Ben Stein's Expelled - The American Holocaust Endgame by Eugenecists

[Unintelligable Name]

Romans practiced Euthansia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables#TABLE_IV_.28Parents_and_children.29

[Unintelligable Name]

From my chair, the atheist guys really made the religious, knee-jerk Darwin haters appear to have embarrassed themselves.  ID could just as well have come from manipulation from invaders from Ork, na-nu, na-nu. 

The atheist guys follow evolution -- they think Intelligent Design is a mockery of science.

However in the same breath they will say "Well what if we were intelligently designed... but by ALIENS!"

It's doublespeak. It isn't about science being this way or that way -- it's about there being no God, no morals, no universal right or wrong, and onward.

Dawkins is an utter retard who needs to brush his f**kin teeth.

[David Rothscum]

Behaving like one who agrees with eugenics.

Explain.

The idea that human beings descended from apes is absolutely ridiculous.

Explain. In your own words. Not another 2 hour documentary please.

[Clyde Barrow]

I decided to watch Ben Stein's Expelled where he debunks Evolution

I don't think anyone can debunk Evolution. Nor can anyone debunk God. Who are we to decide how God does things?
This is just another stupid volleyball debate that keeps the People divided while the criminals laugh in the background.
Classic divide and conquer.

[matrixcutter]

Behaving like one who agrees with eugenics.

Explain.

You are basically using some of the same arguments, making some of the same attacks and ignoring some of the same facts as those atheists who do agree with eugenics, or more to the point, those control freaks who believe in disposing of millions of innocent people as part of an evil agenda of maintaining and fine-tuning their systems of power, whilst hiding behind any convenient belief system which has already been created and popularised, purely for the purpose of facilitating that agenda in one way or another.

I'm not saying you believe in exterminating people by the million.  I'm saying that some of the arguments you make are the same as the arguments put forward by those that do.

The idea that human beings descended from apes is absolutely ridiculous.

Explain. In your own words. Not another 2 hour documentary please.

Firstly, there really is a lot of relevant information about the context, the history and the effect of Darwinism in Ian P Taylor's book In The Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order

And Dr Berlinski really does identify some of the main weaknesses in the theory of evolution in these videos.

The powers that be have already been caught creating a fake missing link made up of fragments of the jawbone of an orangutan and part of a man's skull, in a telling attempt to bypass the massive holes in the ape-becomes-man theory.  The Piltdown Man was taught as fact for decades, but it was an organised lie.

The ape-becomes-man theory depends on various transitional not-quite-apes and not-quite-man species.  We have been given a dramatically reduced period of recorded histories so as to hoodwink us into believing that "modern" man is a fairly recent development, or evolution, and that these transitional phases must have come some time before the recorded history of human civilisation runs out.

How far back in time would we have to find evidence of "modern" man to then be able to reject the idea that modern man descended from apes?  How far back is far enough to prove that modern man should have evolved some more by now?  If we can't answer these questions accurately, why not?  What does that say about the theory itself?

The interesting thing for me is that you can't get round the fact that at some stage, if you go back far enough, something that we can scientifically identify as life must have been created out of something that we cannot.  And this point is just completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which means that it can only ever be incomplete at best.

[David Rothscum]

Explain.
You are basically using some of the same arguments, making some of the same attacks and ignoring some of the same facts as those atheists who do agree with eugenics, or more to the point, those control freaks who believe in disposing of millions of innocent people as part of an evil agenda of maintaining and fine-tuning their systems of power, whilst hiding behind any convenient belief system which has already been created and popularised, purely for the purpose of facilitating that agenda in one way or another.

I'm not saying you believe in exterminating people by the million.  I'm saying that some of the arguments you make are the same as the arguments put forward by those that do.

You're gonna have to be a bit more specific here. Those are some serious allegations.

Firstly, there really is a lot of relevant information about the context, the history and the effect of Darwinism in Ian P Taylor's book In The Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order

And Dr Berlinski really does identify some of the main weaknesses in the theory of evolution in these videos.

The powers that be have already been caught creating a fake missing link made up of fragments of the jawbone of an orangutan and part of a man's skull, in a telling attempt to bypass the massive holes in the ape-becomes-man theory.  The Piltdown Man was taught as fact for decades, but it was an organised lie.

So someone faked a fossile. That's not an argument against the Theory of Evolution. People also faked evidence connecting vaccines to Autism, but that's not evidence against the link between Vaccines and Autism either. Also, you're going to have to provide some evidence that it was the Powers that be that faked this supposed missing link.

The ape-becomes-man theory depends on various transitional not-quite-apes and not-quite-man species.  We have been given a dramatically reduced period of recorded histories so as to hoodwink us into believing that "modern" man is a fairly recent development, or evolution, and that these transitional phases must have come some time before the recorded history of human civilisation runs out.

How far back in time would we have to find evidence of "modern" man to then be able to reject the idea that modern man descended from apes?  How far back is far enough to prove that modern man should have evolved some more by now?  If we can't answer these questions accurately, why not?  What does that say about the theory itself?

If you think that recorded history goes back further than conventional science claims it does, you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Otherwise there's little point in debating this.

The interesting thing for me is that you can't get round the fact that at some stage, if you go back far enough, something that we can scientifically identify as life must have been created out of something that we cannot.  And this point is just completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which means that it can only ever be incomplete at best.

Again, that's not an argument against the theory of Evolution. Let's say some Diety created the original lifeform. That doesn't mean that the lifeforms that exist today aren't descended from a common ancestor. So far all you've come up with is a single faked fossil probably created by a man who had a whole bunch of faked fossils. Is that your evidence against the Theory of Evolution? Oh yeah, and Alan Watt doesn't believe in it. Well case closed I guess.

[Dig]

Speaking of Darwinian Cultists gone completely psychotic...

What Darwin Didn't Know
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00h6sbt
Last broadcast Tue 17 Mar 2009, 20:00 on BBC Four (see all broadcasts).

Documentary which tells the story of evolution theory since Darwin postulated it in 1859 in 'On the Origin of Species'.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is now scientific orthodoxy, but when it was unveiled it caused a storm of controversy, from fellow scientists as well as religious people. They criticised it for being short on evidence and long on assertion and Darwin, being the honest scientist that he was, agreed with them. He knew that his theory was riddled with 'difficulties', but he entrusted future generations to complete his work and prove the essential truth of his vision, which is what scientists have been doing for the past 150 years.

Evolutionary biologist Professor Armand Marie Leroi charts the scientific endeavour that brought about the triumphant renaissance of Darwin's theory. He argues that, with the new science of evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo), it may be possible to take that theory to a new level - to do more than explain what has evolved in the past, and start to predict what might evolve in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The establishment is not satisfied in telling you that Darwin's writings are truth, they are now saying his theories fall short of the "REAL TRUTH".  We all now know that Darwin's scriblings if taken as TRUTH amounts to fascism (by his own admission and Dawkins admission too).  Just imagine the scientific technocracy planned by the National Academy of Science and other Darwinian extremists that run the entire science discussion worldwide.

[matrixcutter]

You're gonna have to be a bit more specific here. Those are some serious allegations.

These things have already been pointed out to you.

In this thread you have essentially dismissed everything in Stein's movie as propaganda, and you have repeatedly ignored the inconvenient facts presented in the movie.

You have said that the movie insinuates that "believing in evolution or being an Atheist causes one to become like these people" [like Darwin and his family who were "bad people involved in eugenics as well"], yet the movie goes out of its way to make it very clear that Darwinism is NOT a sufficient requirement for eugenics, but it is a necessary requirement.

We can see that Darwinism can be used to promote eugenics, has been used to promote eugenics, is being used to promote eugenics, and will continue to be used to promote eugenics.  It doesn't matter how many examples of atheistic Darwinists who oppose eugenics there are, if eugenics programmes are being carried out by the powers that be, using aspects of Darwinist thinking as justification, then that was obviously the way it was planned.

You have essentially argued that silly religious people who don't understand science have allowed their blind faith in their chosen religion as a framework in which to consider nonsensical theories in opposition to the unquestionable theory of evolution (which both you and Dawkins claim to be fact, which you both know to be false).  This is exactly the kind of BS that the scientists in Stein's movie have had to put up with, which is why it is repeatedly made clear that religious belief is completely separate from their legitimate scientific opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution.

And you consistently ignore posts such as these:

National Academy of Sciences approved projects:

Global Warming

9/11 Conspiracy Theory of 19 religulous mind control cave dwellers

Thermal Expansion

Tasers are non-lethal

RFID is good

Implantable chips are awesome

Chemtrails will save the wold

Vaccines save humans

THIS IS EVERYTHING WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST

you're going to have to provide some evidence that it was the Powers that be that faked this supposed missing link.

Really?
You genuinely think that any old nobody could have done it, and then had their hoax taken to a museum, and had it examined on the day that the expert on bones was on holiday, and remained on holiday for the next few decades, so that the hoax could be used as proof of the ape-becomes-man theory all that time, which all happened to benefit the long-term agenda of the powers that be?

If you think that recorded history goes back further than conventional science claims it does, you're going to have to come up with some evidence.

If you think that man descended from apes, you're going to have to come up with some evidence.

Otherwise there's little point in debating this.

On that we can agree.

Let's say some Diety created the original lifeform. That doesn't mean that the lifeforms that exist today aren't descended from a common ancestor.

If such a deity (or whatever) created a single original lifeform, then all lifeforms that exist today must have ultimately descended from that common ancestor, assuming there were no deities creating any other lifeforms at any point after this original creation.

If the deity created more than a single original lifeform, then all lifeforms that exist today need not necessarily have descended from a single common ancestor.

So far all you've come up with is a single faked fossil probably created by a man who had a whole bunch of faked fossils. Is that your evidence against the Theory of Evolution?

You're the one that thinks that man came from apes and refers to the theory of evolution as fact.  You should be the one trying to prove his case.
How about you point out the number of evolutionary jumps in between man and ape, the number of physical changes from step to step which can be interpreted as an indication of a change of species, and also the amount of time between these evolutionary jumps?

And then maybe you can explain how the fossil records prove that a particular species (along the line of ape becoming man) evolved into a different species, and explaining how the fossil records allow you to rule out all other possibilities.

[David Rothscum]

The establishment is not satisfied in telling you that Darwin's writings are truth, they are now saying his theories fall short of the "REAL TRUTH".  We all now know that Darwin's scriblings if taken as TRUTH amounts to fascism (by his own admission and Dawkins admission too).  Just imagine the scientific technocracy planned by the National Academy of Science and other Darwinian extremists that run the entire science discussion worldwide.

No, that's Social Darwinism what you're talking about there. That's applying the laws of nature to human Society. Not caring about the weak, letting the right of the strongest determine what happens that kind of stuff. If you apply the theories of Darwin to our human society, you get fascism. I think we can all agree on that. Look again at what he said:

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

Dawkins is against using Darwinism as a model of how our society should work. It doesn't mean that the theory of Evolution that's used to explain the way nature works leads to fascism by just accepting it as scientific fact.

[David Rothscum]

Really?
You genuinely think that any old nobody could have done it, and then had their hoax taken to a museum, and had it examined on the day that the expert on bones was on holiday, and remained on holiday for the next few decades, so that the hoax could be used as proof of the ape-becomes-man theory all that time, which all happened to benefit the long-term agenda of the powers that be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists [4] . It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed [4], also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
It's a bit like the eggs fried by cellhpones, or the popcorn trick. We know they are bad for your brain so when something like this comes out the whole movement jumps on it. It's still being pushed to this day. These folks were expecting a skull like this so when this stuff came out they jumped on it.

On that we can agree.

Well then, what are you waiting for. Tell me how far back human civilization really goes.

You're the one that thinks that man came from apes and refers to the theory of evolution as fact.  You should be the one trying to prove his case.
How about you point out the number of evolutionary jumps in between man and ape, the number of physical changes from step to step which can be interpreted as an indication of a change of species, and also the amount of time between these evolutionary jumps?

And then maybe you can explain how the fossil records prove that a particular species (along the line of ape becoming man) evolved into a different species, and explaining how the fossil records allow you to rule out all other possibilities.

Let's just start with Lucy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal, although there is evidence that afarensis was also partly arboreal (tree-dwelling). She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight.

The humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, is 84.6 for Lucy, compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for the two species of chimpanzee (all these figures have a standard deviation of between 2.0 and 3.0). In other words, humans have much shorter arms compared to their legs than chimpanzees do, and Lucy falls roughly in the middle. (Korey 1990)

Oh and while we're at it, here's another one I'd like your opinion on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html

KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis)
Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The braincase is surprisingly modern in many respects, much less robust than any australopithecine skull, and also without the robustness and large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. The face, in contrast, is extremely large and robust.

In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists have been classifying this skull as Homo rudolfensis. (If 1470 is related to the newly-discovered fossil WT 40000 (Kenyanthropus platyops) to which it has some claimed resemblances, it may eventually be reassigned to the genus Kenyanthropus.)

Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape.

[luckee1]

Pray tell, In regards to Lucy;  what was the distance between the finds in respect to the leg bones and the patella?

I think my main contention of any theories or idealogies being taught in public school is this.  We are making children learn these things when the sourees are so dubious.  I believe we should introduce concepts of these theories and then allow children to pursue them as extra-curricular activities.  This includes bible teaching and evolution teaching.

I have seen lies promoted as testable material in schools. 

To answer your earlier question to me in regards to the fish in the cave in Athens TN, I dont' need to cite any scientific papers.  I have eyeballs of my own to see.  Go check it out.  It is called the Lost Sea.

[David Rothscum]

Pray tell, In regards to Lucy;  what was the distance between the finds in respect to the leg bones and the patella?

I'm not sure. Do you know?

[Dig]

No, that's Social Darwinism what you're talking about there. That's applying the laws of nature to human Society. Not caring about the weak, letting the right of the strongest determine what happens that kind of stuff. If you apply the theories of Darwin to our human society, you get fascism. I think we can all agree on that. Look again at what he said:

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

Dawkins is against using Darwinism as a model of how our society should work. It doesn't mean that the theory of Evolution that's used to explain the way nature works leads to fascism by just accepting it as scientific fact.

That is an excellent theory, however the establishment does use the Darwinian cultists to justify insane social architecture.  How else could one explain FEMA, mass coffins, Iraq, vaccines, implantable RFID, Chemtrails, Global Warming, Iron Mountain, MK Ultra, CoIntelPro, Vietnam, Laos, Kissinger, Afghanistan, etc.

The problem they now face is that Darwinian insanity is not insane enough for them so they are now building more social edicts of tyrrany on top of an already shabby set of "observations" (which is really all Darwin did, just observe and write, there is actually no science whatsoever involved in his writings.  It is just mindless and misguided speculation.).

And please do not get all pissy.  I am not mentioning evolution, I am mentioning Darwinianism.  Please stay focused on that. Thanks.

[luckee1]

Pray tell, In regards to Lucy;  what was the distance between the finds in respect to the leg bones and the patella?

I'm not sure. Do you know?

It was over a mile away.  After I found that out, I thouroughly discarded "Lucy" as a viable proof of evolution, becuase that is tainted evidence.  You see I used to believe in possibilty of evolution.  You cannot imagine the paradigm shift when I found the bad science and the untruths given in these "proofs".   I still love science.  Good science and proveable science is that which the observer can duplicate the same elements and acheive the same results in the lab and in nature.  This just like good math.  You check the work.

[Tds_kaneda]

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

Wow after all that bickering you finilly get what the Doc was about! Not about creationist vs. evolutionist, not about being an evolutionist makes you evil but about the freedom we don't have in science. The freedom the elite take away however they can. So it's a red alert in the science field.

You come off like you know that the theory evolution is a fact when it is not. Creation is not fact and evolution(not micro but macro) is not a fact. Maybe evolution makes more sense then creation but just cuz something makes more sense DOESN'T make it fact. You think some guy who didn't know what DNA was knew the the origin of species. He made some good points but didn't know a lot(not saying he was dumb) NO one knows I repeat NO living man knows for a fact what happened the beginning NOT one NOT you NOT me NO ONE!!!!!!

Some things man may never know so deal with it. If a cat falls out of a tree from high up it may think "that hurt" but no cat in the history of cats with ever know that gravity pulled it out of the tree and it lives on the planet earth that orbits the sun....  No animal as EVER turned into another animal. It might be fun to think about what happened in the beginning and how it all began but it's just that THINKING not knowing. not yet anyway.

I think some of the bickerers should watch this http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net/season-13/episode-5-fishsticks/ cuz some are acting a lot like carman in the fishsticks episode!

[Sensi Dave]

I certainly feel your pain here, and totally reject racism, but it's become rather 'trendy' to look at such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression as if they were part of a "flouride poisoning" or "plastic packaging hormone" epidemic

It's not trendy it's reality

[David Rothscum]

Wow after all that bickering you finilly get what the Doc was about! Not about creationist vs. evolutionist, not about being an evolutionist makes you evil but about the freedom we don't have in science. The freedom the elite take away however they can. So it's a red alert in the science field.

You come off like you know that the theory evolution is a fact when it is not. Creation is not fact and evolution(not micro but macro) is not a fact. Maybe evolution makes more sense then creation but just cuz something makes more sense DOESN'T make it fact. You think some guy who didn't know what DNA was knew the the origin of species. He made some good points but didn't know a lot(not saying he was dumb) NO one knows I repeat NO living man knows for a fact what happened the beginning NOT one NOT you NOT me NO ONE!!!!!!

Some things man may never know so deal with it. If a cat falls out of a tree from high up it may think "that hurt" but no cat in the history of cats with ever know that gravity pulled it out of the tree and it lives on the planet earth that orbits the sun....  No animal as EVER turned into another animal. It might be fun to think about what happened in the beginning and how it all began but it's just that THINKING not knowing. not yet anyway.

I think some of the bickerers should watch this http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net/season-13/episode-5-fishsticks/ cuz some are acting a lot like carman in the fishsticks episode!

Uhm I'm afraid you should reread this thread. I already established how we have seen genuine cases of speciation, in other words, one species giving rise to a new species.
Oh and if this movie was about freedom of science, he could have proven that point without blaming the Holocaust on a frigging scientific theory, misquoting Darwin (David... stop covering up for Darwin !!!), selectively interviewing atheist adherents to the theory of Evolution, lying to the scientists and telling them this movie was about religion and twisting the facts.

[David Rothscum]

It was over a mile away.  After I found that out, I thouroughly discarded "Lucy" as a viable proof of evolution, becuase that is tainted evidence.  You see I used to believe in possibilty of evolution.  You cannot imagine the paradigm shift when I found the bad science and the untruths given in these "proofs".   I still love science.  Good science and proveable science is that which the observer can duplicate the same elements and acheive the same results in the lab and in nature.  This just like good math.  You check the work.

Hahaha I knew it. I hate to break it to you, but you've been told a lie.
But that's OK. Let's clear that misunderstanding up shall we?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
Creationists have been making the claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of "Lucy," a 40%-complete skeleton of the species Australopithecus afarensis, in a location "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away" (Willis 1987). They have sometimes gone on to add the claim that "Only under questioning did [Johanson] admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" (Willis 1987; emphasis in original; Also see Brown 1989a, p. 44) The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) "Lucy" did not walk upright. It successfully shows neither of these things, because it is false. (Even if it were true, it would not demonstrate (b), for reasons given in Lippard (1989-90)--the knee joint is not the only evidence of bipedality in A. afarensis.)

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:

    Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
    A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.
The problem has been compounded by the Institute for Creation Research's use of the name "Lucy" to refer to both the species Australopithecus afarensis and the individual "Lucy," as ICR Museum director John Rajca did on the June 18, 1994 segment of the ICR's "Science, Scripture and Salvation" radio program. Rajca said:

    "In the fall of 1973, near Hadar, Dr. Johanson found the fossil of what is now called Lucy. The reason it is called Lucy is that the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was playing in the camp when the fossil was discovered. The first specimen of Lucy to be uncovered was a knee joint. At first this was judged to be a monkey; it was later labelled by Johanson as a hominid. Lucy is a 40% complete female skeleton...."

The same use of "Lucy" to refer to the species A. afarensis occurs in a diagram in the November 1985 National Geographic (Weaver 1985, p. 593). Willis (n.d.) has referred to the misleading photo captions in this article as "the stuff of the all-time greatest evolution fraud," allegedly perpetrated by Donald Johanson with the National Geographic staff as dupes or accomplices. (The knee actually pictured is neither from "Lucy" nor is it the 1973 knee; rather it is an A. afarensis knee from AL 333w-56, the "First Family" site.)

The claim that Lucy's knee joint was found separate from the rest of the skeleton has been made or reported by Russell Arndts (1991), Carl Baugh (1995), Walter Brown (1989a), Donald Chittick (1994), Michael Girouard (1989), Kent Hovind (1993a), Scott Huse (1993), Richard LaHaye (1997), David McAllister (1993a), Bill Mehlert (1992), David Menton (1988), John Morris (1989), Dave and Mary Jo Nutting (1991, 1993, 1994), Dennis Petersen (2002, 2003), Douglas Sharp (1994), Paul Taylor (1989), and Tom Willis (1987).

[Tds_kaneda]

Uhm I'm afraid you should reread this thread. I already established how we have seen genuine cases of speciation, in other words, one species giving rise to a new species.
Oh and if this movie was about freedom of science, he could have proven that point without blaming the Holocaust on a frigging scientific theory, misquoting Darwin (David... stop covering up for Darwin !!!), selectively interviewing atheist adherents to the theory of Evolution, lying to the scientists and telling them this movie was about religion and twisting the facts.

   Ok can you quote Ben saying anything like "blaming the Holocaust on a frigging scientific theory"? Cuz the Holocaust is the last MAJOR event that happened that EVERY knows about. He didn't blame it ON THE DAMN theory he showed how the ELITE ARE USEING the theroy. You said yourself "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws" WHAT WAS THE HOLOCAUST? maybe just that Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. SO HELLO WAKE UP. stop nit picking and look at the bigger picture here!

  Are you talking about the radish and the cabbage that only made the new plant that was STERILE and only had the foliage of the radish and the roots of the cabbage? Cuz I said "no animal" but if you could proved a link to animal "none human intervention" speciation I will read up on that!

  Dude your ego is taking control relax.

[Dig]

Uhm I'm afraid you should reread this thread. I already established how we have seen genuine cases of speciation, in other words, one species giving rise to a new species.
Oh and if this movie was about freedom of science, he could have proven that point without blaming the Holocaust on a frigging scientific theory, misquoting Darwin (David... stop covering up for Darwin !!!), selectively interviewing atheist adherents to the theory of Evolution, lying to the scientists and telling them this movie was about religion and twisting the facts.

We went over this a few times. The holocaust was accurately explained as a eugenics experiment using darwinian social theory as a justification for the insanity. This is based on evidence, sources, logical reasoning, proof, documentation, testimonials, writings by Hitler himself, videos, etc.  Are you denying that darwinian cultists had nothing to do with the holocaust by Germany during WWII? He doesn't blame the holocaust on "a frigging scientific theory", he explains how darwinian cultists who did not allow rational debate concerning science and social architecture based on science assisted in enforcing despotic, genocidal, and psycopathic rule. This is highly appropriate to explain what can occur when no debate is allowed in these situations. The people interviewed were not all atheists, but they were complete puppets for the National Academy of Science (especially the collegic administrative baffoons near the end of the movie). Although some seemed to be self admitted atheists (Ben and others never mentioned the word atheist once in the movie yet you continue to parrot talking points using this word in over 20 posts-highly illogical and unscientific), but this was hardly the point, the point was that they were denying freedom of debate in American universities by expelling 30+ year tenured professors for daring to support rational discussions. And as far as still defending Dawkins' over sensitivity, frailness, and weak mind that can so easily be manipulated by Ben Stein's mastery of deception...really?  That is really a your final coup de gras?

[Tds_kaneda]

We went over this a few times. The holocaust was accurately explained as a eugenics experiment using darwinian social theory as a justification for the insanity. This is based on evidence, sources, logical reasoning, proof, documentation, testimonials, writings by Hitler himself, videos, etc.  Are you denying that darwinian cultists had nothing to do with the holocaust by Germany during WWII? He doesn't blame the holocaust on "a frigging scientific theory", he explains how darwinian cultists who did not allow rational debate concerning science and social architecture based on science assisted in enforcing despotic, genocidal, and psycopathic rule. This is highly appropriate to explain what can occur when no debate is allowed in these situations. The people interviewed were not all atheists, but they were complete puppets for the National Academy of Science (especially the collegic administrative baffoons near the end of the movie). Although some seemed to be self admitted atheists (Ben and others never mentioned the word atheist once in the movie yet you continue to parrot talking points using this word in over 20 posts-highly illogical and unscientific), but this was hardly the point, the point was that they were denying freedom of debate in American universities by expelling 30+ year tenured professors for daring to support rational discussions. And as far as still defending Dawkins' over sensitivity, frailness, and weak mind that can so easily be manipulated by Ben Stein's mastery of deception...really?  That is really a your final coup de gras?

Yes exactly^^^^ I really don't see how this is so hard to understand it seems pretty straight forward to me. Unless or course you put feelings where logic should be.

[David Rothscum]

   Ok can you quote Ben saying anything like "blaming the Holocaust on a frigging scientific theory"? Cuz the Holocaust is the last MAJOR event that happened that EVERY knows about. He didn't blame it ON THE DAMN theory he showed how the ELITE ARE USEING the theroy. You said yourself "No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws" WHAT WAS THE HOLOCAUST? maybe just that Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. SO HELLO WAKE UP. stop nit picking and look at the bigger picture here!

How hard is it for you people to understand the difference between accepting the theory of evolution and wanting our human society to operate according to these laws? The elite made a perversion of the evolution theory called Eugenics, and used this theory as the reason for their mass murder. Darwinism is just an explanation of what we see in nature. It's eugenicists that try to apply this to humans.
By the way he did try to blame it on the theory. The creationists he had on his film pretended as if dehuminization is the logical consequence of believing in the theory of Evolution.

  Are you talking about the radish and the cabbage that only made the new plant that was STERILE and only had the foliage of the radish and the roots of the cabbage? Cuz I said "no animal" but if you could proved a link to animal "none human intervention" speciation I will read up on that!

  Dude your ego is taking control relax.

How many examples do you want? Begin by reading this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
After this. Here are more examples you'll like:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
By the way, I don't see the point in only asking for "animal none human intervention" instances of speciation. Why don't you just go all the way and demand an example of mammals only while you're at it. It appears like a bad attempt at trying to limit the number of observed instances of speciation. You've got another reason for only asking for animal instances of speciation with no human intervention? I'm listening.

[Tds_kaneda]

How hard is it for you people to understand the difference between accepting the theory of evolution and wanting our human society to operate according to these laws? The elite made a perversion of the evolution theory called Eugenics, and used this theory as the reason for their mass murder. Darwinism is just an explanation of what we see in nature. It's eugenicists that try to apply this to humans.
By the way he did try to blame it on the theory. The creationists he had on his film pretended as if dehuminization is the logical consequence of believing in the theory of Evolution.How many examples do you want? Begin by reading this:

WOW you so just pulled a cartman there ALL you did was reword what I said to make yourself right!

How many examples do you want? Begin by reading this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
After this. Here are more examples you'll like:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
By the way, I don't see the point in only asking for "animal none human intervention" instances of speciation. Why don't you just go all the way and demand an example of mammals only while you're at it. It appears like a bad attempt at trying to limit the number of observed instances of speciation. You've got another reason for only asking for animal instances of speciation with no human intervention? I'm listening.

Uhhh whatever you say I really don't care anymore cuz you really have NO clue how diffrent animal and plants are. So you win (Clap clap) I'm not your teacher.

[David Rothscum]

We went over this a few times. The holocaust was accurately explained as a eugenics experiment using darwinian social theory as a justification for the insanity. This is based on evidence, sources, logical reasoning, proof, documentation, testimonials, writings by Hitler himself, videos, etc.  Are you denying that darwinian cultists had nothing to do with the holocaust by Germany during WWII? He doesn't blame the holocaust on "a frigging scientific theory", he explains how darwinian cultists who did not allow rational debate concerning science and social architecture based on science assisted in enforcing despotic, genocidal, and psycopathic rule.

How about prevailing anti-Semitism in Germany? No need to mention that eh? Just say it's Darwin.
That's what a smear job looks like.

This is highly appropriate to explain what can occur when no debate is allowed in these situations. The people interviewed were not all atheists, but they were complete puppets for the National Academy of Science (especially the collegic administrative baffoons near the end of the movie). Although some seemed to be self admitted atheists (Ben and others never mentioned the word atheist once in the movie yet you continue to parrot talking points using this word in over 20 posts-highly illogical and unscientific), but this was hardly the point, the point was that they were denying freedom of debate in American universities by expelling 30+ year tenured professors for daring to support rational discussions. And as far as still defending Dawkins' over sensitivity, frailness, and weak mind that can so easily be manipulated by Ben Stein's mastery of deception...really?  That is really a your final coup de gras?

It's really simple. If Stein wanted a movie about the limit of freedom to disagree in the scientific community, he should've made it about that and told the scientists about it. He shouldn't have told Dawkins and others the movie would be about the intersection of religion and science. Are you denying that by lieing to the scientists and only interviewing Atheist Darwinists while leaving out religious people who believe in Evolution Stein managed to associate Atheism with Darwinism, while blaming the Holocaust on Darwinism? And isn't that a smear job on both Atheism and Darwinism since it selectively blames certains theories that are simply meant to explain the workings of nature while leaving out far greater causes like totalitarianism and Anti-semitism?

[Dig]

How hard is it for you people to understand the difference between accepting the theory of evolution and wanting our human society to operate according to these laws? The elite made a perversion of the evolution theory called Eugenics, and used this theory as the reason for their mass murder. Darwinism is just an explanation of what we see in nature. It's eugenicists that try to apply this to humans.

What is the "theory of evolution" that you speak of?  If it is the one expoused and adhered to by the National Academy of Science then the only reason it exists is because of Darwinian cultists.  To separate the Nazi-esque National Academy of Sciences dictatorial regime of strict adherance to their "theory of evolution" from Darwinian cultists is like separating the song "Stairway to Heavan" from Led Zeppelin.  These Darwinian cultists created the "theory" and the demand for strict adherance to it.  And if any 30+ year tenurured professor in the American collegiate system dares to use science and logic then they are expelled for blasphemy against the NAS diety-Darwin.  This is a cultist despotic rule of the intelligence of the country.  Not allowing professors to talk scientifically in the college arena is very dangerous.  Ben Stein made a movie about it. You are continuing to defend the National Academy of Sciences edicts of tyranny for some unknown reason.  Why the hell would you support the idea of "no scientific debate" on a truth forum?

By the way he did try to blame it on the theory. The creationists he had on his film pretended as if dehuminization is the logical consequence of believing in the theory of Evolution.

That is a perverse use of disingenuous debating methods that lacks logic.  The people he had on his film (why must you need to categorize them as the National Academy of Sciences forces their cultist to categorize them?) believed that not qallowing scientific debate on a theory that by its own admission leads to dehumanization will most likelly lead to dehumanization.  It does not get much more scientific than that.

[David Rothscum]

WOW you so just pulled a cartman there ALL you did was reword what I said to make yourself right!
Uhhh whatever you say I really don't care anymore cuz you really have NO clue how diffrent animal and plants are. So you win (Clap clap) I'm not your teacher.

Great argument you got there. I take it you don't want to explain why these aren't adequate examples of speciation?

Why the hell would you support the idea of "no scientific debate" on a truth forum?

Oh I'm all for debate. Debate whatever you want. What do you think we're doing right now? And again, if Ben Stein had simply made a movie showing how people are shunned and have their careers destroyed for disagreeing with the mainstream scientific opinion, I'd commend the guy. The thing I'm against is demonizing the theory of evolution and Atheism by associating it with the Holocaust. He should have made clear the difference between Eugenics and Darwinism but he threw everything on a giant heap and tried to incite some feeling of patriotism to get Americans behind him.

That is a perverse use of disingenuous debating methods that lacks logic.  The people he had on his film (why must you need to categorize them as the National Academy of Sciences forces their cultist to categorize them?) believed that not qallowing scientific debate on a theory that by its own admission leads to dehumanization will most likelly lead to dehumanization.  It does not get much more scientific than that.

Come on Sane. I already explained to you that the only way Darwinism can lead to dehumization or fascism is by trying to use what we observe in nature as an example for how our society should work.

[Tds_kaneda]

Great argument you got there. I take it you don't want to explain why these aren't adequate examples of speciation?

Cuz maybe I don't care to bicker about the theory there are other threads for that you KNOW IT ALL ASS!!! I was pointing out what the Doc was about!

[David Rothscum]

You know, it's amazing to me how conservatives (Yes, no need to distinguish in this case) can hold a scientific theory responsible for the genocides we have seen during the past century, but will blame firearm deaths on the people who used them.

Cuz maybe I don't care to bicker about the theory there are other threads for that you KNOW IT ALL ASS!!! I was pointing out what the Doc was about!

Haha, there's no need to get angry at me for wanting a debate. You claimed that macroevolution has never been proven and I disagree, so I figured you'd try to defend your point of view. Oh well.

[Dig]

How dangerous is it when The National Academy of Science does not allow scientific debate?

CONTROL OVER ALL BIOMEDECINE

Bioengineers create stable networks of blood vessels
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Bioengineers-create-stable-networks-of-blood-vessels-2182-1/
Yale biomedical engineers have created an implantable system that can form and stabilize a functional network of fine blood vessels critical for supporting tissues in the body, according to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTROL OVER ALL FORENSIC TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

Conference: Forensic Science for the 21st Century: The National Academy of Science Report and Beyond
http://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/2009/02/conference_forensic_science_fo.html
The Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University will host an international conference, Forensic Science for the 21st Century: The National Academy of Sciences Report and Beyond," on April 3-4 in Tempe, Ariz. The focal point of the conference, for which CLE will be available, is the long-awaited National Academy of Sciences' report on the future of forensic science, which will be released at 1 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at a press briefing and via Webcast at www.national-academies.org Early registration for the conference, which offers a $250 discount off the at-the-door rate, closes on Friday, Feb. 27. The conference will include nearly three dozen renowned experts in the field, including both co-chairmen of the NAS forensic science committee, and many others. This conference is a must-attend for any practitioner who produces, uses or evaluates forensic science evidence, including prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, judges, forensic scientists, criminalists and others. Details: lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/index.html[/i]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTROL OVER HANDGUNS

Technological Options for User-Authorized Handguns
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11394&page=9
Misuse of handguns is a significant factor in crime, accidents, suicides, and morbidity in the United States. In recent years, some have looked to advances in technology for a user-authorized handgun (UAHG) to address this problem.1 The idea behind a UAHG is that the weapon “recognizes” the owner(s) or other authorized user(s) and can only be fired when that individual(s), and no one else, wants the gun to fire. A variety of sensor, electronic, mechanical, and other technologies might be used in the design of such a weapon. A basic tenet of gun ownership and use is “reliability,” that is, a gun must fire when an owner wants it to fire and must not fire otherwise. A UAHG must be as close to 100 percent reliable as possible. A successful UAHG design will have to pass a number of hurdles to meet the reliability criterion. For instance, in law enforcement and self-defense situations, the gun must be able to be armed quickly for firing, but an unauthorized person(s) in close proximity to the owner must not be able to fire it. In addition, a UAHG must be designed to take account of the possible failure

====================================

The National Academy of Sciences control so many aspects of our life.  Wake up and smell the fascism.  And this is a 10 minute research project.  It also leaves out the fact that NAS and NIST are conjoined twins. No wonder there is yet no justice to the 3,000 dead on 9/11, the 5,000 dead US soldiers, and the over 1,000,000 dead innocent Iraqi women and children.

[Tds_kaneda]

You know, it's amazing to me how conservatives (Yes, no need to distinguish in this case) can hold a scientific theory responsible for the genocides we have seen during the past century, but will blame firearm deaths on the people who used them.
Haha, there's no need to get angry at me for wanting a debate. You claimed that macroevolution has never been proven and I disagree, so I figured you'd try to defend your point of view. Oh well.

HAHAHA that link you gave is proof... right. I'm not mad I'm just dumbfounded. If there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it was be MSM news for sure the elite would be having wetdream after wetdream.

[Tds_kaneda]

How dangerous is it when The National Academy of Science does not allow scientific debate?

CONTROL OVER ALL BIOMEDECINE

Bioengineers create stable networks of blood vessels
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Bioengineers-create-stable-networks-of-blood-vessels-2182-1/
Yale biomedical engineers have created an implantable system that can form and stabilize a functional network of fine blood vessels critical for supporting tissues in the body, according to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTROL OVER ALL FORENSIC TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

Conference: Forensic Science for the 21st Century: The National Academy of Science Report and Beyond
http://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/2009/02/conference_forensic_science_fo.html
The Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University will host an international conference, Forensic Science for the 21st Century: The National Academy of Sciences Report and Beyond," on April 3-4 in Tempe, Ariz. The focal point of the conference, for which CLE will be available, is the long-awaited National Academy of Sciences' report on the future of forensic science, which will be released at 1 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at a press briefing and via Webcast at www.national-academies.org Early registration for the conference, which offers a $250 discount off the at-the-door rate, closes on Friday, Feb. 27. The conference will include nearly three dozen renowned experts in the field, including both co-chairmen of the NAS forensic science committee, and many others. This conference is a must-attend for any practitioner who produces, uses or evaluates forensic science evidence, including prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, judges, forensic scientists, criminalists and others. Details: lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/index.html[/i]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTROL OVER HANDGUNS

Technological Options for User-Authorized Handguns
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11394&page=9
Misuse of handguns is a significant factor in crime, accidents, suicides, and morbidity in the United States. In recent years, some have looked to advances in technology for a user-authorized handgun (UAHG) to address this problem.1 The idea behind a UAHG is that the weapon “recognizes” the owner(s) or other authorized user(s) and can only be fired when that individual(s), and no one else, wants the gun to fire. A variety of sensor, electronic, mechanical, and other technologies might be used in the design of such a weapon. A basic tenet of gun ownership and use is “reliability,” that is, a gun must fire when an owner wants it to fire and must not fire otherwise. A UAHG must be as close to 100 percent reliable as possible. A successful UAHG design will have to pass a number of hurdles to meet the reliability criterion. For instance, in law enforcement and self-defense situations, the gun must be able to be armed quickly for firing, but an unauthorized person(s) in close proximity to the owner must not be able to fire it. In addition, a UAHG must be designed to take account of the possible failure

====================================

The National Academy of Sciences control so many aspects of our life.  Wake up and smell the fascism.  And this is a 10 minute research project.  It also leaves out the fact that NAS and NIST are conjoined twins. No wonder there is yet no justice to the 3,000 dead on 9/11, the 5,000 dead US soldiers, and the over 1,000,000 dead innocent Iraqi women and children.

Indeed a very scary thing The National Academy of Sciences's power is!

[David Rothscum]

HAHAHA that link you gave is proof... right. I'm not mad I'm just dumbfounded. If there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it was be MSM news for sure the elite would be having wetdream after wedream.

What should years old studies be doing on the news?

[Dig]

Oh I'm all for debate. Debate whatever you want. What do you think we're doing right now? And again, if Ben Stein had simply made a movie showing how people are shunned and have their careers destroyed for disagreeing with the mainstream scientific opinion, I'd commend the guy. The thing I'm against is demonizing the theory of evolution and Atheism by associating it with the Holocaust. He should have made clear the difference between Eugenics and Darwinism but he threw everything on a giant heap and tried to incite some feeling of patriotism to get Americans behind him.

"demonizing the theory of evolution and Atheism by associating it with the Holocaust"

Please explain where Ben mentioned Atheism (is atheism capitalized? is it a religion?). Please explain where Ben demonized the theory of evolution rather than him demonizing the NAS's  strict adherance to their misguided philosophies about life. Although those outlandish and unprovable statements are parroted in over 100 National Academy of Science websites, blogs, and articles they lack any evidence, logic, reference, and scientific rational.  This actually explains quite a bit about NAS and their methods for denying scientific debate.

"the difference between Eugenics and Darwinism"

Please explain the difference, I am unfamiliar with it. 

Come on Sane. I already explained to you that the only way Darwinism can lead to dehumization or fascism is by trying to use what we observe in nature as an example for how our society should work.

That statement lacks quite a lot of logic. 

Your speculative opening masked as a truism: "the only way Darwinism can lead to dehumization or fascism"

has nothing whatsoever to do with your conclusion:

"by trying to use what we observe in nature as an example for how our society should work"

Darwinian occultists can lead a country to fascism by denying scientific debate.  This has been proven by the Nazi holocaust and probably one of the reasons it was included in a movie about how limitations to freedom of speech can have detrimental societal effects.

[matrixcutter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists [4] . It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed [4], also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe, including France and Germany.
It's a bit like the eggs fried by cellhpones, or the popcorn trick. We know they are bad for your brain so when something like this comes out the whole movement jumps on it.

No, it's more like the promotion of a theory which depends entirely on the existence of a hypothetical missing link, and the deliberate attempt to mislead the world about the existence of that missing link by simply making one up and putting it in a museum.  The idea that the experts were not aware that it was a hoax is a desperate thing to have to cling to.

It's still being pushed to this day. These folks were expecting a skull like this so when this stuff came out they jumped on it.

What a stroke of luck.  I guess you have to expect these coincidences when you are willing to give the establishment the benefit of the doubt.

Well then, what are you waiting for. Tell me how far back human civilization really goes.

It depends how civilisation is defined.
We know that it goes back before Sumer.

Let's just start with Lucy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years and was assigned to the species Australopithecus afarensis. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal, although there is evidence that afarensis was also partly arboreal (tree-dwelling). She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight.

The humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, is 84.6 for Lucy, compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for the two species of chimpanzee (all these figures have a standard deviation of between 2.0 and 3.0). In other words, humans have much shorter arms compared to their legs than chimpanzees do, and Lucy falls roughly in the middle. (Korey 1990)

Here's what I asked you:

"How about you point out the number of evolutionary jumps in between man and ape, the number of physical changes from step to step which can be interpreted as an indication of a change of species, and also the amount of time between these evolutionary jumps?

And then maybe you can explain how the fossil records prove that a particular species (along the line of ape becoming man) evolved into a different species, and explaining how the fossil records allow you to rule out all other possibilities."

If you won't even attempt to answer these questions then you haven't really got a workable theory to defend.

We need to examine what the evidence is, interpret the evidence, acknowledge alternative interpretations and explain how these alternatives can all be (objectively) ruled out.

If you find a fossil that's older than a different fossil and similar yet noticeably different, how do you prove that one species became the other?  If the answer relies on unproven assumptions put forward by the theory you're supposed to be proving, it's all worthless.

[David Rothscum]

"the difference between Eugenics and Darwinism"

Please explain the difference, I am unfamiliar with it. 

I see. Well lets start with that.
Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/darwinism
a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors; broadly : a theory of biological evolution

And now, here's Eugenics:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics
a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

And while we're at it anyway, here's Social Darwinism:

an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena  ; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

In other words. Darwinism is the theory that explains Evolution that occurs in nature. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are the elite using Darwinism as their latest excuse of why they are better, by trying to apply it to our society as well.

[Dig]

What a stroke of luck.  I guess you have to expect these coincidences when you are willing to give the establishment the benefit of the doubt.

bwaaaahaahahahaha!

These coincidence theories always seem to pop up around the National Academy of Science.  What a "coincidence" for a "national" and "scientific" organization which denies national scientific debate.

[David Rothscum]

No, it's more like the promotion of a theory which depends entirely on the existence of a hypothetical missing link, and the deliberate attempt to mislead the world about the existence of that missing link by simply making one up and putting it in a museum.  The idea that the experts were not aware that it was a hoax is a desperate thing to have to cling to.

You think they're stupid enough to show off a hoax when they had real skulls? They didn't know where to place this skull but didn't imagine it'd be a hoax.

What a stroke of luck.  I guess you have to expect these coincidences when you are willing to give the establishment the benefit of the doubt.

Here's a wild theory. Perhaps the guy who made the skull knew the scientists expected something like this, so he made a skull that fullfilled their expectations. He could've given the skull a third eyesocket as well, but I figure you'll get more interest from the community by showing them something that fullfills their expectations.

Here's what I asked you:

"How about you point out the number of evolutionary jumps in between man and ape, the number of physical changes from step to step which can be interpreted as an indication of a change of species, and also the amount of time between these evolutionary jumps?

And then maybe you can explain how the fossil records prove that a particular species (along the line of ape becoming man) evolved into a different species, and explaining how the fossil records allow you to rule out all other possibilities."

If you won't even attempt to answer these questions then you haven't really got a workable theory to defend.

You realize it'd be hard to even get that all of that even in a single book right? Are you just trying to keep me busy or something? I suggest you begin by taking a look at these links:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/14_early_hominids.htm
http://www.biology-online.org/10/15_homo.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html (You'll like the diagram at the end)

We need to examine what the evidence is, interpret the evidence, acknowledge alternative interpretations and explain how these alternatives can all be (objectively) ruled out.

If you find a fossil that's older than a different fossil and similar yet noticeably different, how do you prove that one species became the other?  If the answer relies on unproven assumptions put forward by the theory you're supposed to be proving, it's all worthless.

How about finding fossiles that have characteristics of both? I suggest you take look at this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-human-fossil.html

[wolfman86]

I have not read this entire thread so I apologize if some of this has been covered already.

I think the link between Darwinian evolution and eugenics (with all its subsequent horrors) is very strong. I believe it was Darwin's cousin who first proposed the idea of "helping" evolution along. An excellent book on this subject is Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K. Chesterton. I think if you google it it is posted for free somewhere. Chesterton was one of the few strong academic voices that spoke out strongly against Eugenics when it was all the rage.

Also--and this relates to an early comment in this thread--the establishment no longer wields religion as a weapon of control, at least in the western world. Try to find a government or educational or corporate media source that deals with Christians and even the idea of God with anything other than contempt or mocking. It is certainly true that the church was used as a means of control during the middle ages but that ship sailed a long time ago. It seems obvious to me that it is the "loosing of the nihilists and skeptics" or whatever Pike said that is the major force now.

There is a shift in propaganda that is already evident, however. This whole "we were genetically seeded by aliens" thing is what the establishment has waiting in the wings. I don't know exactly how it's going to play out but it is beginning to be pushed pretty frequently. Scientific determinism was destroyed by quantum theory (along with Calvanistic determinism) but I am sure Satan and his minions have another big lie in their collective sleeves.

[Dig]

I see. Well lets start with that.
Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about this:And now, here's Eugenics:And while we're at it anyway, here's Social Darwinism:In other words. Darwinism is the theory that explains Evolution that occurs in nature. Social Darwinism and Eugenics are the elite using Darwinism as their latest excuse of why they are better, by trying to apply it to our society as well.

Interesting theory, but although the dictionary may use different words to define these terms, they are not mutually exclusive. Sir Francis Galton, the "father" of eugenics based his theories on Darwin's non-scientific scriblings.  Hilter, Naziism based their societal constructs on Galton's eugenics.

Sir Francis Galton - Father of Eugenics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufqOe0_pres

Darwin, Nazi Eugenics and Selective Breeding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdWBP52gxs

And National Acedemy of Science's only rationale for promoting the euthanasia concept is that scientifically it makes sense.  They do not allow scientific debate and then say that genocide is scientifically acceptable because of Darwin, Galton, etc.  You are really serious in trying to separate Darwin from eugenics? 

[Dig]

What happens when the National Academy of Science does not allow scientific debate?

THERMAL EXPANSION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ