1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    26 Apr '14 07:17
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Just one. Just one example of a piece of evidence that is used to support evolution, and is
    used by scientists as a fact, when in fact it's been shown to be false.
    Neanderthal Man: Hoaxes & Frauds

    YouTube

    All Caveman Finds Have Been Proven to be Wrong or Hoaxes!

    YouTube

    However, fake drawings and such are still presented to the public as the missing links needed to prove the evolution on man.

    Now if you want to forget about man and convince me that DNA, protein machines, and other things about the cell came about by evolution, then go to it. However, don't mix this so-called microevolution with macroevolution to try to confuse the issue.
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    26 Apr '14 10:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Neanderthal Man: Hoaxes & Frauds

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqZfsrOYdzQ

    All Caveman Finds Have Been Proven to be Wrong or Hoaxes!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97HHHjUnfEw

    However, fake drawings and such are still presented to the public as the missing links needed to prove the evolution on man.

    Now if you want to forget about man and c ...[text shortened]... owever, don't mix this so-called microevolution with macroevolution to try to confuse the issue.
    The neanderthal man is not a hoax. There are I believe in the vicinity of 400 very real fossils
    to support that. It's true that it's difficult to determine exactly where to place neanderthals
    in the evolutionary tree (homo sapiens neanderthalis or homo neanderthalis - though
    recent discoveries point to the former, I'd say - in other words, they're not considered an
    intermediary between man and ape, but a not too distant cousin - like the difference
    between bonobo and chimpanzee), but that in no way proves evolutionary theory wrong,
    nor does it imply that scientists who deal with this sort of thing are tricksters. You may
    wish to choose your words more carefully.

    As for every cave man ever found being a hoax, I just can't be arsed to look at these videos.
    Just give me one example (it should be easy if they're all hoaxes), and explain to us why it's
    a hoax.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    26 Apr '14 12:11
    Originally posted by C Hess
    The neanderthal man is not a hoax. There are I believe in the vicinity of 400 very real fossils
    to support that. It's true that it's difficult to determine exactly where to place neanderthals
    in the evolutionary tree (homo sapiens neanderthalis or homo neanderthalis - though
    recent discoveries point to the former, I'd say - in other words, they're not c ...[text shortened]... e me one example (it should be easy if they're all hoaxes), and explain to us why it's
    a hoax.
    Talking to you is like taliking to a Neanderthal man you are so backward. The number of fossils does not mean anything, they were still proven to be just people like us with bone disease. I know that evolutionists continue to claim that the Neanderthal is different from any modern man even after that has been proven false.

    In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. They discovered limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. These bones were examined by scientists in various parts of the world. An ardent evolutionist, T.H. Huxley, ruled this specimen out as an ape-to-man link. A German anatomist, Rudolph Virchow, said in essence that the fossil was the remains of modern man (Homo sapiens) afflicted with rickets and arthritis.

    There are now over one hundred specimens of Neanderthal Man. A paleontologist named Boule reconstructed a set of Neanderthal bones into a very ape-like creature but was severely criticized for this by other evolutionists who noted that the fossil represented Homo sapiens, or modern man, deformed by arthritis.

    The appearance of these specimens ranges from the classical Neanderthal of Western Europe to the more modern type which shades into Homo sapiens. The more primitive classic type has a large cranium about the size of modern man's but with a tendency to be flattened on the top side and to bulge more at the back and the sides. A bony prominence at the back of the skull marks the attachment of the spinal muscles and is referred to as the "Neanderthal bun." The forehead is marked by a massive supraorbital ridge.

    Ivanhoe, writing in the scientific journal, Nature, in 1970, titled his article as follows: "Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?" Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal Man's apelike appearance was due to a disease called rickets. He notes that every Neanderthal child's skull studied so far was apparently affected by severe rickets.

    When rickets occurs in children it produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphyses and fontanels. The forehead is high and bulbous, the "Olympian front." The skull bulges at the four corners giving the "caput quadratum" appearance and the teeth are characteristically bad. These features approach those of the classic Neanderthal skull. Large orbits (eye sockets), elliptical in the vertical dimension, are another feature of rickets seen in the Neanderthal children’s skulls and are taught as a simian (ape) characteristic of fossil skulls.

    Ivanhoe goes on to make a very good case for the correctness of Virchow's assumption that Neanderthal was merely modern man with rickets. Being a staunch evolutionist, however, he doesn't perceive this amazing thesis as any support of creation vs. evolution. He further notes the wide distribution of Neanderthal finds in various parts of the world and different climates. He feels that the more classic types of Neanderthal bones merely reflected the increased degree of bone changes from rickets in areas where sunshine is less available.

    Rickets is related to a relative shortage of Vitamin D which is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to light. Vitamin D is also found in certain fatty fishes and in eggs, among other things. Ivanhoe felt that Neanderthal had little exposure to the sun because of the cold weather, increased atmospheric turbulence, and rain in some of the areas where specimens were found. Mousterian sites of Neanderthal showed little evidence of fish consumption and eggs were thought to be rare. The corresponding condition which occurs in adults from lack of Vitamin D is osteomalacia or softening of the bone. Softening leads to bowing of long bones, and bowing of these bones is seen in both adults and children among the Neanderthal fossils. Both rickets and osteomalacia represent the lack of mineral salts in the protein matrix of bone, causing this relative lack of sturdiness of bone with resultant deformities. There are many causes of these conditions, including defects of nutrition in babies, and certain types of kidney disease.

    It is possible that some of the changes that occur in fossil bones are attributable to a condition called Paget's Disease or Osteitis Deformans. This occurs most often between fifty and seventy years of age and can involve one or many bones. Hereditary and familial factors are known to play a role in Paget's Disease in some cases. It is not known exactly what causes Paget's, but it has been clearly shown that there is a greatly increased blood flow. This blood flow in pagetoid bones may be twenty times that of the normal rate. Common sites include long bones of the lower extremity and the spine and less often the bones of the upper extremity. The bones become thickened, softer and often curved.

    Thomas Fairbanks reported on Paget's Disease in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in May, 1950. He noted that when advanced cases involve many bones, the individual may assume a crouching "simian" posture. Even the hips assume a more ape-like angle of the femoral neck to the shaft as in the non-upright walkers. The larger skull is thrust forward and held low as in the apes. A loss of as much as thirteen inches in height has been reported. More commonly in Paget's, the skull is enlarged without enlargement of the facial bones causing the face to look unusually small.

    A specialist in venereal diseases in London named D.J.M. Wright examined the collection of Neanderthal bones in the British Museum of Natural History and reported that these bones could be merely modern man affected by congenital syphilis.

    Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.


    Putting aside preconceived notions of evolution or creation, one can clearly see that the evolutionary scientists have provided good evidence to suggest that Neanderthal Man might well represent some of Noah's descendants ravaged by various diseases. How blind man can be to scientific evidence when it conflicts with a compelling need to demonstrate that God does not exist and that the creation did not take place.

    http://www.icr.org/article/bone-disease-simulating-ancient-age-pre-human-foss/

    Just recently Scientists have discovered a tumor in a bone from the rib cage of a Neanderthal found in Croatia. Prior to this finding, the oldest tumor was found in an Egyptian mummy.

    The tumor found in the Neanderthal rib is fibrous dysplasia. The Mayo Clinic describes fibrous dysplasia as a bone disorder in which scar-like or fibrous tissue replaces the normal bone. As this benign tumor expands, the individual is likely to suffer from bone pain and will be more susceptible to fractures and deformities. Tumors can cause bones to crumble, destroying proof that cancer existed.


    http://natmonitor.com/2013/06/07/worlds-oldest-tumor-found-in-neanderthal-remains/
  4. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    26 Apr '14 13:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The number of fossils does not mean anything, they were still proven to be just people like us with bone disease
    Like a bonobo is just another chimpanzee with growth hormone deficiency.
  5. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    26 Apr '14 14:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    In 1856...
    Again with outdated information. Whatever Huxley may have believed about a specific
    fossil is rendered irrelevant as to whether or not neanderthals represent their own species,
    when you consider that neanderthal genome has been sequenced, and it shows that
    neanderthals were indeed their own form within the homo genus.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    26 Apr '14 14:19
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Again with outdated information. Whatever Huxley may have believed about a specific
    fossil is rendered irrelevant as to whether or not neanderthals represent their own species,
    when you consider that neanderthal genome has been sequenced, and it shows that
    neanderthals were indeed their own form within the homo genus.
    None of it is irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a fraud, and Huxley was involved in it from the beginning.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    26 Apr '14 15:081 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    None of it is irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a fraud, and Huxley was involved in it from the beginning.
    Your confirmation bias is working well on your brain.

    Persistent belief in ancient Egyptian mythology to the death.
  8. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    26 Apr '14 16:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    None of it is irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a fraud, and Huxley was involved in it from the beginning.
    Again you fail. You just don't know how to present a convincing argument from current
    facts, do you? You come across as a conspiracy nutcase, and yet you expect intelligent,
    educated people to take you seriously.
  9. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    26 Apr '14 18:581 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    None of it is irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a fraud, and Huxley was involved in it from the beginning.
    You accuse others to be stubborn. You show utter stubbornness yourself.
    You want people to listen to you so they can be educated. Yet you show no sign to be educated yourself.
    You brag to be a "near genius", but where are the signs that you really is? You are just a fraud, an ignorant, and a dumbnut. Characteristics you give others.

    You fail, and you forget. You fail, and you forget. And you fail again, and you forget. You never learn anything of it.

    "Learn and you shall be given", as it is written, doesn't apply to you...
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    26 Apr '14 20:53
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Again you fail. You just don't know how to present a convincing argument from current
    facts, do you? You come across as a conspiracy nutcase, and yet you expect intelligent,
    educated people to take you seriously.
    Show me how it is done.
  11. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    27 Apr '14 09:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Show me how it is done.
    How to argue your case clearly, with up to date information. I just did in the gods image thread.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    27 Apr '14 10:103 edits
    Originally posted by C Hess
    How to argue your case clearly, with up to date information. I just did in the gods image thread.
    How to argue your case clearly, with up to date information.

    he never does either, and doesn't even try and has never tried because, if he ever did, he wouldn't be a Creationist.

    His mind is stuck in the old past religious dogma and as far away from the real modern world as he would be if he lived 2000 years ago and with no science at all. If he lived 2000 years ago, he could well have sacrifice lambs to the "gods" and, every time hears thunder, think that "the gods are angry!!!" -such as his self-induced ignorance.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    27 Apr '14 11:13
    Originally posted by C Hess
    How to argue your case clearly, with up to date information. I just did in the gods image thread.
    How about this guys argument of how evolution is a fake system?

    YouTube
  14. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    27 Apr '14 13:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    How about this guys argument of how evolution is a fake system?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n298M4SMZPg
    Paraphrasing the first few seconds: "assumption one in evolutionary theory is
    that non-living chemicals came alive", aaaand done.

    The man is either a charlatan or a fool.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    27 Apr '14 13:071 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Paraphrasing the first few seconds: "assumption one in evolutionary theory is
    that non-living chemicals came alive", aaaand done.

    The man is either a charlatan or a fool.
    Something had to come alive or else there is no evolution. So do you like the rock coming alive idea better? Or what?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree