Even Darwinist scientists had no qualms about admitting: "THE IDA SHOW
IS AN EMBARRASSMENT!"
The IDA FUROR, first acclaimed by the Darwinist Jorn Hurum, a
paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in Oslo, and then
lauded to the skies by the Darwinist David Attenborough as the missing
link that had been sought for so manyyears and described in the press
under such headlines as "the ancestor of man" and "the eighth wonder
of the world" has even attracted intense criticism from Darwinist
scientists. In their eyes, this peculiar show IS LITERALLY A CLOWNING!
Many fossils have been made the subject of speculation during the
history of the Darwinist deception. Theses have been written about
many false fossils (there are 40 separate doctoral theses about
PILTDOWN Man, which was subsequently establishedas a hoax). Pictures
of these as the forerunner of human beings that never actually existed
have appeared in Darwinist publications (pictures of Nebraska Man,
based on the discovery of a single boar tooth, and his entire family
appeared in newspapers for months on end). And some of these fakes
havebeen taken from countryto country and placed ondisplay. All these
fossils were the subject of intense Darwinist propaganda, to be
replaced by a profound silence in Darwinist circles once they were
shown to be false or hoaxes.
On occasion the speculation continued, quite shamelessly, even once
fossils had been shown to be false. Haeckel's false illustrations, for
instance, continued to appear in text books even after Haeckel had
admitted they were fraudulent. Another well-known example is the
evolution of the horse series. Scientists have admitted that this
series is a fantasy devoidof the slightest foundation. Yet the series
is still exhibited and discussed in text books. That is the extent to
which Darwinist speculation can be carried.
The furor over Ida resembles these previous instances, but also
differs from them inone regard. This time, Darwinists have totally
lost control. Because Darwinism is in a historicstate of collapse.
Darwinist stratagems arebeing exposed one by one. That is why
Darwinists have made such a sudden fuss over a fossil lemur that had
been kept on the shelf for 26 years. Some Darwinist scientists
initially reacted with caution, issuing moderate statements along the
lines of, "it is still too early to refer to it as a missing link."
But the propaganda reachedsuch alarming dimensions and became so
blatant that even Darwinist scientists wereeventually forced in strong
reaction against it.
What have Darwinist scientists said about Ida?
The scandal of the Ida furor has even been criticized by Darwinist scientists.
In an article carried under the title "The Missing Link?" on the ABC
News Television website, the Johns Hopkins University Carnegie Museum
of Natural History paleontologist Chris Beard says:
"This fossil is not as closeto monkeys, apes, and humans as we are
being led to believe." 1
In another article in NewScientist magazine titled "Why Ida Fossil Is
Not The Missing Link?", Beard openly states that Ida bears no
similarity tohuman beings, for whichreason it cannot be described as a
missing link. No matter how much research may be put into it, Ida is
not, according to the Darwinist Beard, in that sense the eighth
wonderof the world. 2 Beard makes it clear that the fossil in question
is a fully formed and perfect one that can tell us muchabout biology.
The Duke University Richard Kay openly admits that there is no
scientific analysis to prove that Ida is a missing link, in other
words that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. 3 Elwyn Simons, a Duke
University paleoanthropologist, states that Ida tells us nothing we
did not already know. 4
Perhaps the most honestcriticism came from the Timesonline web site:
"Attenborough...was justone element of the media circus turning Ida
into humanity's newest and best link with its ancient past."
Timesonline made the following comments about the fossil:
"Such finds are usually unveiled to the world through the sober
pagesof an academic journal, but for Ida nothing less than a
glittering press conference at the American Museum of Natural History
in New York would do. Later thescientists who studied Ida outlined the
details of their research. Their pronouncements were just as
extravagant." 5
It will be useful to point out here in the context of Darwinists that
the information contained in the sober pages of academic journals is
not always of any scientific value. Historic scientific frauds such as
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor were all announced over
many pages and for many daysin the serious academic journals in
question. In order a find is to be of any scientific value, there
needs to be scientific evidence of that. But since finds always
conflict with their claims (fossils represent perfect life forms, but
Darwinists arealways on the look out for imaginary, semi-developed
transitional forms), Darwinists are never able to produce any
scientific evidence. Consequently, no matter how sober the academic
journal is, the information given to defend Darwinism, is always only
a deception.
Cambridge University Professor of Human Evolution Robert Foley says it
is "meaningless" to describe this creature as a missing link.
Two well-known Darwinist paleontologists who share different views
about the supposed evolution of man and who are therefore neverable to
agree, Elwyn Simons from Duke University and Christopher Beard from
the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, have made these comments about Ida:
6
"Dr. Simons phoned me for the first time in 10 years to share his
outrage about this MALARKEY and, for the first time in a decade, I
agree with him," said Beard last week. "...The roll-out was
extraordinary and it is now clear that the scientists were under
pressure to meet the showbusiness deadlines."
Simons said, "It's absurd and dangerous." "This is all bad science...
Darwinius is a wonderfulfossil, but IT IS NOT A MISSING LINK OF ANY
KIND. IT REPRESENTS A DEAD END IN EVOLUTION."
In addition to the words of all these scientists setting out the scale
of the Ida fraud, Jorn Hurum himself, introduced at the beginning of
this article,also admits he performed a circus around Ida and
attemptsto justify this by saying: "Any pop band is doing the same
thing. Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking
the same way in science."
It will be appropriate at this point to recall that Hurum is someone
who has made sensational use of fossils in the past. The fact that he
has signed a contract with the Atlantic film company about the
fossilIda that he has made such a sensation out of issignificant
evidence of how far he has taken this circus and how the matter has
nothing to dowith science at all.
Conclusion:
The fossil Ida, which has even been criticized by Darwinist
scientists, is a crystal clear example of the dimension the Darwinist
propaganda techniques we have been describing for so long can actually
assume. Darwinist propaganda has been carried out by way of these
techniques for the last 150 years. The reason why the Ida circus is
now coming in for criticism from Darwinist scientists stems from an
attempt to carry on with the circus even though the techniques of
Darwinist propaganda have been exposed and that fossil in question has
been proved to belong to a perfect life form and is in no way any kind
of missing link. By being persisted in so shamelessly when the true
facts are so obvious the circus has damaged Darwinists' esteem and
forced Darwinist scientists to react.
All Darwinists are of course well aware that Ida is not a transitional
form but the fossil of a perfect life form. Contrary to all the
speculation, Ida is a flawless life form that lived a perfect life
some 47 million years ago. This fossil, which is 95% preserved and
whose every detail can therefore be examined, CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE
STRUCTURE SUGGESTIVE OFA TRANSITIONAL FORM CHARACTERISTIC. This
extraordinary find IS PROOF OF THE FACT OF CREATION.
____________________________
1 The Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009. The
Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009
2 Chris Beard, "Why Ida fossil is not the missing link", New
Scientist, May 21, 2009,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
3 Gibbons, A. "Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists.
ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.orgMay 19,
2009, accessed May 20, 2009
4 Dayton, L. Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link. The
Australian. Posted on theaustralian.news.com.au May 21, 2009, accessed
May 21, 2009
5 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
6 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment