Piltdown Fraud: Evolution evangelists.
J McCoy
evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
religious or not.
J McCoy
Teilhard and the Piltdown "Hoax"
Mary Lukas
America May 1981
[424] A playful prank gone too far? Or a deliberate scientific
forgery? Or, as it now appears, nothing at all?
"Death and scandal," goes a 19th century French saying, "love a
shining target." Because Pierre Teilhard de Chardin stands so
provocatively tall among the important thinkers and heroes of our
century, he has attracted, along with much
admiration and study, more than his share of detraction and gossip.
The most recent and perhaps most fantastic accusation to be raised
against him was leveled last summer by Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard
biologist and science writer, who
in an article in Natural History magazine accused him of complicity
with Charles Dawson in the manufacture of the phoney Piltdown fossil
man of Sussex in the early part of this century.
Within days of the announcement of Mr. Gould's charge against
Teilhard, newspapers across the United States and Britain echoed it.
From a discreet science-scope note in The New York Times, the story
moved overnight to an illustrated
two-column spread on the front page of The Washington Post ("Piltdown
Hoax Said to involve Jesuit Scholar") t o The Boston Globe ("Did this
Joke Work Too Well?"), to smaller papers through the Associated Press
("Priest-Scientist
Implicated in Piltdown Hoax") and finally to Time magazine's science
section, which regretted that "the saintly Teilhard stands accused of
a little playful tampering with evolution."
In associating Teilhard with Piltdown, Mr. Gould was linking him not
only with one of the most fascinating, but also one of the hoariest
and most hurtful whodunits in paleontological history. From the
December evening of 1913 when the
lawyer and amateur antiquarian Charles Dawson and his friend, the
paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, brought to a meeting of the
Geological Society in London their "missing link" specimens-a jaw and
some cranial parts that they
claimed had been found in a pit full of stones from Ouse [425] River
gravels at Piltdown Common in Barkham Manor near Uckfield,
Sussex--their "fossils" were bones of contention. At' first glimpse of
Dawson's "discovery," British
scientists argued that the modern-looking cranium pieces and heavy,
ape-like jaw could never have come from the same creature. In the
absence of a canine so worn as to demonstrate a relationship between
jaw and cranium, there was no
way of proving that Dawson's bones came from a single creature.
The following August, Teilhard de Chardin, then a young priest just
beginning his paleontological studies in France and visiting England,
where he had studied theology, to make a religious retreat, stopped
off to dig with Dawson and Smith
Woodward in Sussex. Directed by them to a small pile of stones spread
in one corner of the Barkham Manor pit, where the first Piltdown
fossils had been found, he noticed a loose canine that exactly fitted
Smith Woodward's specifications
for the interlocking tooth. From the time the canine appeared, in
Britain at least, the case for the "Man" of Piltdown was made.
But scientists outside the country continued to argue. Then in 1915,
Dawson and Smith Woodward produced a new set of bones (Piltdown 2), a
molar tooth, part of a brain case of a type similar to the first set
of fossils (Piltdown 1), but
found, they said, in a new site-"a plough field" in Sheffield Park.
two miles away from the Barkham Manor gravel pit. Skeletal parts of an
ape and a man might have been found accidentally buried near each
other in one place, but hardly in
two. The second "discovery," Dawson contended, "proved" that the
Piltdown Man represented a race. So, for the moment at least, and
despite his peculiarities, the possible existence of "Eoanthropus
Dawsoni' began to be admitted by
non-British scholars as well.
Dawson died in 1916, a year after the Site 2 "discovery" at Sheffield
Park was announced. Smith Woodward lived on as Keeper of Bones at the
British Museum until 1924, then as their backstage guardian while the
"fossils" reminded
locked up in the museum and students worked with clumsy plaster casts.
Not until 1953, seven years after Smith Woodward's death, when the
specimens were finally made available for testing, were Kenneth P.
Oakley, J. S. Weiner and
W.E. Le Gros Clark, using modem dating methods, able to prove them a
fraud.
In his 195 5 book, The Piltdown Forgery, Dr. Weiner summed up his
colleagues' conclusions. The culprit, he argued, who planted the bones
had been Dawson. He alone had been present during the long train of
events leading up to
Piltdown; he alone seemed to have had the right combination of
expertise, motive and (judging from the testimony of some witnesses)
character to commit such a crime. He freely admitted to having kept
the bones of Piltdown 1 in his
possession long before presenting them to the British Museum;
neighbors caught him staining bones and flints in s Uckfield office;
and after his death in 1916, there were found in the basement of home
more skulls, these embedded in a
matrix that could only have come from Barcombe Mills, a third site
where he claimed to be digging. Dr. Weiner's case against Dawson was
convincing, but at this distance in time, neither he nor anyone else
could prove Dawson acted alone.
So the sleuthing continued. In the last decade alone, the great
English anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith and the Oxford geologist W. J.
Sollas both were accused and acquitted of complicity in Piltdown. In
addition to these two, a whole raft of
possible co-conspirators, ranging from Arthur Smith Woodward himself
to Dawson's acquaintance and sometime visitor at Piltdown, Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, have stood as possible suspects. And over the years,
pointing the finger at
Piltdown conspirators has as often served as a vehicle for envy and
ill-will as it has delighted players of scientific parlor games.
From a simple self-publicizing point of view, however, Mr. Gould's
idea of casting Teilhard as co-hoaxer was an inspiration. He was
beyond doubt the most famous of the supporting players of Piltdown,
the one who could gather headlines
most easily, an ethical hero to his admirers and a philosopher whose
scientific speculation could draw angry criticism from no less a
public curmudgeon than Sir Peter Medawar. The shock value of the
suggestion that the philosopher-hero
was also a criminal was stunning. The charge gained Mr. Gould two
weeks of useful publicity and prepared reviewers to give a friendly
reception to the collection of essays, including the article about
Teilhard, which he published the
following month.
As early as 1979, Mr. Gould had already written another essay in which
he tentatively tried but faded to interest the media in the theory
that Teilhard was co-hoaxer at Piltdown. But it was not until his
second essay, in August 1980, that he
finally caught their attention.
The evidence on which he built his case was admittedly circumstantial.
He mentioned three eminent paleontologists, all conveniently dead, who
were uneasy about Teilhard's role at Piltdown. He noted that Teilhard
was a theology student
when the first Piltdown bones surfaced in 1912 and had just begun his
paleontology studies in France at the time the canine was found. He
mentioned Teilhard's admission that he had corresponded for three
years with Dawson (as indeed
he had done with other local naturalists) before the Piltdown
adventure began and that, after Dawson had advised him of his find, he
had dug with Dawson and Smith Woodward several times in the Barkham
Manor pit. Since some of the
Piltdown bones seemed to be North African and since Teilhard had
practice-taught science in a Jesuit high school in Cairo for three
years before meeting Dawson in England, Mr. Gould speculated that
Teilhard himself might well have
supplied Dawson's bones.
In one of his wilder flights of fancy Mr. Gould even suggested a
possible motive for Teilhard's involvement. Despite outward
appearances, he said, Teilhard could well [425] have been at heart an
English public-school boy type of prankster,
who first joined in the hoax for the fun of it with the idea of
revealing it later but who, after Charles Dawsoi died in 1916, found
himself alone with the problem, and thus kept up an anguished silence
for the rest of his life.
Thus far, these charges from Mr Gould's 1980 essay were the same as
the ones from his unnoticed essay of 1979. But in his second attempt
to involve Teilhard in the Piltdown affair, he did bring one new piece
of "evidence" to support his
case and a very vexing piece of evidence it was. In 1953, Mr. Gould
pointed out, Kenneth Oakley, then in the first flush of exhilaration
over. having unmasked the Piltdown hoax, wrote Teilhard requesting
information about his own
experience at Piltdown. Teilhard, after expressing reluctance to
consider Dawson guilty, quite unexpectedly volunteered, in his very
first letter, that he had seen the second Piltdown location as early
as 1913. In what Mr. Gould called his
"fatal slip." Teilhard declared that in 1913 Dawson had taken him in
person to the Sheffield Park plough field (Site 2) where he explained
he had made a new find. Pressed by Kenneth Oakley to confirm the date
of that visit, Teilhard
adamantly held to it. It had been, he was as sure as he could be, in
the summer of 1913.
"But this cannot be," Mr. Gould explained. "Dawson discovered the
[second skull at Piltdown] in January 1915 and [the second] tooth not
until July 1915. And now the key point: Teilhard was mustered into the
French Army in December
1914 and shipped immediately to the front, where he remained until the
war ended." Since in his letter to Oakley Teilhard seemed to
demonstrate that he had prior knowledge of Dawson's plans by admitting
he had seen the second Piltdown
site before anyone else claimed to have seen it, Teilhard, Mr. Gould
continued, must have been guilty with Dawson at Piltdown.
For anyone who had seriously studied Teilhard's fife and work this
"second site" accusation was the only charge raised by Mr. Gould that
was worth examining. It was easy enough to demolish his totally
fanciful picture of Teilhard's
character in the first decade of the century and thereafter. Few
modern thinkers have left so large a body of confessional material
behind them: some 9,000 letters going back to his boarding school
days, some 200 self-explanatory essays,
eight volumes of diaries, two major books on his personal philosophy.
If the Teilhard of the letters and essays is not indeed the real
Teilhard, then he was from age 12 a genius at fiction, whose skill at
creating a highly detailed mirror image
of himself would have baffled Dostoevski.
And even if Mr. Gould were right and Teilhard had been another kind of
man entirely, the records of the Hastings Theologate preserved at
Chantilly with their descriptions of the old-fashioned routine of the
place-its daily examination of
conscience, weekly private confession, regular "manifestations of
conscience" to superiors, nightly "grand silences," public worship and
private devotion, heavy class loads and closely supervised Tuesday and
Thursday afternoon walks
prescribed by the rule "for the health of the body" and always in the
company of an older confrere-were enough to rule out any opportunity
for involvement in the hoax.
Further, according to his letters, both published and unpublished, to
friends, Teilhard's relationship to Dawson was anything but close. If,
in a phrase Mr. Gould seized upon, Teilhard in his published letters
once referred to Dawson as his
"correspondent in geology," he meant precisely that: He wrote Dawson
brief letters about his work in natural history and occasionally sent
him specimens from his walks on the Sussex weald. A group of still
unpublished letters that he
wrote to Dawson-all always distant, deferential, boyishly pious,
volunteering "prayers for all at the Castle Lodge [Dawson's home in
Lewes, Sussex]"-clearly demonstrate that the connection between the
two of them was that of an aspiring
student to a respected and admired senior.
In all those years the meetings between Teilhard and Dawson were few.
Before the Piltdown adventure began Teilhard and Dawson seem to have
met only four times, twice in the seminary parlor. After Dawson
involved Teilhard in
Piltdown, he visited there only three times in Dawson's lifetime: the
first occasion was May 21, 1912, the month before Teilhard left
England to begin his professional studies in paleontology; the next
two visits both took place in the sunnier
of 1913 when, returning to Hastings to make his retreat, Teilhard
stopped to dig with Dawson and Smith Woodward through the weekend of
Aug. 8-10 and again on Aug. 30, when he stopped off on his trip back
to France and noticed in a
pile of rubble of the gravel pit of Site 1 the famous interlocking
canine.
The question of the African bones found at Piltdown that so interested
the newspapers was the easiest of all to dispose of. Piltdown scholars
had always concluded that Dawson had no need of anyone's help in
procuring such parts, since
they were so readily available to him in the many curio auctions
popular in England before World War 1. I would add here that Dawson
did not even need access to the auctions, since he had in his home a
possibly even more convenient
source of supply in the person of his stepson F.J.M. Prostlethwaite,
an officer in the British Camel Corps of the Sudan, that "very nice
boy" mentioned in two of Teilhard's letters to his parents. He had
been in Lewes on two of the three
occasions Teilhard had visited Dawson and had "cluttered up the house
with antelope heads" and other souvenirs of his desert campaign.
That left only the problem of Teilhard's "slip" (if indeed it was one)
in the letters to Oakley written 40 years after Piltdown. In none of
Teilhard's letters to family or friends in 1913 had he mentioned a
visit to Site 2, Sheffield Park. And
since, as Mr. Gould implied, the discovery of a second Piltdown site a
long way from the first one had been so crucial to establishing the
authenticity of the "find" before non-British scientists, it seemed
more than strange that Teilhard did
not mention that site to anyone else at the time. And he really did
not. In none of his letters to his parents, to his friends, to his
scientific colleagues including his teacher in Paris, the great
Marcellin Boule, who considered the Piltdown find
"monstreux" but who began to tilt (albeit slightly) in favor of
Piltdown after the second find, did Teilhard say a word about the
plough field Site 2 in 1913.
It was not for me, in fact, until a visit to England put me in touch
with Dr. J.S> Weiner, and through him with the un[427]published
material relevant to Piltdown in the archives of the British Museum in
Kensington, that the matter began to
clear at all. in the archives were maps, photos, records of interviews
by the museum staff, personal letters from Dawson to Smith Woodward
over nearly five years, all one would need to call up as witnesses the
other long-dead, but
still-articulate actors at Piltdown, who knew more about Piltdown than
Teilhard did.
A map drawn by Dawson, for instance, dated January 1913 and scaled at
four miles to the inch, marked the whole 16-square-mile area of what
Teilhard always called "the Uckfield alluvials" and made plain the
close proximity of the digging
sites to one another. There was an "X" at the location of Site 1, the
gravel pit of Piltdown Common near Barkham Manor where the first bones
were found and after which the whole Piltdown series of "finds" was
named.
There was another "X" at Sheffield Park where the second set of
"specimens" was supposedly found still later in 1915. There was a
third at Barcombe Mills, the presumptive site where a third Piltdown
Man would have been planted had
Dawson not died in 1916. According to the sometimes bimonthly letters
that Dawson wrote to Smith Woodward, he drove out with a group of
friends each weekend when the weather was fine in a primitive auto
from Lewes to Barkham
Manor (Site 1), from where he moved on to a site in the north
(presumably Sheffield Park) and the south (presumably Barcombe Mills)
as early as 1911.
According to his letters to his family, each of the three times that
Teilhard visited Dawson in Lewes, he and Dawson drove to Uckfield
where Smith Woodward was staying, then out to the "Uckfield
alluvials." They regularly first set out on
a tour of the neighborhood, passing through Sheffield Park, and ending
at Barkham Manor (Site 1). When Teilhard and Dawson were alone in the
car, or even when Smith Woodward was present, there could have been no
particular
problem in Dawson's pointing out, or even stopping the car and taking
Teilhard to the Sheffield Park plough field (Site 2) during any of his
three visits to Piltdown.
But as Oakley himself had asked Teilhard in 1953: just when had Dawson
taken him there? Teilhard had said probably in the summer of 1913.
More specifically, if Teilhard was correct, Aug. 8-10 or Aug. 30. The
second visit he described
in great detail as having taken place at the pit at Site 1. But what
of the week end of Aug. 8-10. The longer, more leisurely visit was
only sketched out in Teilhard's rambling letter to his family. The
work of the weekend was broadly outlined,
and much of the letter was devoted to descriptions of the pleasanter
aspects of the whole area visited: "Our principal occupation was
digging at the Piltdown gravels at Uckfield. I was there Friday in the
afternoon from the time I arrived, and
all Saturday and Sunday in the afternoon.
The research is very exciting, but unhappily, this time we found
nothing except a tiny piece of nose?
[sic]. It was a nice day, though. Piltdown is a very pretty corner of
Sussex, full of trees, near a golf
links, and a beautiful park [Sheffield. Author's Note], which one must
cross to reach Uckfield. For
three days Dr. Woodward of the British Museum worked with us. Right
now, Mr. Dawson has with
him his son, an officer in the Camel Corps. Such a very nice boy. . .
."
Three days moving about in a touring car, through Sheffield Park, and
there was not even a mention of the Barkham Manor gravel pit. But if
there was no reason against Dawson's having shown Teilhard the
Sheffield Park ploughfield that
weekend of Aug. 8-10, 1913, there was one strong reason for it.
In the British Museum's collection of letters from Dawson to Smith
Woodward that summer there was one very odd one. He spoke of a find he
had made not at the Barkham Manor gravel pit (Site 1), the focus of
their mutual attention, but
at a site somewhere else: "I have picked up a frontal part of a human
skull this evening covered with flint gravel. It is in a new place, a
plough field a long way from Piltdown. It is not a thick skull. But it
may have been a descendant of
Eoanthropus. . . . It was coming on dark and was raining when I left
the place, but I marked the spot."
The date was July 3, 1913, a month before Teilhard came back from
France for his English retreat, a month before the second visit to
Piltdown, which Teilhard described in such broad outline to his
parents in his published Lettres
d'Hastings. Given all the free time that weekend provided and the
freedom of movement it offered, it would indeed be strange if Dawson
had not pointed out the Sheffield Park site to Teilhard at that time.
Why then had Teilhard not discussed Dawson's find in his letters?
Quite simply because it had no importance in the Piltdown sequence at
the time he saw it. The main focus of interest of the party of diggers
that summer was the gravel pit
(Site 1) at Barkham Manor, which had yielded the skull parts and jaw
that were presented to the Royal Geological Society in December 1912,
and which still remained suspect until a properly shaped canine could
be found near the spot that
would link the jawbone to the braincase. When Teilhard saw the
Sheffield park plough field in early August 1913, no one called it
"Site 2," since the finds at Site 1 were not complete enough to
convince the British scientific community of
their authenticity. Not until two weeks later, Aug. 30, 1913, when
Teilhard found the canine, was there really compelling evidence for a
Piltdown individual, much less a whole Piltdown race.
Teilhard could well have seen Site 2, the plough field of Sheffield
Park, just at the time he would later tell Oakley he thought he had:
in the summer of 1913.
It is 10 months now since Professor Gould threw down the gauntlet and
said out of what body of law, I cannot imagine. that "the burden of
proof now rests with those who believe Teilhard innocent." It is
perhaps precisely because Mr.
Gould's charge was so patently ridiculous to begin with that it has
taken all of us so long to answer him within the parameters which he
himself set.
We can only be glad that the matter has come to an end.
Mary Lukas, formerly with the editorial staff of Time, wrote with
Ellen Lukas Teilhard (1977), recently reissued in paperback by
McGraw-Hill.
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com...
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
You do know that Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic Priest, don't you? The
article below exonerates Teilhard from any connection to the Piltdown hoax.
Do you even read the articles you steal?
snip the rest.
DJT
boikat
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
>
> J McCoy
<snip>
....as opposed to creationists fraudulent claims and dishonesty, Mr. McQoutet
Miner?
Boikat
engelsman
> Interesting ... a book
Lots of interesting stuff out there, mccoy.
> J McCoy
Lenny Flank
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
>
> J McCoy
<snip big long regurgiquote>
Umm, why is it that you neglected to mention that (1) many
evolutionary biologists did not accept Piltdown right from the start,
(2) it was evolutionary biologists who uncovered and publicized the
Piltdown hoax (while the creationists, who did NOTHING to uncover it,
were just standing around looking stupid) and (3) the Piltdown hoax
was uncovered and proven using the same sort of dating techniques that
the creationists keep telling us are so wildly inaccuraste and
unreliable.
Oh, and by the way, you seem to have never answered my simple question
about the scientific theory of creation. You **DO** have one, right?
You're NOT just trying to force your religious opinions into school
classrooms by lying and pretending those religious opinions are
science (just like the Taliban and the Iranian Ayatollahs), right?
Joe Cummings
wrote:
Let's parse the next sentence, shall we, John? From what you
keep saying about the Piltdown fraud, tyou seem to think there's a
great conspiracy among evolutionists.
Let's look at the main clause:
"From the December eveningof 1913.............their "fossils
were bones of contention."
You most likely read this and didn't understand it. What it
is saying is that not everyone accepted the explanation offered. Far
from "evolutionists" blindly accepting what they had been told, they
queried it. This is quite different from the usual creationist
legend.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
<Snip the rest, so that this can stand out, even for John.>
db
>
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution.
Interesting how some people still try to lend themselves
credibility by claiming to speak the truth.
It didn't work for that Russian newspaper, it doesn't work
now.
db
Roy
J McCoy wrote:
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
It's particularly interesting because he's been dead for nearly 50
years. So did John Edwards channel it for him? Or was it Doris Stokes?
Maybe someone found a manuscript buried in an English quarry?
Evolutionists may go to extremes, but creationists tell lies.
Roy
P.S. couldn't resist including this quote from the article:
> For anyone who had seriously studied Teilhard's fife [...]
Neal Eldred
>
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> > evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> > religious or not.
> >
> > J McCoy
>
> <snip big long regurgiquote>
>
> Umm, why is it that you neglected to mention that (1) many
> evolutionary biologists did not accept Piltdown right from the start,
And among those skeptics was none other than Teilhard himself.
Gould's "Natural History" article was reprinted in _Hen's Teeth and
Horse's Toes_, pp.201-226, if anyone is interested. On pp. 215-6,
Gould quoted Teilhard from a 1920 article, "The reasonable attitude is
to grant primacy to the intrinsic morphological probability over the
extrinsic probability of geological conditions .... We must suppose
that the Piltdown skull and jaw belong to two different subjects."
Looks like we've been fed another McWhopper.
--
Neal Eldred
[SuSE Linux 6.2]
J McCoy
DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
I'm concerned. I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
in that spirit.
As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant. First
of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3 "....I saw a woman sit upon
a scarlet coloured beat, full of names of blasphemy having seven heads
and ten horns."
4. And the woman was arrayed inpurple and scarlet colour, and decked
with gold and precious stories and pearls, having a golden cup in her
hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE
CREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with
the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with
great admiration.
If you read the book of Daniel, you understand that a beast represents
a country or nation. The woman sits on the beast. Now the beast has
seven heads. If you read Revelations 17:9, we read: The seven heads
are seven mountains, on which the woman sits."
Open up the Encyclopedia Americana and you read that Rome is called
the Eternal City that sits on seven hills. The Bible calls hills
mountains. This is proved by calling Mt Zion a mountain, when we know
it to be a hill.
A woman is usually known as the church. Now this woman is called a
"whore." And why, because it has been corrupted by assimilating
paganism. It says in chapter 17:6 that the "woman was drunken with
the blood of saints." This can be be no other than the inquisition.
Verse 15 says that "The waters which you saw, where the whore sits,
are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. This would be
Europe where the Catholic church had held sway for a period of time.
And Europe came to "hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and
naked,.." This is when the Pope was captured and the Papacy had ended.
But Revelations also says that it comes back to life. It's deadly
wound had been healed.
The colors of the Catholic church, to this day, are "purple and
scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,
having a golden cup in her hand..." Now, this cup, what do you
suppose that is.
The Catholic church, has proclaimed it to be God's representative on
earth, and that the Pope is "infallible on spiritual matters."
Vatican means: VATIS= Diviner, and CAN = Serpent. The divining
serpent. A dragon is depicted on a large papal crest in the Vatican
museum.
Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
bloodshed. To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
what the Catholic church has done in the past. Frequently you hear of
Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
girls, even on these newsgroups.
Enough said.
J McCoy
>
> snip the rest.
>
> DJT
Walter Bushell
> "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> news:3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com...
<Snip>
> Do you even read the articles you steal?
>
That would be a violation of the creationist code of ethics.
> snip the rest.
>
> DJT
--
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day; set him on fire and he
will be warm for the rest of his life. (John Calvin)
Walter
engelsman
>>>Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
>>You do know that Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic Priest, don't you? The
> DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant.
> As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
> simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant. First
> of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
> Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3 "....I saw a woman sit upon
> a scarlet coloured beat, full of names of blasphemy having seven heads
> and ten horns."
<snip>
> Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
> angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
> bloodshed. To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
> what the Catholic church has done in the past. Frequently you hear of
> Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
> girls, even on these newsgroups.
1) 'interesting how this catholic guy wrote a book'
2) 'catholics are sinners and catholic women are whores'
They're ok for writing books which i can use, but i spit on them anyway.
Nice going mccoy. This one will definitely get you a spot in hell.
And offcourse it strengthens your reputation as a total dumbass.
Robert Dean
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
>
Bob
Bob Pease
Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
PLONK!!!
RJ P
Gray Shockley
(in message <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>):
> Vatican means: VATIS= Diviner, and CAN = Serpent. The divining
> serpent. A dragon is depicted on a large papal crest in the Vatican
> museum.
<http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/articles/1042vatican_city.html>
One of their places had to be the Vatican
Hill喫ts name a derivation of vaticinium,
the prophecy of future things.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
C. Thompson
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> religious or not.
>
> J McCoy
>
>
> Teilhard and the Piltdown "Hoax"
>
> Mary Lukas
Uh, McCoy, look up.
That name up there? Mary Lukas? She wrote the book. It's _about_ Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin.
Mary Lukas has been a de Chardin apologist for decades. Gould hypothesized
that he was **involved** in the Piltdown Hoax, and Lukas has always defended
him. (Fitting behavior for a catholic, I bet you're thinking. And get
this- not just a Catholic, but a JESUIT!! RUN AWAY!!!!!!)
Uh, you are aware that whatever involvement in Piltdown de Chardin might
have had, he made the totally legitimate discovery of "Peking Man"? That de
Chardin in fact was a thoroughly qualified anthropologist who spent his life
trying to reconcile human fossils with his religious beliefs?
Wow. I don't normally say things like this, but you are one beat-all-stupid
fucknut.
Chris
Steven J.
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b583r4$26vfvm$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> > > evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> > > religious or not.
> >
> > You do know that Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic Priest, don't you? The
> > article below exonerates Teilhard from any connection to the Piltdown hoax.
> > Do you even read the articles you steal?
>
> DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
> stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
> to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point.
>
something. And, as Dana Tweedy pointed out, what someone said here is
that Teilhard de Chardin did *not*, so far as the evidence can show,
play a role in perpetrating the Piltdown fraud. The article said the
opposite of what you apparently thought it said, which raises
questions about your own understanding and intelligence.
>
> This is a
> matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
> I'm concerned. I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
> fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
> stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
> amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
> in that spirit.
>
(after barely reading) the entire article.
>
> As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
> simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant. First
> of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
> Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3 "....I saw a woman sit upon
> a scarlet coloured beat, full of names of blasphemy having seven heads
> and ten horns."
>
with the idea that the Great Harlot represents the Roman Catholic
Church. I am also familiar with the ideas that she represents the
Concilia of the Roman Empire, in charge of promoting emperor worship
(a government promoting a false religion), or the majority position of
Judaism, which rejected the belief that Jesus was the Messiah (from a
first-century Christian perspective, God's people being unfaithful to
His revelation, but hated by the worldly regimes anyway -- note the
way the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and enslaved many of the
Judeans). And of course there are many fundamentalists who see the
Great Harlot as a future rather than past or present false religious
system -- the "Mystery World Religion" that the Belgians will set up
once they enslave us all. Doubtless there are other interpretations
as well.
None of this has much to do with whether Teilhard de Chardin helped
commit the Piltdown fraud, much less wrote a book about it. He did,
of course, write a book on evolution (not very highly regarded now, I
fear), but it did not mention Piltdown.
>
-- [snip of anti-Catholic diatribe and pseudoscholarship]
>
> Enough said.
>
> J McCoy
>
-- Steven J.
Lenny Flank
<snip>
> DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
> stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
> to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
> matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
> I'm concerned.
That does indeed seem to sum up creation 'science' in a nutshell.
<sigh>
<much pointless Bible Babble deleted>
That's nice.
Why again didn't you mention that Piltdown was uncovered by
evolutionary biologists, not creationists, and that it was uncovered
using the same dating methods that creationists keep telling us are so
wildly inaccurate and unreliable.
Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
John Bode
> Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> evolution.
Really? Could you give us the name of it, since the article you quote
below makes *absolutely no mention of it at all*? Are you sure you
didn't mean that someone else (Gould) had written a book about
Teilhard, since the bulk of the article debunks Gould's assertion that
Teilhard was an active participant in the Piltdown hoax.
Dana Tweedy
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b583r4$26vfvm$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> > > evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> > > religious or not.
> >
> > You do know that Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic Priest, don't you?
The
> > article below exonerates Teilhard from any connection to the Piltdown
hoax.
> > Do you even read the articles you steal?
>
> DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant.
Perhaps, but I'm not a thief.
> You're accusing me of
> stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
> to say.
Then why respond?
>I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
> matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
> I'm concerned.
Ah, "The ends justify the means". A rather amoral position, wouldn't you
say? Certianly not a Christian thing to do.
> I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
> fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
> stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
> amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
> in that spirit.
You are a non-profit organization now? How odd. BTW, did you actually
read that article? It says that Tielhard most likely had nothing to do
with the Piltdown hoax. That doesn't support your original claim.
>
>
> As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
> simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant.
It shows that he was not an athiest. Also, you don't seem to be aware of
the fact he's been dead for several decades.
> First
> of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
> Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3
Snip of bizarre and ill informed anti-catholic rant.
> Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
> angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
> bloodshed.
So, if Catholicism was the cause of the French Revolution (rather than the
excesses of the French aristocracy), is the Anglican church the cause of the
American Revolution, which led to a lot of blood shed also.
>To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
> what the Catholic church has done in the past.
The Catholics aren't the only denomination that athiests complain about.
Protestants have a record of intolerance and bloodshed as well.
> Frequently you hear of
> Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
> girls, even on these newsgroups.
I also hear that redheads have a bad temper, and that blondes are dumb.
That doesn't mean that those ignorant sterotypes are correct.
>
> Enough said.
Actually for your sake, I would say "More than enough to show how ignorant
you really are".
DJT
steven
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b583r4$26vfvm$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>(snip)
> Open up the Encyclopedia Americana and you read that Rome is called
> the Eternal City that sits on seven hills. The Bible calls hills
> mountains. This is proved by calling Mt Zion a mountain, when we know
> it to be a hill.
>
> A woman is usually known as the church. Now this woman is called a
> "whore." And why, because it has been corrupted by assimilating
> paganism.
Edinburgh in Scotland also sits on 7 hills, one of which (Castle Hill)
has the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on it. This is the
church that John Knox was instrumental in founding. Does this make the
Moderator of the general Assmebly of the Church of Scotland a bad man?
The Church of Scotland has allowed women ministers since the 1960's.
John McCoy, you are a raving loon!
steven pirie-shepherd PhD
Gray Shockley
(in message <b5ddh3$2888la$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>):
[thanks to Dana for giving me an opening into which to slip this]
> Snip of bizarre and ill informed anti-catholic rant.
>
>> Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
>> angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
>> bloodshed.
>
> So, if Catholicism was the cause of the French Revolution (rather than the
> excesses of the French aristocracy), is the Anglican church the cause of the
> American Revolution, which led to a lot of blood shed also.
>
>
>> To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
>> what the Catholic church has done in the past.
>
> The Catholics aren't the only denomination that athiests complain about.
> Protestants have a record of intolerance and bloodshed as well.
There's something here that needs to be cleared and that's "Catholic" and
"Protestant".
For all practical purposes (meaning ignoring the Orthodox denominations),
until 1517, the "Christian Church" and "The Catholic Church" were the same.
To a great extent, this was true for quite a while thereafter.
There's a very real attempt for some so-called "Protestants" to "blame" the
Roman Catholic denomination for the atrocities of Christianity before
"Protestantism" existed.
The "Holy Inquisition" is the heritage of European and British
"Protestantism" just as surely as it is that of Roman Catholicism.
>> Frequently you hear of
>> Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
>> girls, even on these newsgroups.
>
> I also hear that redheads have a bad temper, and that blondes are dumb.
> That doesn't mean that those ignorant sterotypes are correct.
But you have to remember that, apparently, if "J McCoy" reads it on the
Internet, then s/he/it knows that it's true.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
Frank J
(snip)
Several other posters told you that it was science, not pseudoscience
that discovered and corrected the Piltdown hoax.
Surely you heard the Carl sagan quote about how fraud and error in
science is almost always discovered and corrected by science, but
fraud and error in pseudoscience is almost NEVER discovered and
corrected by pseudoscience.
Here's how your brand of pseudoscience typically responds:
S. T. Wellington, II
>
> Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
>
> PLONK!!!
>
> RJ P
>
>
are afraid of the TRUTH of CHRIST! You make up stories like piltdown man
and java man and nabraska man and then get all embarassed when people
don't buy your lies. Shame on you all for serving the word of the adversary!
Simon T. Wellington, II Proud to be a REAL American!!
S. T. Wellington, II
> Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
>
> PLONK!!!
>
> RJ P
Thats very good. You should run away from John McCoy. It's what you
evos do best, right?: You come up with these fakes like piltdown man
and java man and nebraska man, and when the public won't swallow your
lies you run away! Try to find the TRUTH of JESUS and you won't be so
scared anymore. When you work for the Adversary, all you can know is
fear!
Simon T. Wellington II Proud to be a REAL American!
Dana Tweedy
"S. T. Wellington, II" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:PKtea.22660$SX....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Hmmm, troll or parody.... you make the call.
DJT
S. T. Wellington, II
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> <snip>
> > DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
> > stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
> > to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
> > matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
> > I'm concerned.
>
>
>
> That does indeed seem to sum up creation 'science' in a nutshell.
> <sigh>
>
>
>
> <much pointless Bible Babble deleted>
>
>
>
> That's nice.
>
> Why again didn't you mention that Piltdown was uncovered by
> evolutionary biologists, not creationists, and that it was uncovered
> using the same dating methods that creationists keep telling us are so
> wildly inaccurate and unreliable.
Hahaha!!!
That's so stupid of you! We know the Piltdown man was uncovered by
evos! Who else would be dumb enough to think a human skull with an ape
jaw was a missing link? What a joke! And using evo dating methods to
prove the age of your fake is even better! If carbon dating was
accurate, it would show that either piece of the skull was less than
6000 years old. Another evo fraud!
>
> Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
> is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
>
Try reading the word of JESUS sometime for your answers. Stop
listening to the lies of the Adversary! The opening battle has begun
but there is still time to save your soul. Give up your athiest lie
and find the TRUTH my friend!
Simon T Wellington II Proud to be a REAL American
AC
I'm not afraid of Mr. McCoy and his lies. Bored perhaps. But not afraid.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
catshark
Whether a loki or not, this is graphic evidence of how stupid one
would have to be to outdo McNameless . . .
[ . . . ]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Ellsburg's First Law:
"Anybody can be as stupid as necessary to keep his job."
- Daniel Ellsburg -
Coffey's Corollary:
"Replace job with dogma, and the law holds."
- Mitchell Coffey -
J McCoy
There is not immoral. Neither do I think that it is unlawful. Clearly
it is unlawful if I were profiting from it.
>
> > I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
> > fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
> > stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
> > amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
> > in that spirit.
>
> You are a non-profit organization now? How odd. BTW, did you actually
> read that article? It says that Tielhard most likely had nothing to do
> with the Piltdown hoax. That doesn't support your original claim.
I'm not a non-profit organization. But I'm engaging in intellectual
discussion. It has to do with furthering the truth.
>
> >
> >
> > As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
> > simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant.
>
> It shows that he was not an athiest. Also, you don't seem to be aware of
> the fact he's been dead for several decades.
Uh, I knew he was dead. If he were alive it'd be likely that he would
be speaking out. You don't hear from him, do you?
>
> > First
> > of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
> > Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3
>
> Snip of bizarre and ill informed anti-catholic rant.
Meaning that you didn't study it. That's to be expected. Snip as you
will.
>
> > Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
> > angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
> > bloodshed.
>
> So, if Catholicism was the cause of the French Revolution (rather than the
> excesses of the French aristocracy), is the Anglican church the cause of the
> American Revolution, which led to a lot of blood shed also.
>
The French aristocracy has something to do with it.
>
> >To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
> > what the Catholic church has done in the past.
>
> The Catholics aren't the only denomination that athiests complain about.
> Protestants have a record of intolerance and bloodshed as well.
Not much.
>
> > Frequently you hear of
> > Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
> > girls, even on these newsgroups.
>
> I also hear that redheads have a bad temper, and that blondes are dumb.
> That doesn't mean that those ignorant sterotypes are correct.
I spoke generally. I've heard lots of people say this, however,
including a liberal radio guy on some San Francisco station. I've evem
read one former Catholic girl on alt.atheism say that.
The Bible also states that there are good people in the Catholic
church and they should come out "my people."
Did you grow up in a Catholic family, by any chance? Be honest.
Mitchell Coffey
How can you call yourself an American, much less a Christian, when you
lie like this? Prove, you, that Java and Nebraska Man were "fakes" or
beg God's mercy! Prove that Piltdown Man was known to be a fake by
more than one or two men, or that it was believed by all or most
scientists, or repent!
Mitchell Coffey
Pip R. Lagenta
I am putting my money on "PARODY with dreams of Loki". To whom do I
give my dollar? (I have lost money due to optimism before.)
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
catshark
wrote:
I may include this exchange in the Quote Mine Project.
It explains *so* much . . .
[snip]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Isn't man a creature to be ashamed of in pretty much all his aspects?
Is he really fit for anything but to be stood up on the street corner
as a convenience for dogs?
-- Mark Twain --
Lenny Flank
> Bob Pease wrote:
> >
> > Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
> >
> > PLONK!!!
> >
> > RJ P
> >
> >
> Thats right, run away from what John McCoy has to say. You evolutionists
> are afraid of the TRUTH of CHRIST!
<sigh> I'll say once again---I am not an atheist.
Not.
N-O-T.
Not.
I am not an atheist.
Je ne suis pas un atheiste.
Yo no soy ateista.
If there is some other language you need to hear that in, let me know
and I'll try to have it translated for you.
You make up stories like piltdown man
> and java man and nabraska man
Er, you ARE aware, are you not, that Piltdown was exposed as a hoax by
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, not by creationists--and that it was exposed
by RADIODATING, the same techniques that creationists keep blitehring
to us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy.
and then get all embarassed when people
> don't buy your lies. Shame on you all for serving the word of the adversary!
Not an atheist. N-O-T.
Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
>
> Simon T. Wellington, II Proud to be a REAL American!!
Er, Hitler was proud to be a REAL German. <shrug>
Lenny Flank
> > Why again didn't you mention that Piltdown was uncovered by
> > evolutionary biologists, not creationists, and that it was uncovered
> > using the same dating methods that creationists keep telling us are so
> > wildly inaccurate and unreliable.
>
>
> Hahaha!!!
> That's so stupid of you! We know the Piltdown man was uncovered by
> evos! Who else would be dumb enough to think a human skull with an ape
> jaw was a missing link? What a joke!
Hahaha!!! Then where were all the creationists piping up to say "hey,
it's human skull with an ape jaw". Seems the creationists at the time
were too busy standing around looking stupid.
And using evo dating methods to
> prove the age of your fake is even better! If carbon dating was
> accurate, it would show that either piece of the skull was less than
> 6000 years old. Another evo fraud!
I see. So if dating is inaccurate and dating is what shows it to be
fake, then what makes you think it IS fake. . . .?
> >
> > Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
> > is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
> >
> Try reading the word of JESUS sometime for your answers. Stop
> listening to the lies of the Adversary! The opening battle has begun
> but there is still time to save your soul. Give up your athiest lie
> and find the TRUTH my friend!
Er, I'm not an atheist.
Let me repeat that for you, since most fundies are too stupid to grasp
it the first time.
I am not an atheist.
Not.
N-O-T.
Here, let me break it down for you word by word, so I'm sure that even
a dolt like you can grasp it:
"I". The person I refer to as myself.
"Am"". A state of being or existence.
"Not". A negation. Combined with the above, "a state of non-being or
non-existence".
"An". A singular example of.
"Atheist". A person who does not believe in the existence of god or
gods.
String them all together, and you get "The person I refer to as myself
is in a stste of non-being or non-existence of a singular example of a
person who does not beleive in the existence of god or gods." Or, "I
am not an atheist".
To put it in five-year-old terms that you might be more likely to
understand, "Me no atheist".
Dick C
> Bob Pease wrote:
>>
>> Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
>>
>> PLONK!!!
>>
>> RJ P
>>
>>
> Thats right, run away from what John McCoy has to say. You
> evolutionists are afraid of the TRUTH of CHRIST! You make up stories
> like piltdown man and java man and nabraska man and then get all
> embarassed when people don't buy your lies. Shame on you all for
> serving the word of the adversary!
You cannot be serious, can you. I mean nobody is stupid enough to
buy into McCoy's lies, so this has to be a parody.
>
> Simon T. Wellington, II Proud to be a REAL American!!
>
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com
Roy
S. T. Wellington, II wrote:
> Hahaha!!!
> That's so stupid of you! We know the Piltdown man was uncovered by
> evos! Who else would be dumb enough to think a human skull with an ape
> jaw was a missing link? What a joke! And using evo dating methods to
> prove the age of your fake is even better! If carbon dating was
> accurate, it would show that either piece of the skull was less than
> 6000 years old. Another evo fraud!
>
>>Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
>>is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
>>
>
> Try reading the word of JESUS sometime for your answers. Stop
> listening to the lies of the Adversary! The opening battle has begun
> but there is still time to save your soul. Give up your athiest lie
> and find the TRUTH my friend!
Where's my parody detection checklist? Aha! Found it. Here we go:
1) Obvious pseudonym or outrageous name
not really, though a bit showy.
2) Hidden messages in user name (homonyms, anagrams, references)
none found (though does anagram to "Is (k)nowing little")
3) Velied references to Loki
none
4) References to other figures from Norse mythology
none
5) More than excessive use of capital letters/exclamation marks
some. Only "JESUS", "TRUTH", and "Adversary" capitalized,
but there are 9 exclamation marks
6) Humorous or informative typoes
none
7) Excessive belittling of evolutinists (either general or specific)
none
8) Hidden messages (words/lines first/last letters, columns, capitals)
none
9) Use of bizarre references/links
none
10) More technical knowledge that would be expected based on the subject
none
11) Subtlety
none
12) Ability to formulate a coherent argument
none
Overall parody rating: 0.5 out of 12.
It's real, folks.
Roy
Roy
Roy wrote:
>
> S. T. Wellington, II wrote:
[post deleted]
> 1) Obvious pseudonym or outrageous name
update: appears to have a real account, but is posting via google.
Parody score increased to 1.5 out of 12. Either real, or so
indistinguisable from real that it might as well be.
Roy
Bob Pease
"S. T. Wellington, II" <stwell...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80bbb977.0303...@posting.google.com...
Is this an echo??
RJ P
Seppo Pietikainen
Yep, looks like a J. McNamelessandMindless sock puppet.
Seppo P.
dandelion
> Proud to be a REAL American!!
Interesting. Two questions
1. What makes you a REAL american and other (seemingly) FALSE americans?
2. What have you done to become a REAL american? If it's no personal
achievment, ou can hardly be proud if it, I would say.
--
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have
been searching for evidence which could support this.
-- Bertrand Russell
Bob Pease
"dandelion" <dand...@meadow.org> wrote in message
news:3e7b3cf3$0$153$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> S. T. Wellington, II wrote:
>
> > Proud to be a REAL American!!
>
> Interesting. Two questions
>
>
> 1. What makes you a REAL american and other (seemingly) FALSE americans?
>
These are questions you're not suppose to asKKK
RJ Pease
Bob Pease
"S. T. Wellington, II" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:PKtea.22660$SX....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Christ help us if this is what a Real American is like!!
Watch out for them Cat-lickers!!
The Masons is in on it too!!
Actually Satan is a'Prowlin.
The GOBBLE-INS 'll Git ya if'n ye don't Watch Out.
Pope Bobby II
also a REAL American.
Dana Tweedy
So, you feel that it's Ok, to lie and steal, as long as you aren't making a
profit at it. That simply means you are a poor liar and thief.
>
>
>
> >
> > > I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
> > > fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
> > > stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
> > > amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
> > > in that spirit.
> >
> > You are a non-profit organization now? How odd. BTW, did you actually
> > read that article? It says that Tielhard most likely had nothing to do
> > with the Piltdown hoax. That doesn't support your original claim.
>
> I'm not a non-profit organization. But I'm engaging in intellectual
> discussion. It has to do with furthering the truth.
You may feel you are engaging in an intellectualy discussion, but you are
not adding anything intellectual to the discussion. You are simply
parroting the words of others, words you obviously haven't read, and do not
understand. How can you "further" the truth, when you are spreading lies?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As far as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, I would say that your
> > > simplistic statement that he's a Catholic Priest is irrelevant.
> >
> > It shows that he was not an athiest. Also, you don't seem to be aware
of
> > the fact he's been dead for several decades.
>
> Uh, I knew he was dead. If he were alive it'd be likely that he would
> be speaking out. You don't hear from him, do you?
He wrote quite a lot during his life. Your posting gives the impression
that he was still alive, and still publishing.
>
>
> >
> > > First
> > > of all, I am not Catholic. If you want to know something about
> > > Catholicism read Revelations chapter 17:3
> >
> > Snip of bizarre and ill informed anti-catholic rant.
>
> Meaning that you didn't study it.
No, that means your rant was ill informed as far as history and theology go,
and it was bizarrely constructed.
> That's to be expected. Snip as you
> will.
I simply didn't see a point in repeating that pile of garbage you spewed.
It shows you know nothing about the Catholic Church, or the theology behind
it. It also shows how bigoted and rabidly anti-Christian you are.
>
>
> >
> > > Now, look at the results of Catholicism. It made a lot of people
> > > angry enough to start the French Revolution, which led to a lot of
> > > bloodshed.
> >
> > So, if Catholicism was the cause of the French Revolution (rather than
the
> > excesses of the French aristocracy), is the Anglican church the cause of
the
> > American Revolution, which led to a lot of blood shed also.
> >
>
> The French aristocracy has something to do with it.
LOL, a great deal more to do with it than the Catholic Church. What about
the Anglican Church? Did it or did it not have anything to do with the
American Revolution?
>
>
> >
> > >To this day atheists are condemning all of Christianity for
> > > what the Catholic church has done in the past.
> >
> > The Catholics aren't the only denomination that athiests complain about.
> > Protestants have a record of intolerance and bloodshed as well.
>
> Not much.
More evidence that you know nothing about history and theology. Have you
never heard of the Salem Witch Trials? How about Henry VIII's dissolution
of the monastaries? Why were Thomas Moore and other Catholics put to death
by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I ? How about John Calvin burning 58
"heretics"? Have you ever heard of what happened to the American Indians?
Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland? Good Grief, lean some history!
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
>
> >
> > > Frequently you hear of
> > > Catholic girls being "easy" and you hear about rebellious catholic
> > > girls, even on these newsgroups.
> >
> > I also hear that redheads have a bad temper, and that blondes are dumb.
> > That doesn't mean that those ignorant sterotypes are correct.
>
> I spoke generally. I've heard lots of people say this, however,
> including a liberal radio guy on some San Francisco station. I've evem
> read one former Catholic girl on alt.atheism say that.
Right, and because you read it somewhere, and heard it on the radio, that
make it true? Have you any idea how gulliable you are?
>
> The Bible also states that there are good people in the Catholic
> church and they should come out "my people."
Hint, the Bible was written Centuries before the Catholic Church was
founded.
>
> Did you grow up in a Catholic family, by any chance? Be honest.
I have been completely honest in all my postings. No, I didn't grow up in
Catholic family.
DJT
Bob Pease
"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ornl7vo1gp1hdb44k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 01:18:30 +0000 (UTC), "S. T. Wellington, II"
> <nos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Bob Pease wrote:
> >>
> >> Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
> >>
> >> PLONK!!!
> >>
> >> RJ P
> >>
> >>
> >Thats right, run away from what John McCoy has to say. You evolutionists
> >are afraid of the TRUTH of CHRIST! You make up stories like piltdown man
> >and java man and nabraska man and then get all embarassed when people
> >don't buy your lies. Shame on you all for serving the word of the
adversary!
> >
> >Simon T. Wellington, II Proud to be a REAL American!!
>
> I am putting my money on "PARODY with dreams of Loki". To whom do I
> give my dollar? (I have lost money due to optimism before.)
>
The main problem with a parody is that it must exceed recognizable upper
limits of madness.
The seething fundies have no such upper bound.
Therefore, the parody is not recognizable from the real thing.
RJ Pease
Erik
Actually, I believe it was creationists that exposed piltdown for the
hoax that it was.
FYI.
Erik
Bob Pease
"Roy" <rthe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E7B2F8D...@hotmail.com...
Thanks for making my point again!!
I contend that with this type of fundie, it is not possible to get extreme
enough in the content to be distinguishable from the real thing.
In any case the content is so unoriginal and banally presented as to produce
narcosis rather than outrage.
Bob Pease
Bob Pease
Snore..Plonk
RJP
AC
Citation please.
Gray Shockley
(in message <b5fc8b$b...@dispatch.concentric.net>):
>> Simon T. Wellington II Proud to be a REAL American!
>
> Is this an echo??
>
> RJ P
It's certainly not a choice.
Gray
Louann Miller
Seconded. I have three books on Piltdown handy, not counting the Gould
essay which was far less than book length. Where are you getting your
data?
Gray Shockley
(in message <c2563a5e.03032...@posting.google.com>):
> Actually, I believe it was creationists that exposed piltdown for the
> hoax that it was.
>
> FYI.
>
> Erik
<http://140.232.1.5/~piltdown/map_expose/pilt_man_RiseAndFall.html>
Esp. the section entitled: "BEGINNING OF THE END", about 70% down the
webpage.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton,
they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Kyle C. Maxwell
<< DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
I'm concerned. I'm not making any profit off this and as a matter of
fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
in that spirit. >>
(emphasis added)
Someone needs to post this paragraph to every single article that J. McCoy
posts from now on, along with a google link to the original post. He has just
ADMITTED his intellectual dishonesty.
<rest of post, an anti-Catholic diatribe that would have done the Know-Nothing
Party proud, snipped>
Maxie Maxwell.
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
Which even in recall renews my fear."
(The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri)
Kyle C. Maxwell
give my dollar? (I have lost money due to optimism before.) >>
To me, of course, as I was created the prettiest.
::batting my eyes::
Kyle C. Maxwell
<< <sigh> I'll say once again---I am not an atheist.
Not.
N-O-T.
Not.
I am not an atheist.
Je ne suis pas un atheiste.
Yo no soy ateista.
If there is some other language you need to hear that in, let me know >>
I feel your pain, Lenny. I've been having an argument in
alt.tv.supposedly-the-west.wing.butreallyjustaboutpolitics, with some
non-Christians, about whether I'm really a Christian.
Don't you love it when people tell you what you believe?
Kyle C. Maxwell
<< There is not immoral. Neither do I think that it is unlawful. Clearly
it is unlawful if I were profiting from it. >>
<< I'm not a non-profit organization. But I'm engaging in intellectual
discussion. It has to do with furthering the truth. >>
<< Uh, I knew he was dead. If he were alive it'd be likely that he would
be speaking out. You don't hear from him, do you?
>>
<< I spoke generally. I've heard lots of people say [that Catholic girls are
easy], however,
including a liberal radio guy on some San Francisco station. I've evem
read one former Catholic girl on alt.atheism say that.
The Bible also states that there are good people in the Catholic
church and they should come out "my people."
Did you grow up in a Catholic family, by any chance? Be honest. >>
A right -- who is in charge of giving McCoy his meds?
Find WHOEVER it is and wake them up, please.
J McCoy
Dana,
I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
in the US, perpetrated a fraud. And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
New Age Catholic priest.
As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
with the main arguments.
J McCoy
> DJT
Mark VandeWettering
Mark VandeWettering
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b5fish$29aggq$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Dana,
>
> I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
>
> You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
> could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
> who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
> of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
>
>
> I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
> the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
> in the US,
Odd, since Huxley was a Brit.
> perpetrated a fraud. And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
> was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
> New Age Catholic priest.
>
> As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
> destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
> with the main arguments.
You don't have to deal with the arguments of a liar, particularly an
unrepentant and self-confessed liar.
Mark
> J McCoy
Klaus Hellnick
"Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "S. T. Wellington, II" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<PKtea.22660$SX....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
> > Bob Pease wrote:
> > >
> > > Nut-o-Meter (TM) reads 9.2
> > >
> > > PLONK!!!
> > >
> > > RJ P
> > >
> > >
> > Thats right, run away from what John McCoy has to say. You evolutionists
> > are afraid of the TRUTH of CHRIST!
>
>
>
>
> Not.
>
> N-O-T.
>
> Not.
>
> I am not an atheist.
>
> Je ne suis pas un atheiste.
>
> Yo no soy ateista.
>
>
> If there is some other language you need to hear that in, let me know
>
>
>
> You make up stories like piltdown man
> > and java man and nabraska man
>
>
>
> EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, not by creationists--and that it was exposed
> by RADIODATING, the same techniques that creationists keep blitehring
> to us are so wildly inaccurate and untrustworthy.
>
>
>
>
> and then get all embarassed when people
> > don't buy your lies. Shame on you all for serving the word of the
adversary!
>
>
>
>
> Keep repeating that until it sinks in.
>
>
> >
> > Simon T. Wellington, II Proud to be a REAL American!!
>
>
>
>
> Er, Hitler was proud to be a REAL German. <shrug>
>
>
HITLER WAS AUSTRIAN!!!!!!!!!!
Klaus
Bigdakine
>From: stwell...@hotmail.com (S. T. Wellington, II)
>Date: 3/20/03 3:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <80bbb977.0303...@posting.google.com>
>>
>> PLONK!!!
>>
>> RJ P
>
>evos do best, right?: You come up with these fakes like piltdown man
>and java man and nebraska man, and when the public won't swallow your
>lies you run away! Try to find the TRUTH of JESUS and you won't be so
>scared anymore. When you work for the Adversary, all you can know is
>fear!
>
O Looky.. another McCoy sock puppet.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Jerry Freedman
You haven't any arguments and people have been trying to communicate
with you but its apparently like talking to concrete...please review
the discussion
J. Freedman
Gray Shockley
(in message <20030321170147...@mb-bj.aol.com>):
> << I am putting my money on "PARODY with dreams of Loki". To whom do I
> give my dollar? (I have lost money due to optimism before.) >>
>
>
> To me, of course, as I was created the prettiest.
>
>>> batting my eyes::
The golden apple was always only for the fairest.
>
>
> Maxie Maxwell.
>
> "In the middle of the journey of my life,
> I found myself in a dark wood
> Where the straight way was lost.
> Oh, it is hard to speak of what I saw there,
> Which even in recall renews my fear."
> (The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri)
>
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
Lenny Flank
>
> You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand.
What "debate". A "debate" requires two sides. You, for some odd
reason, seem rather unwilling to present your "side". What is the
scientific theory of creation, and how can we test it using the
scientific method.
> Trying to
> destroy me
Don't flatter yourself--- I don't give a flying fuck about you.
<shrug>
Now if you're finished feeding your massive martyr complex, how about
telling us all what that scientific theory of creation might be, and
how we can test it using the scientific method. Show us the "other
side" of this "debate".
Gray Shockley
(in message <3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>):
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> news:<b5fish$29aggq$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Dana,
>
> I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
>
> You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
> could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
> who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
> of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
>
>
> I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
> the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
> in the US, perpetrated a fraud.
". . . and Huxley in the US, . . ."????
Are you referring to Sir Julian Huxley?
If you're going to attempt to debunk someone, it might be well to, at the
very minimum, know from what country s/he is.
Of course, you could be referring to Aldous Huxley who, on the same hand, was
from Great Britain.
Or are you referring to Clyde Huxley who lives down the holler outside Rocky
Hill 'bout a stone's throw from Matilda's place?
> And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
> was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
> New Age Catholic priest.
>
> As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
> destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
> with the main arguments.
>
> J McCoy
>
>
>
>> DJT
Richard Uhrich
Wellington says his son was posting last night using his account, and he
apologizes. This may be one of the son's.
--
Richard Uhrich
---
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. --
Charles Darwin
Dana Tweedy
news:<b5fish$29aggq$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Dana,
>
> I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
I don't see exposing your lies and ignorance as "doing wrong". It's you
who are doing wrong, by lying, misrepresenting, and stealing from others.
Also, you snipped, without marking, everything I wrote. Why is that? What
about my words frightened you so much you can't even face them?
>
> You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand.
Part of the "debate at hand" is your credibility, or lack thereof. You are
committing the logical falacy of "Appealing to Authority" I am pointing
out that your "Authority" is false, that you are misquoting others, and
lying by omission.
> I
> could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
> who I quote from.
As I asked before, then why do you keep responding?
>I gave proper attribution so give it up.
Apparently you didn't even read the article you quoted from. And you did
not give proper attribution to the quotes you stole off "Anointed one"s
website.
> The subject
> of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
If you had read the article you quoted from, you would have discovered that
it doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Again, READ THE ARTICLE!
>
>
> I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
> the right theory.
I don't need others to think for me, I can examine and weigh the evidence
for myself.
> Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany)
Haeckel has been out of favor for years, he never was even mentioned in any
of my biology classes.
>, and Huxley
> in the US,
Which Huxley are you referring to. TH Huxley was British, not American.
Aldolus Huxley didn't deal with evolutionary theory.
> perpetrated a fraud.
No, they presented the evidence. Haeckel's ideas have been discreditied,
but Huxley is still considered correct.
>And Piltdown, too, was a fraud.
I know Piltdown was a fraud, so does all of science. It was discovered to
be a fraud, and discarded almost a decade before I was born. It had
absolutely no impact on my education whatsoever. There is literally tons of
other evidence for evolution, that is genuine, and supports evolutionary
theory beyond any reasonable doubt.
> It
> was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
> New Age Catholic priest.
No one knows for sure who perpetrated the fraud, although Dawson is a prime
suspect. Dawson however was not a professional scientist, just a amatuer
fossil collector. Gould thought Teilhard may have had something to do
with the fraud, but others have shown good reason to think Gould may have
been wrong about that. That is what the article you quoted was saying.
Again, don't you even read what you steal?
>
> As to whether you like that or not is besides the case.
The Piltdown Hoax doesn't bother me in the least, as I know it was
discovered and discarded for a half a century. The Piltdown fraud was a
fraud commited ON science, not BY science. Piltdown never fit with the real
evidence, and it's unfortunate it lasted so long, however other than a
moment of embarrassment, it had no lasting effect on science.
> Trying to
> destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
> with the main arguments.
What makes you think I'm trying to "destroy" you? I'm just pointing out
where you have made ignorant, foolish, and false statements. You haven't
presented any "main arguements" for me to deal with. Your paranoid fantasy
about Piltdown is simply wrong.
DJT
Jethro
"Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OhOea.49626$Ke.30...@twister.austin.rr.com...
John Wilkins
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote...
> >
> > Dana,
> >
> > I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
> >
> > You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
> > could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
> > who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
> > of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
> > the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
> > in the US, perpetrated a fraud. And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
> > was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
> > New Age Catholic priest.
So many errors in such a short paragraph...
Haeckel's "fraud" was to overemphasise the similarities between embryos.
He did not deliberately or otherwise add features, nor did he use images
of embryos from other species. It is arguable that all he did was what
was common practice at the time in *all* science, and make a
propaedeutic point by eliminating unnecessary detail.
Huxley (both of them) lived and worked in England. The first Huxley
travelled through Germany more than once, and spent some time visiting,
among others, ED Cope in the US, whose fossils were at the time the most
interesting, particularly of the evolution of horses. But so far as I
know, he was *never* accused of fraud by *anyone*, although he did make
and sustain the claim that *Owen* (the anti-Darwinian ideal
morphologist) had made an error over ape anatomy. Something about a
hippopotamus minor...
We do not know for sure who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud or why. But
to call Teilhard a "new age priest" when he wrote in the 1940s and
1950s, long before "new age" movements began in the late 1960s on is
purest revisionism. He alomst certainly had nothing directly to do with
the fraud. Dawson (a neo-Lamarckian, as it happens) is probably one of
the perpetrators. And as many others have tried to get through McCoy's
hardened steel skull (no shrapnel of an idea can penetrate it), Piltdown
was *ignored* by most anthropologists as suspect anyway, and when taken
seriously it *confused* the evolutionary tree of humanity. American and
French experts seriously doubted the Piltdown until Dawson's last find
of new teeth. They (rightly, as it turned out) thought that the cranium
and jaw were of two different species; they were called the "dualists".
Some, like Marcelle Boule in France and, Ales Hrdlicka, at the
Smithsonian was skeptical even though it supported views they held about
human evolution.
> >
> > As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
> > destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
> > with the main arguments.
> >
> > J McCoy
> >
> >
> >
> > > DJT
>
> You haven't any arguments and people have been trying to communicate
> with you but its apparently like talking to concrete...please review
> the discussion
No. If you hit concrete enough it will make a difference.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
J McCoy
>
>
> >(snip)
>
> > Open up the Encyclopedia Americana and you read that Rome is called
> > the Eternal City that sits on seven hills. The Bible calls hills
> > mountains. This is proved by calling Mt Zion a mountain, when we know
> > it to be a hill.
> >
> > A woman is usually known as the church. Now this woman is called a
> > "whore." And why, because it has been corrupted by assimilating
> > paganism.
>
>
>
> Edinburgh in Scotland also sits on 7 hills, one of which (Castle Hill)
> has the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on it. This is the
> church that John Knox was instrumental in founding. Does this make the
> Moderator of the general Assmebly of the Church of Scotland a bad man?
I should have expected something like this. An skeptic like you comes
along and says, here's one aspect that is replicated somewhere else.
Thinking that he has overthrown the argument, you might as well say
that, well the Soviet Union has a red flag, too. But I guess you're
forgetting something. Purple AND scarlet, and decked with gold and
silver, a woman (symbol of a church) sitting on seven hills (Rome is
called the eternal city that sits on seven hills), and was destroyed,
but revived, and of which contains "my people" that should come out of
her. Also, I should point out, that the church of Rome has had a
bigger role in the affairs of the past, even so that the Roman Empire
became the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope, at one time, welded tremendous
power. This is an indisputable fact.
The Statue depicted in the book of Daniel states that the head
represents the Babylonian Empire. The Arms and chest represent the
Medo-Persian power, that replace Babylon. The next empire is that of
Greece, which is replaced by Rome which, interesting enough, splits
being the two legs. You have the empire in the West and the East. The
feet represent the era since the Rome. That would be Europe having
been fragmented in many pieces. This is represented by the fact that
the feet are made up of clay and iron. This is our era. And the next
thing to happen is for a rock to grow and destroy the entire statue.
This rock is the Kingdom of God.
J McCoy
>
> The Church of Scotland has allowed women ministers since the 1960's.
>
>
> John McCoy, you are a raving loon!
Since you just made a logical mistake (identifying just one point of
similarity and neglecting the rest), are you qualified to make a
condescending statement? I think not.
J McCoy
> steven pirie-shepherd PhD
J McCoy
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message news:<3f355ee.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> > > evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> > > religious or not.
> > >
> > > J McCoy
> >
> > <snip big long regurgiquote>
> >
> > Umm, why is it that you neglected to mention that (1) many
> > evolutionary biologists did not accept Piltdown right from the start,
> [...]
>
> And among those skeptics was none other than Teilhard himself.
> Gould's "Natural History" article was reprinted in _Hen's Teeth and
> Horse's Toes_, pp.201-226, if anyone is interested. On pp. 215-6,
> Gould quoted Teilhard from a 1920 article, "The reasonable attitude is
> to grant primacy to the intrinsic morphological probability over the
> extrinsic probability of geological conditions .... We must suppose
> that the Piltdown skull and jaw belong to two different subjects."
>
> Looks like we've been fed another McWhopper.
This statement says very little. Teilhard covering up?
J McCoy
Dana Tweedy
news:<13036f84.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote in message
news:<3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b583r4$26vfvm$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >
> > >(snip)
> >
> > > Open up the Encyclopedia Americana and you read that Rome is called
> > > the Eternal City that sits on seven hills. The Bible calls hills
> > > mountains. This is proved by calling Mt Zion a mountain, when we know
> > > it to be a hill.
> > >
> > > A woman is usually known as the church. Now this woman is called a
> > > "whore." And why, because it has been corrupted by assimilating
> > > paganism.
> >
> >
> >
> > Edinburgh in Scotland also sits on 7 hills, one of which (Castle Hill)
> > has the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on it. This is the
> > church that John Knox was instrumental in founding. Does this make the
> > Moderator of the general Assmebly of the Church of Scotland a bad man?
>
> I should have expected something like this.
Perhaps you should have expected that it's silly to make ad-hoc
rationalizations to support your prejudices.
> An skeptic like you comes
> along and says, here's one aspect that is replicated somewhere else.
> Thinking that he has overthrown the argument, you might as well say
> that, well the Soviet Union has a red flag, too.
And there are hundreds of other possible interpetations for that passage.
You just happen to like one that allows you to spread your anit-Christian
bigotry. BTW, the flag of Scotland has red on it too.
> But I guess you're
> forgetting something. Purple AND scarlet, and decked with gold and
> silver, a woman (symbol of a church) sitting on seven hills (Rome is
> called the eternal city that sits on seven hills),
The Queen of England is a woman, and she's the head of the Church of
Scotland. Royalty is often cloaked in purple and scarlet, and the scottish
coat of arms has has gold, silver, red and even has a lion! Daniel in the
lions den!!!!
> and was destroyed,
> but revived, and of which contains "my people" that should come out of
> her.
That could be Scotland too. Scotland was "destroyed but revived" Maybe
God likes a good Haggis?
> Also, I should point out, that the church of Rome has had a
> bigger role in the affairs of the past, even so that the Roman Empire
> became the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope, at one time, welded tremendous
> power. This is an indisputable fact.
It's also an indisputable fact that the Queen of England at one time wielded
tremendous power. Scotland and England are part of the "United Kingdom"!
Scotland in the past had more power too!
>
> The Statue depicted in the book of Daniel states that the head
> represents the Babylonian Empire.
Babylonian ---- Caledonian Wow, we have a match!!
> The Arms and chest represent the
> Medo-Persian power, that replace Babylon.
Maybe the arms represent bagpipes?
> The next empire is that of
> Greece, which is replaced by Rome which, interesting enough, splits
> being the two legs.
There you have the Scotsman wearing his Kilt!!
>You have the empire in the West and the East. The
> feet represent the era since the Rome.
or maybe the Highlands vs the Lowlands!!
> That would be Europe having
> been fragmented in many pieces.
Maybe that's the fragmentation of the Scottish Clans during the Jacobean
times!
This is represented by the fact that
> the feet are made up of clay and iron.
Oh, wow, Clay and Iron, Golf clubs are called "Irons", and the first golf
balls were made of clay (maybe, if McCoy can make it up as he goes along, so
can I)
>This is our era. And the next
> thing to happen is for a rock to grow and destroy the entire statue.
> This rock is the Kingdom of God.
No, that's the Stone of Scone, the sacred stone which Kings of Scotland were
crowned on.
> >
> > The Church of Scotland has allowed women ministers since the 1960's.
>
>
> >
> >
> > John McCoy, you are a raving loon!
>
> Since you just made a logical mistake (identifying just one point of
> similarity and neglecting the rest),
He didn't neglect the rest, he just didn't spell it out formally. So the
Whore of Babylon is Nessie! The Loch Ness Monster!!.... I just proved it,
using exactly your "logic"!!
>are you qualified to make a
> condescending statement?
Absolutely he is qualified to make such a statement. You are a raving loon.
> I think not.
I think so.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
.
> > Gould's "Natural History" article was reprinted in _Hen's Teeth and
> > Horse's Toes_, pp.201-226, if anyone is interested. On pp. 215-6,
> > Gould quoted Teilhard from a 1920 article, "The reasonable attitude is
> > to grant primacy to the intrinsic morphological probability over the
> > extrinsic probability of geological conditions .... We must suppose
> > that the Piltdown skull and jaw belong to two different subjects."
> >
> > Looks like we've been fed another McWhopper.
>
> This statement says very little. Teilhard covering up?
No, McCoy going down in flames.
DJT
Seppo Pietikainen
Oh? Since when, exactly, have assertions based on ignorance and
dishonesty mutated to "arguments"?
Seppo P.
John Wilkins
> Neal Eldred <nel...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
Your total lack of ability to read and understand science,English or
logic.
Mike the Vike
> > > Interesting how Pierre Teilhard has written a book on the truth of
> > > evolution. See the extremes that evolutionists go through, be it
> > > religious or not.
> >
The
> > article below exonerates Teilhard from any connection to the Piltdown
hoax.
> > Do you even read the articles you steal?
>
> DJT. I guess you're extremely ignorant. You're accusing me of
> stealing. I guess you don't understand. And I don't care what you have
> to say. I'll quote whatever necessary to prove a point. This is a
> matter of intellectual discussion and debate and all's fair as far as
> fact, neither was the website that had this info. Also, the law
> stipulates that a non-profit organization has the right to use a fair
> amount of public material for educational purposes. I think that I'm
> in that spirit.
>
>
I don't really think you are interested in debating because you refuse to
acknowledge that quote mining deliberately changes the intent of writers to
show that they have grave doubts about the efficacy of the TOE.
As for Piltdown Man - scientists were not allowed to examine the actual
skull to see that it was a forgery.
"But to characterize scientists as arrogant buffoons making claims that
often turn out to be false, and to make a caricature out of science because
it is not infallible and does not arrive at absolutely certain claims,
belies a grave misunderstanding of the nature of science. The buffoons are
those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had; the buffoons are
those who do not understand the value and beauty of probabilities in
science. The arrogant ones are those who think that science is mere
speculation because scientists make errors, even egregious errors, or at
times even commit fraud to push their prejudices. The arrogant ones are
those who can't tell the difference between a testable and an untestable
hypothesis and who think one speculation is as good as another. The buffoons
are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other
pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing.
However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not
all are equally speculative. Furthermore, those creationists who think that
Piltdown demonstrates that scientists can't accurately date bones should
remember that methods of dating such things have greatly improved since
1910.*"
David Jensen
<c2563a5e.03032...@posting.google.com>:
>stwell...@hotmail.com (S. T. Wellington, II) wrote in message news:<80bbb977.03032...@posting.google.com>...
...
>> Hahaha!!!
>> That's so stupid of you! We know the Piltdown man was uncovered by
>> evos! Who else would be dumb enough to think a human skull with an ape
>> jaw was a missing link? What a joke! And using evo dating methods to
>> prove the age of your fake is even better! If carbon dating was
>> accurate, it would show that either piece of the skull was less than
>> 6000 years old. Another evo fraud!
>> >
>> > Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
>> > is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
>> >
>> Try reading the word of JESUS sometime for your answers. Stop
>> listening to the lies of the Adversary! The opening battle has begun
>> but there is still time to save your soul. Give up your athiest lie
>> and find the TRUTH my friend!
>>
>> Simon T Wellington II Proud to be a REAL American
>
>Actually, I believe it was creationists that exposed piltdown for the
>hoax that it was.
Based on your record, I'm willing to bet whatever you like that there
wree no creationists involved in exposing the Piltdown fraud.
David Jensen
<0001HW.BAA0DA5E...@news-central.giganews.com>:
>On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:09:14 -0600, Erik wrote
>(in message <c2563a5e.03032...@posting.google.com>):
>
>> Actually, I believe it was creationists that exposed piltdown for the
>> hoax that it was.
>>
>> FYI.
>>
>> Erik
>
><http://140.232.1.5/~piltdown/map_expose/pilt_man_RiseAndFall.html>
>
>Esp. the section entitled: "BEGINNING OF THE END", about 70% down the
>webpage.
Of Le Gros Clark, Oakley, and Weiner, which does Erik think is a
creationist?
gen2rev
Of course, this "prophecy" ignores all of the empires since the fall of
Rome and the modern day.
> J McCoy
>
> >
> > The Church of Scotland has allowed women ministers since the 1960's.
>
> >
> >
> > John McCoy, you are a raving loon!
>
> Since you just made a logical mistake (identifying just one point of
> similarity and neglecting the rest), are you qualified to make a
> condescending statement? I think not.
Pot, kettle, black.
catshark
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Jerry Freedman <edi...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
>> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote...
[snip]
>Huxley (both of them) lived and worked in England. The first Huxley
>travelled through Germany more than once, and spent some time visiting,
>among others, ED Cope in the US, whose fossils were at the time the most
>interesting, particularly of the evolution of horses. But so far as I
>know, he was *never* accused of fraud by *anyone*, although he did make
>and sustain the claim that *Owen* (the anti-Darwinian ideal
>morphologist) had made an error over ape anatomy. Something about a
>hippopotamus minor...
You shouldn't make jokes like this in a McCoy thread. No fair further
misleading the clueless.
[ . . . ]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
J McCoy
> Jerry Freedman <edi...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote...
> > >
> > > Dana,
> > >
> > > I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
> > >
> > > You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
> > > could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
> > > who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
> > > of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
> > > the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
> > > in the US, perpetrated a fraud. And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
> > > was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
> > > New Age Catholic priest.
>
> So many errors in such a short paragraph...
>
> Haeckel's "fraud" was to overemphasise the similarities between embryos.
> He did not deliberately or otherwise add features, nor did he use images
> of embryos from other species. It is arguable that all he did was what
> was common practice at the time in *all* science, and make a
> propaedeutic point by eliminating unnecessary detail.
All he really did was upset the scientific community of the time,
which clearly refutes your "common practice" theory. It wasn't common
practice.
>
> Huxley (both of them) lived and worked in England. The first Huxley
> travelled through Germany more than once, and spent some time visiting,
> among others, ED Cope in the US, whose fossils were at the time the most
> interesting, particularly of the evolution of horses. But so far as I
> know, he was *never* accused of fraud by *anyone*, although he did make
> and sustain the claim that *Owen* (the anti-Darwinian ideal
> morphologist) had made an error over ape anatomy. Something about a
> hippopotamus minor...
>
> We do not know for sure who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud or why. But
> to call Teilhard a "new age priest" when he wrote in the 1940s and
> 1950s, long before "new age" movements began in the late 1960s on is
> purest revisionism.
Actually, the New Age movement goes way back. Some of the early
writings are by Alice Bailey.
He alomst certainly had nothing directly to do with
> the fraud. Dawson (a neo-Lamarckian, as it happens) is probably one of
> the perpetrators. And as many others have tried to get through McCoy's
> hardened steel skull (no shrapnel of an idea can penetrate it), Piltdown
> was *ignored* by most anthropologists as suspect anyway, and when taken
> seriously it *confused* the evolutionary tree of humanity.
When I've asked some to prove this point that "most anthropologists
ignored Piltdown Man, you've ignored that. Now, it doesn't take a
licking to keep on ticking. So provide the evidence. I can't accept
everything you've written as proof positive of everything. You were
wrong on the New Age and Haeckel, so you could be wrong on this. Two
strikes so far.
American and
> French experts seriously doubted the Piltdown until Dawson's last find
> of new teeth. They (rightly, as it turned out) thought that the cranium
> and jaw were of two different species; they were called the "dualists".
> Some, like Marcelle Boule in France and, Ales Hrdlicka, at the
> Smithsonian was skeptical even though it supported views they held about
> human evolution.
So you've admitted that some experts came to believe in Piltdown when
some new teeth were found.
> > >
> > > As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
> > > destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
> > > with the main arguments.
> > >
> > > J McCoy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > DJT
> >
> > You haven't any arguments and people have been trying to communicate
> > with you but its apparently like talking to concrete...please review
> > the discussion
>
> No. If you hit concrete enough it will make a difference.
Two arguments that you had made were found to be wrong. The last was
an admission of belief in Piltdown Man with some doubts toward minor
matters.
J McCoy
AC
He's been asked to provide a citation. I wonder where he is?
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
catshark
wrote:
>john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1fs86gv.1tg2nj1ti3lq6N%john.w...@bigpond.com>...
>> Jerry Freedman <edi...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
>> > > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote...
>> > >
>> > > Dana,
>> > >
>> > > I think you know better and I think you know that you're doing wrong.
>> > >
>> > > You keep focusing on me rather than deal with the debate on hand. I
>> > > could care less about what you think about where I got my sources and
>> > > who I quote from. I gave proper attribution so give it up. The subject
>> > > of this post is not about me. It's about the Piltdown Fraud.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm sorry for you and your predecessors who told us that evolution was
>> > > the right theory. Your evangelists, Haeckel (In Germany), and Huxley
>> > > in the US, perpetrated a fraud. And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
>> > > was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think a well known
>> > > New Age Catholic priest.
>>
>> So many errors in such a short paragraph...
>>
>> Haeckel's "fraud" was to overemphasise the similarities between embryos.
>> He did not deliberately or otherwise add features, nor did he use images
>> of embryos from other species. It is arguable that all he did was what
>> was common practice at the time in *all* science, and make a
>> propaedeutic point by eliminating unnecessary detail.
>
>All he really did was upset the scientific community of the time,
>which clearly refutes your "common practice" theory. It wasn't common
>practice.
What "theory" are you talking about? All John did was suggest that
scientific illustration, before cameras were well suited to do such
work, probably emphasised the trait being illustrated over other
details that could be drawn. Unfortunately, Haeckel went beyond that.
But, if others (I know better than to suggest that *you* read
anything) would like a more complete story of that unfortunate
incident than you'll get in creationist screeds, I recommend this
article by Stephen Jay Gould:
<http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1134/2_109/60026710/p1/article.jhtml?term=>
>>
>> Huxley (both of them) lived and worked in England. The first Huxley
>> travelled through Germany more than once, and spent some time visiting,
>> among others, ED Cope in the US, whose fossils were at the time the most
>> interesting, particularly of the evolution of horses. But so far as I
>> know, he was *never* accused of fraud by *anyone*, although he did make
>> and sustain the claim that *Owen* (the anti-Darwinian ideal
>> morphologist) had made an error over ape anatomy. Something about a
>> hippopotamus minor...
>>
>> We do not know for sure who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud or why. But
>> to call Teilhard a "new age priest" when he wrote in the 1940s and
>> 1950s, long before "new age" movements began in the late 1960s on is
>> purest revisionism.
>
>Actually, the New Age movement goes way back. Some of the early
>writings are by Alice Bailey.
<Shrug> There ain't nothin' new under the sun. There are many roots
of the New Age movement, which itself can be said to be ancient
(although, when the phrase is used today, it generally refers to the
revival of certain spiritual, religious and magical traditions in the
1960's). See, for example:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/newage3.html>
It is not particularly fair to call Teilhard a "New Age priest",
simply because people came along afterwards and included his religious
works as part of a different belief system.
>He alomst certainly had nothing directly to do with
>> the fraud. Dawson (a neo-Lamarckian, as it happens) is probably one of
>> the perpetrators. And as many others have tried to get through McCoy's
>> hardened steel skull (no shrapnel of an idea can penetrate it), Piltdown
>> was *ignored* by most anthropologists as suspect anyway, and when taken
>> seriously it *confused* the evolutionary tree of humanity.
>
>When I've asked some to prove this point that "most anthropologists
>ignored Piltdown Man, you've ignored that. Now, it doesn't take a
>licking to keep on ticking. So provide the evidence.
"At the time of the Piltdown finds, there were very few early human
fossils. It was accepted that there was a missing link between ape and
man. Nobody knew exactly what it would look like. So the mix of
features found at Piltdown were not entirely unexpected. However
during the 1920's and 30's there were other finds in different parts
of the world which meant that the authenticity of the Piltdown Man was
again brought into question. Between the 1930's and 1950's the
Piltdown Man was largely ignored. The American Museum of Natural
History classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/piltdown_1.shtml
>I can't accept
>everything you've written as proof positive of everything. You were
>wrong on the New Age and Haeckel, so you could be wrong on this. Two
>strikes so far.
The irony of this is, of course, spectacular. On the one hand, you
complain "Trying to destroy me [by pointing out how bad your record
here is] isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt with
the main arguments" and, yet, here you are making a claim that,
because [you *assert*] John was wrong in two instances, you don't have
to credit his arguments this time. Make up your mind. If you won't
accept what John writes because he was "wrong" before, then we can
certainly apply the same rule and point out to all and sundry that
*you* should be ignored because of your *legion* of past errors and
outright dishonesties.
> American and
>> French experts seriously doubted the Piltdown until Dawson's last find
>> of new teeth. They (rightly, as it turned out) thought that the cranium
>> and jaw were of two different species; they were called the "dualists".
>> Some, like Marcelle Boule in France and, Ales Hrdlicka, at the
>> Smithsonian was skeptical even though it supported views they held about
>> human evolution.
>
>So you've admitted that some experts came to believe in Piltdown when
>some new teeth were found.
Well, DUH! More evidence convinces *some* additional people! Stop
the presses!
>> > >
>> > > As to whether you like that or not is besides the case. Trying to
>> > > destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still haven't dealt
>> > > with the main arguments.
>> > >
>> > > J McCoy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > DJT
>> >
>> > You haven't any arguments and people have been trying to communicate
>> > with you but its apparently like talking to concrete...please review
>> > the discussion
>>
>> No. If you hit concrete enough it will make a difference.
>
>
>Two arguments that you had made were found to be wrong.
Trying to turn irony meters into Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>The last was
>an admission of belief in Piltdown Man with some doubts toward minor
>matters.
Yeah, "minor matters" . . . such as: that it wasn't a single
individual but an ape's jaw and a human skull!
>
>J McCoy
To quote the great B. Bunny (in context):
"Whatta maroon!"
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein -
Alan Barclay
The flag of Scotland is a white diagonal cross on a sky blue background.
You could be thinking of the Royal banner of Scotland, which is a red lion
rampart on a yellow background. This is the monarchs personal flag, as
distinct from the country.
J McCoy
DJT, your theories have one achille's hill. England wasn't a major
power that held sway over all the lands of Europe. We know very well
that Europe has been and is divided by different countries. Sure,
England had lot's of power, but comparably less than the power held by
Rome. Same with Scottland. Also, as a direct linnage, the Vatican is
linked to Rome, neither were Scotland or England. And neither do these
countries feature purple and scarlet as their major colors. England
has red and blue, I belive, on their flags. The golden cup that you've
neglected to mention is primary used in the Catholic worship. Even
catholicism held sway, for a time, over the nations that you've
mentioned. And you've forgotten or inadvertantly overlooked, the fact
that Roman came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. And it did
divide into two, just as Daniel's prophecy said it would. This is
represented by the statue.
Babylon - The head
Medo Persian empire - The two arms and chest
Greeks - the abdomen
Rome, the trunks dividing into the eastern and western portions.
Modern day fragmented Europe - the two feet which consist of iron and
clay that meld them together.
The modern day period represents the last days. Soon a new Kingdom
will be established.
Note that the feet aptly discribe the conditon of Europe to this day.
There is no monolithic control over all the countries there. And their
solidarity is a mixture. The European union is not as strong as
previous nations that ruled the territory, and democracy is part of
the mix.
J McCoy
>
> DJT
J McCoy
Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
quotations themselves. The more power to me.
You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
other evolutionist has done.
If a quotation is used, you:
1. Accuse of taking out of context
2. Plagiarizing
But you don't answer the real questions.
You never:
1. prove these to be out of context.
2. deal with the fact that a evolutionist has admitted a portion of
evolution to be fraudulent, hence the quotation.
J McCoy
Pip R. Lagenta
<maureen...@nospam.alberni.net> wrote:
>In article <89vo7vkbpskocodbd...@4ax.com>, David Jensen wrote:
>> In talk.origins, nilger...@hotmail.com (Erik) wrote in
>><c2563a5e.03032...@posting.google.com>:
>>>stwell...@hotmail.com (S. T. Wellington, II) wrote in message news:<80bbb977.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>>>> That's so stupid of you! We know the Piltdown man was uncovered by
>>>> evos! Who else would be dumb enough to think a human skull with an ape
>>>> jaw was a missing link? What a joke! And using evo dating methods to
>>>> prove the age of your fake is even better! If carbon dating was
>>>> accurate, it would show that either piece of the skull was less than
>>>> 6000 years old. Another evo fraud!
>>>> > Oh, and why won't you tell me what the scientific theory of creation
>>>> > is, and how we can test it using the scientific method.
>>>> Try reading the word of JESUS sometime for your answers. Stop
>>>> listening to the lies of the Adversary! The opening battle has begun
>>>> but there is still time to save your soul. Give up your athiest lie
>>>> and find the TRUTH my friend!
>>>> Simon T Wellington II Proud to be a REAL American
>>>Actually, I believe it was creationists that exposed piltdown for the
>>>hoax that it was.
>>
>> Based on your record, I'm willing to bet whatever you like that there
>> wree no creationists involved in exposing the Piltdown fraud.
>
>He's been asked to provide a citation. I wonder where he is?
Given this:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:05:58 +0000 (UTC), Gray Shockley
<gra...@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
><http://140.232.1.5/~piltdown/map_expose/pilt_man_RiseAndFall.html>
>Esp. the section entitled: "BEGINNING OF THE END", about 70% down the
>webpage.
I would say that David Jensen won his bet. But then, as we all knew,
David was betting on a *sure* thing. There's little challenge in
that.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
Robin Levett
news:0001HW.BAA12278...@news-central.giganews.c
om...
...or maybe even Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley?
> > And Piltdown, too, was a fraud. It
> > was perpetrated by Dawson and associates, and some think
a well known
> > New Age Catholic priest.
> >
> > As to whether you like that or not is besides the case.
Trying to
> > destroy me isn't going to do a fig, because you still
haven't dealt
> > with the main arguments.
> >
I'm sure that when you choose to put some arguments, they'll
be dealt with. At present, all you seem to be doing is
arguing ad hominem; you're claiming that many
"evolutionists" committed fraud, therefore evolution itself
is a fraud.
Perhaps at some point you'll engage the arguments yourself?
--
____________________________________________________________
____
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b5gqsd$29j763$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> DJT, your theories have one achille's hill.
LOL! Only ONE??? My "theories" were just a load off the cuff nonsense,
just like yours. The point is that you can "fulfill" that prophecy by any
made up collection of errant foolishness. It doesn't matter what country,
person, or religious belieif you plug in, it's nonsense.
> England wasn't a major
> power that held sway over all the lands of Europe. We know very well
> that Europe has been and is divided by different countries. Sure,
> England had lot's of power, but comparably less than the power held by
> Rome. Same with Scottland. Also, as a direct linnage, the Vatican is
> linked to Rome, neither were Scotland or England. And neither do these
> countries feature purple and scarlet as their major colors. England
> has red and blue, I belive, on their flags. The golden cup that you've
> neglected to mention is primary used in the Catholic worship. Even
> catholicism held sway, for a time, over the nations that you've
> mentioned. And you've forgotten or inadvertantly overlooked, the fact
> that Roman came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. And it did
> divide into two, just as Daniel's prophecy said it would. This is
> represented by the statue.
There is no more reason to suspect that the prophecy refers to Rome, any
more than Scotland, Paraguay, or Outer Mongolia.
>
> Babylon - The head
or maybe the head is Cleveland.
> Medo Persian empire - The two arms and chest
Might as well refer to The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, with
Chicago being the "chest".
> Greeks - the abdomen
Gotta be Arkansas.
> Rome, the trunks dividing into the eastern and western portions.
North and South Dakota.
> Modern day fragmented Europe - the two feet which consist of iron and
> clay that meld them together.
Modern Day New Jersey, fragmented into counties.
>
> The modern day period represents the last days. Soon a new Kingdom
> will be established.
Maybe that refers to Kings Dominion, a theme park in Virginia.
>
> Note that the feet aptly discribe the conditon of Europe to this day.
Note they can just as "aptly" describe anything one wants.
> There is no monolithic control over all the countries there. And their
> solidarity is a mixture. The European union is not as strong as
> previous nations that ruled the territory, and democracy is part of
> the mix.
So, where did you steal this "interpetation"? I admit it's goofy enough to
be one of yours.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
snipping
Again, you ignore what I wrote, why is that? What do you fear?
>
> Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
> and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> quotations themselves. The more power to me.
Actually there is no need for me to "deal with the quotations". It's
already been well established that the quotes you stole from the other site
were taken out of context, and do not mean what you want them to. My point
is to show that by stealing the quotes in the first place, lying about where
they came from, and then trying to excuse your stealing and lying by
claiming "the ends justify the means" , you are behaving in a dishonest and
unChristian manner. That the quotes are themsevles lies is another matter
entirely.
>
> You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> other evolutionist has done.
Again, there is no need to "choke off the pipeline of quotations". The
quotations are falsehoods. Lies of omission. I leave it to others to
demostrate how those quotes are dishonest. I am content to show that you
are dishonest in how you use them.
>
> If a quotation is used, you:
>
> 1. Accuse of taking out of context
It's been amply shown by several posters that those quotes are indeed taken
out of context.
> 2. Plagiarizing
Stealing another person's words without attribution is plagurizing. You
quoted from "Anointed one"'s site without making proper attribution.
Futhermore you implied that you made photocopies of the original sources.
That is another falsehood.
>
>
> But you don't answer the real questions.
You never presented any "real questions". You cut and pasted a bunch of
misquotes and lies of omission. You didn't present any real questions that
required an answer.
>
> You never:
>
> 1. prove these to be out of context.
That has already been done, by several posters. Why should I re-invent the
wheel?
> 2. deal with the fact that a evolutionist has admitted a portion of
> evolution to be fraudulent, hence the quotation.
Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning.
The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations was NOT admitting that "a portion
of evolution" was "fraudulent". That is the whole point of a "lie of
omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and
clarifies the person's position. Those quotes you stole are classic lies
of omission. They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood.
This is beside the point that your use of them was at best dishonest, and at
worst despicable.
DJT
MalumRegnat
| power that held sway over all the lands of Europe.
I've got news for you, Rome never held sway over *all* the lands of Europe
either.
--
Carpe noctem.
Malum Regnat
"If it were done when 'tis done,
then 'twere well It were done quickly"-
Macbeth
catshark
<twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
>news:3f355ee.03032...@posting.google.com...
>> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
>news:<b5gqsd$29j763$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
[snip]
>There is no more reason to suspect that the prophecy refers to Rome, any
>more than Scotland, Paraguay, or Outer Mongolia.
>
>>
>> Babylon - The head
>
>or maybe the head is Cleveland.
There is a Babylon right here on Long Island, New York . . .
>> Medo Persian empire - The two arms and chest
>
>Might as well refer to The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, with
>Chicago being the "chest".
There is a Persia, New York, too . . .
>> Greeks - the abdomen
>
>Gotta be Arkansas.
Athens, New York . . .
>
>> Rome, the trunks dividing into the eastern and western portions.
>
>North and South Dakota.
Nope . . . Rome, New York as well . . .
>
>> Modern day fragmented Europe - the two feet which consist of iron and
>> clay that meld them together.
>
>Modern Day New Jersey, fragmented into counties.
Anybody who knows the New York State legislature and governor's office
knows it is the most fragmented organization that can exist and still
be called (laughingly) a "government" . . .
>
>>
>> The modern day period represents the last days. Soon a new Kingdom
>> will be established.
>
>Maybe that refers to Kings Dominion, a theme park in Virginia.
Anything new happens in New York first.
And we had the apocalypse thingie already . . .
Face it! If anybody is gonna claim the title of the Whore of Babylon,
it is gonna be New York City.
Besides, who else would be proud to have the title?
[snip]
>
>So, where did you steal this "interpetation"? I admit it's goofy enough to
>be one of yours.
But not necessarily the goofiest . . .
http://www.schoolofprophecy.com/struggle_world_domination.html
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
EVANGELIST, n.
A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as
assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.
- Ambrose Bierce -
John Wilkins
I think it is worth observing too that not only were these quotes taken
carefully out of context, but that they *must* have been *deliberately*
done so. After reading a large number of these quotes in the original
publications, and further reading other folks' unearthing of the context
of those I could not find there is no way these could have been taken
accidentally or in ignorance out of the context.
Several of them turn out to be railing against creationists. More than a
few turn out to be making the exact opposite point and at least one was
reporting secondarily on the ideas of others in order to rebut them.
Once is a mitake, twice is carelessness, three times could be stupidity,
but the sheer volume of these is a deliberately planned campaign of
disinformation.
Add to this McShameless' claim to "have kept photocopies" of the
original sources and he comes out, unsurprisingly, a total liar, but
underlying *him* is this campaign of lies worthy of the Soviets or
Nazis.
And these guys are justifying this on the grounds that to do so will
lead us infidels to the Lord of Truth ... someone once said that you
will know them by the fruit they bear. It is clear that this is a
campaign designed to attract the ignorant to the Lord of Lies instead.
Joe Cummings
Never enjoyed a posting as much for ages.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
>
>>
>> DJT
Forest Ghost
J McCoy wrote:
>
>
> Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
> and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> quotations themselves. The more power to me.
>
> You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> other evolutionist has done.
>
> If a quotation is used, you:
>
> 1. Accuse of taking out of context
> 2. Plagiarizing
>
> But you don't answer the real questions.
>
> You never:
>
> 1. prove these to be out of context.
> 2. deal with the fact that a evolutionist has admitted a portion of
> evolution to be fraudulent, hence the quotation.
>
> J McCoy
Are you still ranting about that, Beelzebub? Good for you! Since
everybody reading this group knows that you were caught in a massive
fraud and yet you continue to pretend like it never happened, all you
manage to do now is further prove that creationism is a lie. Keep up the
good work, oh demon prince. :)
-Forest Ghost
engelsman
<snip>
> Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
> and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> quotations themselves.
We have an archive of 85 quotes you provided which are shown to be out
of context. You have failed in responding to any of this.
> The more power to me.
Actually, less and less each time. I wouldn't expect your fellow
creationists to be happy about you being their spokesperson.
> You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> other evolutionist has done.
'the pipeline of quotation'... only a child...
> If a quotation is used, you:
>
> 1. Accuse of taking out of context
> 2. Plagiarizing
85 accounts are there to back up this logical assumption. You are a
proven liar.
boikat
"engelsman" <bat...@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e7ddac6$0$49106$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> J McCoy wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> > focusing on where my quotations come from,
To put them in their proper context, McClueless.
> > the validity of using them,
In context, or out of context?
> > and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> > quotations themselves.
How can putting the quotes in their proper context be construed as "not
dealing with the actual quotes themselves"? Boy are you lame.
>
> We have an archive of 85 quotes you provided which are shown to be out
> of context. You have failed in responding to any of this.
>
> > The more power to me.
G'faw!
>
> Actually, less and less each time. I wouldn't expect your fellow
> creationists to be happy about you being their spokesperson.
>
> > You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> > other evolutionist has done.
You mean by putting them in their proper context? How shocking.
>
> 'the pipeline of quotation'... only a child...
>
> > If a quotation is used, you:
> >
> > 1. Accuse of taking out of context
Are you implying that proper context of a quote is not important?
> > 2. Plagiarizing
You posted a whole glob of out of context quotes as if you were the one who
actually did the quote mining. It turned out you copy and pasted from
someone elses work, and posted without citing the source that you copied
from. That is plagiarizing.
>
> 85 accounts are there to back up this logical assumption. You are a
> proven liar.
>
Boikat
--
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
go ahead and cheat a friend,
do it in the name of Heaven,
you can justify it in the end.
There wont be any trumpets blowing,
come the judgement day.
On the bloody morning after,
One Tin Soldier rides away.
-- "One Tin Soldier"
Robin Levett
If by "Rome" here you mean the HRE, you're wrong. For a
large part of its life, the HRE consisted solely of most of
Germany.
> Same with Scottland. Also, as a direct linnage, the
Vatican is
> linked to Rome,
....but not the HRE...
> neither were Scotland or England. And neither do these
> countries feature purple and scarlet as their major
colors.
....and nor did the HRE - the Emperor's arms were a
double-headed eagle or on a field sable (a gold eagle on a
black background).
> England
> has red and blue, I belive, on their flags. The golden cup
that you've
> neglected to mention is primary used in the Catholic
worship. Even
> catholicism held sway, for a time, over the nations that
you've
> mentioned. And you've forgotten or inadvertantly
overlooked, the fact
> that Roman came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire.
Errmm, no. The HRE was a German (in fact Frankish) empire,
a successor state to the Western half of _Charlemagne's_
empire. The HRE didn't exist until 962AD.
And the Pope did not rule the HRE; the Emperor did, and he
was elected by the German electors. The Pope and the
Emperor rarely saw eye to eye, and eventually the Pope
wasn't even required to crown the Emperor.
> And it did
> divide into two,
Well, the HRE didn't; it was eventually dissolved (in1806),
but it was never divided into two entities.
> just as Daniel's prophecy said it would. This is
> represented by the statue.
>
> Babylon - The head
> Medo Persian empire - The two arms and chest
> Greeks - the abdomen
> Rome, the trunks dividing into the eastern and western
portions.
> Modern day fragmented Europe - the two feet which consist
of iron and
> clay that meld them together.
>
> The modern day period represents the last days. Soon a new
Kingdom
> will be established.
>
> Note that the feet aptly discribe the conditon of Europe
to this day.
> There is no monolithic control over all the countries
there. And their
> solidarity is a mixture. The European union is not as
strong as
> previous nations that ruled the territory, and democracy
is part of
> the mix.
gen2rev
>
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b5gqsd$29j763$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
[snip]
> DJT, your theories have one achille's hill. England wasn't a major
> power that held sway over all the lands of Europe. We know very well
> that Europe has been and is divided by different countries. Sure,
> England had lot's of power, but comparably less than the power held by
> Rome. Same with Scottland. Also, as a direct linnage, the Vatican is
> linked to Rome, neither were Scotland or England. And neither do these
> countries feature purple and scarlet as their major colors. England
> has red and blue, I belive, on their flags. The golden cup that you've
> neglected to mention is primary used in the Catholic worship. Even
> catholicism held sway, for a time, over the nations that you've
> mentioned. And you've forgotten or inadvertantly overlooked, the fact
> that Roman came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. And it did
> divide into two, just as Daniel's prophecy said it would. This is
> represented by the statue.
>
> Babylon - The head
> Medo Persian empire - The two arms and chest
> Greeks - the abdomen
> Rome, the trunks dividing into the eastern and western portions.
> Modern day fragmented Europe - the two feet which consist of iron and
> clay that meld them together.
Nope, sorry, the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay represents the
Seleucid Empire.
> The modern day period represents the last days. Soon a new Kingdom
> will be established.
>
> Note that the feet aptly discribe the conditon of Europe to this day.
> There is no monolithic control over all the countries there. And their
> solidarity is a mixture. The European union is not as strong as
> previous nations that ruled the territory, and democracy is part of
> the mix.
There's no reason to link the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation.
> J McCoy
>
>
> >
> > DJT
gen2rev
[snip]
> Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
> and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> quotations themselves. The more power to me.
>
> You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> other evolutionist has done.
>
> If a quotation is used, you:
>
> 1. Accuse of taking out of context
> 2. Plagiarizing
>
> But you don't answer the real questions.
>
> You never:
>
> 1. prove these to be out of context.
> 2. deal with the fact that a evolutionist has admitted a portion of
> evolution to be fraudulent, hence the quotation.
For at least the third time, how about this?
============[Start Repost]==================
> "Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their
> fossils as they pursued them up through
> the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain
> recognizably the same throughout the length of their
> occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long
> before Darwin published his Origin.
> Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of
> paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent
> search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research
> later, it has become abundantly clear that
> the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions.
> Nor is the problem a miserably poor record.
> The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The
> observation that species are amazingly
> conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has
> all the qualities of the emperor's new
> clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists,
> faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately
> refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other
> way."
> (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982,
> p. 45-46)
In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall are discussing the
merits of gradualism, something the quote miner has left out, as we
can see:
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete
at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes
from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the
expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through
the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical
specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested
that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were
tremendously conservative throughout their histories.
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same
throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record
had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published
his *Origin*. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the
fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual
change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve
his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was
too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns
of change. He prophesied that future generations of
paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and
then his major thesis – that evolutionary change is gradual and
progressive – would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years
of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear
that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's
predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The
fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and
static entities throughout long periods of time has all the
qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but
preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a
recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's
predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than
challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory,
paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological
colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much
beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis
that life had evolved.
Note the claim that the fossil record supports evolution.
[snip]
> "The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:
> the gaps we see reflect real events in
> life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record. The fossil
> record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation
> of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths
> of Human Evolution Columbia University
> Press, 1982, p. 57)
This quote doesn't appear on page 57, but on page 59. Out of
curiosity, I googled a phrase in the passage, and came up with several
hits, some with the right page number, and a few that claimed that the
passage appeared on page 57:
Right page number (59):
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/cambrian.html
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/Discontinuties.html
http://www.eburgcofc.org/atheism.html
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkent595/Macroevolution1.html
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkent595/Macronotes.html
Wrong page number (57):
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/fossquotes.htm
http://www.ideacenter.org/fossquotes.htm
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html
It may even be possible to construct a phylogeny for this quote, since
there are variations in puncuation between the different webpages, as
well as an interesting situation that I'll outline below, but I'll
leave that to more interested parties. And this page number gaffe
demonstrates once again that McCoy didn't look up these quotes himself
(lest there be any doubt).
But on with the quote:
One striking aspect of these extinction/rebound episodes in
life's history is the extraordinary rapidity with which they
occur. The Cretaceous extinction about 65 million years ago,
which took away the last of the dinosaurs, and perhaps as much
as 90 percent of all the other forms of Cretaceous life, took
place within the span of a million years. Now, a million years
is certainly a long period of time by some standards, but it is
an eyeblink in geologic history. Events occurring within less
than a million years' time can create patterns of abrupt change
in the fossil record: in many places around the world, fossils
can be traced up into the highest layers of Cretaceous rocks
when, all of a sudden, they just disappear. And the rocks
immediately above preserve representatives of the initial
repopulation, life's rebound after the collapse. The record
jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the
gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the
artifact of a poor fossil record.
From this more complete quote we can see that Eldredge and Tattersall
aren't discussing the lack of transtional fossils, but extinction
events. And after all, there's no reason to expect transitional
creatures that were never born because their "ancestors to be" went
extinct.
But what about the final sentence in the initially posted quotation?
The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation
of finely graded change.
Where does it come from? It's on page 163!
We have already argued that that the fossil record flatly fails
to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change. So
too, says Teggart, does the historical sequence of human events.
A gap of over a hundred pages between sentences is inexcusable, and
not indicating the gap with ellipses is even worse. Interestingly, two
webpages, at http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm and
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/ORIGINS/QUOTES/Discontinuties.html
have both quotes one after another, and cite their proper respective
pages. Did a quote miner (possibly
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mkent595/Macroevolution1.html ) string
them together accidentally? Did they do it on purpose? The level of
integrity and scholarship is mind boggling.
============[End Repost]==================
Of course, Shameless will ignore this as well.
> J McCoy