US were forced in in December 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbour and the Hitler declared war on the US.
snip
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:2ca29b10-488c-42bc...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
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
> >> > 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.
US were forced in in December 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl
Harbour and the Hitler declared war on the US.
snip
Wombat
Jun 13, 2012, 10:42:12 AM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 3:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Wombat" wrote in messagenews:96e65189-1e21-449c...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Pardon. That does not compute.
are correct it then took Kenneth Page Oakley 8 years to get around to
PM. Why?
> "Wombat" wrote in messagenews:96e65189-1e21-449c...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 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
> > 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.
are correct it then took Kenneth Page Oakley 8 years to get around to
PM. Why?
BroilJAB
Jun 13, 2012, 11:21:11 AM6/13/12
to
I can't believe it. The atheists are
actually trying to 'damage control' the
Lucy Hoax by now claiming that
Piltdown Man was a viable fossil.
actually trying to 'damage control' the
Lucy Hoax by now claiming that
Piltdown Man was a viable fossil.
tirebiter
Jun 13, 2012, 12:13:02 PM6/13/12
to
fry cook (Stanley Moon) is asking the devil what god is like. He gets
a grandiose description about god being all colors of the rainbow,
etc. Then Stanley asks suspiciously, "But he is British, isn't he?".
The devil replies, "Oh yes, of course. Very upper class".
Great movie.
---
a..a #2273
Wombat
Jun 13, 2012, 1:08:48 PM6/13/12
to
Devils Advocaat
Jun 13, 2012, 1:20:31 PM6/13/12
to
Syd M.
Jun 13, 2012, 5:39:14 PM6/13/12
to
Andrew
Jun 13, 2012, 8:33:17 PM6/13/12
to
"Wombat" wrote in message news:00f61c35-bcc9-4e8d...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
~ (above)
>> > 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?
Takes time for the wheels to turn. It was several years later that someone
of authority at BM requested Oakley to do his test on PM. At which time
he (Oakley) had full access, and uncovered the evidence for the fraud.
..and thanks for the link: http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > 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?
of authority at BM requested Oakley to do his test on PM. At which time
he (Oakley) had full access, and uncovered the evidence for the fraud.
..and thanks for the link: http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
0 new messages