Creationists

[UltimateReality]

I've written a companion piece to the above.

I'll require you to do a search and post that link here.

Thanks.

You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.

You're upset. No need to be. You're just incompetent at doing task-based objectives.

You were instructed to perform a search as I required of you. Get it done and stop whining.

On the other hand, I'm more than willing to stay around and counter the nonsensical cut and paste you use to threaten people with your gods.

I want that link you were told to provide.

Goodbye. See ya.

 

[Hollie]

You REQUIRE me to do a search? I don't think you get it Dude. It's really time for you to go find some other unsuspected bunch and spew your hate on them.

You're upset. No need to be. You're just incompetent at doing task-based objectives.

You were instructed to perform a search as I required of you. Get it done and stop whining.

On the other hand, I'm more than willing to stay around and counter the nonsensical cut and paste you use to threaten people with your gods.

I want that link you were told to provide.

Goodbye. See ya.

I suppose this is yet another lie?

You promised to put me on ignore previously yet your fascination with me led you to scour the web in a feverish search for my posts on other forums.

 

[Montrovant]

/thread

?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?

Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?

Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?

 

[Montrovant]

Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?

Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?

Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?

Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor? You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.

Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from? I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant? Of course not.

Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.

 

[UltimateReality]

So we had a great service at church this morning. We prayed for the victims in the Colorado shooting, but we also prayed for the the shooter, that he would come to know God. The sermon was on speech and while I conduct myself in an exemplary fashion in my personal life, I got convicted about the way I "speak" to people on this forum. Anonymity is freedom from accountability and I need to be accountable for the way I talk, even if it is in the written word to a bunch of strangers. First, let me say I apologize for my sarcasm and for calling people ignorant. This is definitely not behaving Christ-like. I allowed my anger and frustration of always feeling attacked on here to influence me to say things I know aren't right. From this point forward, I will conduct myself on here as a Christian, no matter what challenges and frustrations come my way.

With regards to Hollie, or Rugged Touch, or whatever he or she is identifying him/herself as, I sincerely hope he comes to know God. I know that when someone puts that much time and effort into lashing out at Believers, it is a good indication they are still searching. [Actually, my sincere hope is that you all come to know Christ.] Most Atheists that are good with their belief system, don't feel the need to tear others who don't share their views down so insidiously. I almost think the type of atheism that Hollie holds to is almost like a drug addiction. Sometimes it needs to run its course for years and years before the poison loosens its grip. I still have hope that Hollie will one day reach this point, and realize the hopelessness of her belief system. The amazing thing is when she does, God will still be there with open arms. In fact, he will be running out to meet Hollie. But until that time, I can only pray for her, but not engage in what in my experience feels like beating your head against the wall, never getting an actual response, only stereotypical attacks. I realize that getting angry and frustrated is exactly what Hollie wants, so I'm just not going to play anymore. Again, to all who frequent here, please accept my apology for the times I have not shown the patience and love of Christ.

 

[Hollie]

So we had a great service at church this morning. We prayed for the victims in the Colorado shooting, but we also prayed for the the shooter, that he would come to know God. The sermon was on speech and while I conduct myself in an exemplary fashion in my personal life, I got convicted about the way I "speak" to people on this forum. Anonymity is freedom from accountability and I need to be accountable for the way I talk, even if it is in the written word to a bunch of strangers. First, let me say I apologize for my sarcasm and for calling people ignorant. This is definitely not behaving Christ-like. I allowed my anger and frustration of always feeling attacked on here to influence me to say things I know aren't right. From this point forward, I will conduct myself on here as a Christian, no matter what challenges and frustrations come my way.

With regards to Hollie, or Rugged Touch, or whatever he or she is identifying him/herself as, I sincerely hope he comes to know God. I know that when someone puts that much time and effort into lashing out at Believers, it is a good indication they are still searching. [Actually, my sincere hope is that you all come to know Christ.] Most Atheists that are good with their belief system, don't feel the need to tear others who don't share their views down so insidiously. I almost think the type of atheism that Hollie holds to is almost like a drug addiction. Sometimes it needs to run its course for years and years before the poison loosens its grip. I still have hope that Hollie will one day reach this point, and realize the hopelessness of her belief system. The amazing thing is when she does, God will still be there with open arms. In fact, he will be running out to meet Hollie. But until that time, I can only pray for her, but not engage in what in my experience feels like beating your head against the wall, never getting an actual response, only stereotypical attacks. I realize that getting angry and frustrated is exactly what Hollie wants, so I'm just not going to play anymore. Again, to all who frequent here, please accept my apology for the times I have not shown the patience and love of Christ.

Did you really need to make that melodramatic, weepy-eyed confession all about me?

You have an unreasonable obsession with me. Get help with that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?

Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?

Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?

Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor? You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.

Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from? I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant? Of course not.

Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?

 

[Hollie]

Didn't evolutionist try to deny humans came from apes ?

Jonathan Jones: Da Vinci prefigured Darwin on our close relation to apes | Art and design | guardian.co.uk

I will as again,why did all the more adapted tranitional species between apes and humans go extinct and the less adaptive apes are still here ?

Why did Hollie and NP say that humans didn't come from apes and Daws agreed with them ? Why do they refuse to reason on their own theory ?

Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor? You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.

Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from? I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant? Of course not.

Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?

You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.

You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you understand the idea of a common ancestor? You seem not to since you continue to claim that we are directly descended from apes, which evolution does not say, based on all the replies you've been given.

Do you understand that being closely related, as the article you linked (for what reason, I'm unsure) states, is NOT the same as descended from? I am closely related to my cousins, does that make me their descendant? Of course not.

Your questions make no sense based on current theory of primate evolution, at least as I understand it.

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?

You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.

You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.

Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.

paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

 

[konradv]

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You left out the third option, 'neither'.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You left out the third option, 'neither'.

Then what hominid? This is a semantics issue. So you are telling me the large canine, small-skulled, knuckle-dragging hominid we allegedly came from isn't an "Ape"? I think we all know what common descent is saying, regardless of the evolutionists clever word games.

 

[Hollie]

Yes,you can call it what you like and say what you want but humans came from apes. If we did not descend from apes what did we descend from ? according to your theory. I know they want people to believe humans didn't descend from apes so it won't be so objectionable. It don't sound as bad to say our nearest ancestor, in essence what are you saying We share a common ancestor. If we share a common ancestor was it a human or an ape ?

You are still avoiding the question. Do you know what macroevolution is ?

You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.

You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.

Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.

paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.


Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!

Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have an unrealistic expectation that "because I say so" makes your claim defendable.

You're insisting that man descended from apes because that is the dogma spewed from fundie YEC websites. Your religious convictions conflict with the observable and testable evidence but you're unable to separate supernaturalism from scientific evidence.

Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.

paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.


Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!

Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting

Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.

"Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."

EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?

So your theory rests on maybe.

 

[Hollie]

Talk about unrealistic I'll give you comments of another evolutionist.

paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam a distinguished professor of anthropology suggested the following.

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark, that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy."

That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.


Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!

Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting

Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.

"Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."

EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?

So your theory rests on maybe.

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That was horrible. I was vaguely familiar with this alleged "quote" and as with so much of the fundie creationist program of lies and deceit, thus is a fraud.


Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Lucy, You got some 'splaining to do!

Moving on, Menton quotes Dr. David Pilbeam from his review of Leakey's Origins (In the May-June 1978 issue of American Scientist) as saying:

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology…Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about."

It appears as if Dr. Pilbeam is admitting a horrible truth about evolution: It's all based on your "world view" and there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. But did he really say that? A trip to American Scientist shows that no review for Leakey's book was written in the May-June 1978 issue. Not only that, but there is no article by Dr. Pilbeam in that issue. A google search for the quote only turned up creationist sites, so I am inclined to be suspicious, especially knowing creationists' long track record of misquoting

Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.

"Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."

EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?

So your theory rests on maybe.

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.

Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."

 

[Hollie]

Dr. Pilbeam may have been misquoted don't know for sure but this is the quote that your side is giving.

"Of the primates, the chimpanzee is man's closest relative, while the two other great apes, the gorilla and orang-utan, are slightly more distant evolutionary cousins. The apes and hominids are collectively known as the 'hominoids'. Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as 'the fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago.
David Pilbeam comments wryly, 'If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on".' Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from the evidence that is so incomplete.
Fortunately, there is quite good evidence regarding the ape-like creatures that lived over fourteen million years ago."

EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...

If they were better adapted why did they go extinct ?

So your theory rests on maybe.

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.

Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."

The above was not part of what I posted.

So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.

Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."

The above was not part of what I posted.

So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.

Did you take a look at rearranging the family tree, an article done by Dr. Pilbeam, from Human Nature Magazine,june 1978,p.45. ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Unfortunately, when dealing with creationists I've found that if their lips are moving or their hands are typing, they're lying.

I just find it remarkable that you lack any integrity, honesty or accountability for what you post. You simply cut and paste falsified "quotes" and when those quotes are exposed as fraudulent, you just move on to cutting and pasting more quotes.

These are not honest mistakes. This is a consistent pattern of lies and deceit.

Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."

The above was not part of what I posted.

So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.

Take a look.

Darwinism-Watch.com

 

[Hollie]

Your source misqoutes where the quote came from. You are right they are not honest mistakes from your side.

Rearranging our family tree, from Human Nature magazine, June 1978, p.45.

Here is the quote.

"I know that at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Dr David Pilbeam Physical Anthropologist."

The above was not part of what I posted.

So once again, you are simply inventing and making up this nonsense as you go along.

Take a look.

Darwinism-Watch.com

Harun Yahya?

You have to be kidding.