I edit that because you want to move on. We will have to disagree, as it seems you cannot agree that morality is often intuitive, i.e. instinct.
Alright, I'll do my best to address each item in your list. [...] I'll have to google every one. I won't read creationist articles because they are self interested and at the same time I won't look at scientific publications as you may make the same claim. (Emphasis added)
There you have it. Nothing more really need be said because you have consistently relied on arguments and claims based on ignorance and bigotry throughout this dialogue. I do read what Darwinians say as such and so on. Those are the arguments about the evidence that I use as the material of satire: "If I can imagine a little story about this, then it is so." In contrast, if you come across a source that is Christian then you don't even look at it. E.g., "Google turned up one referrence to this and it was a Christian site." What is it that you're expecting, the Darwinian mind to disagree with itself? Of course it is going to be Christians, Jews, Muslims, UFO kooks, etc., that tend to disagree with the Darwinian creation myth. It's as if you turn away from every sort of person that disagrees with you about what happened in the past and then insist that there is no other perspective, no evidence against what you believe and that you are "overwhelmed" by the supposed truth of your own narrow perspective.
I may be able to verify some references further, yet it seems that if they are not Darwinian then you will turn away from the evidence anyway. And if you follow the memes of talk.origins further then if they are from Darwinists then you will probably assert the old canard that is so typical to those with the urge to merge about supposed "quote mining." It's not clear what half-wits expect when it comes to that, given that their standard for evidence seems to be Darwinians disagreeing with themselves it will always be that a fellow half-wit can go back to the Darwinist that made a heretical comment about the evidence to say, "But you really believe in the Darwinian creation myth, don't you?" So then with a furrowed brow and perhaps a little tension in their voice the other half-wit replies, "Of course I do! I'm no heretic. It's just those ID types and creationists quote mining again, I says!" Etc. There is an added layer to heresy hunting these days given that the definition and testability brought by being really defined by the symbols and signs of text is lost on those with the urge to merge, thus claims of "quote mining" are not surprising.
At any rate, who is it that you think is going to disagree with the Darwinian mind if not Christians and others?
1. Precambrian, site: Ottosdalin, South Africa, item: grooved metallic sphere
Your search - Precambrian site Ottadalen South Africa item grooved metallic sphere - did not match any documents.
Here is one, but I'm not really attached to this supposed evidence or ideas about it. It is shades of the canals on Mars and so on. However, I wouldn't begin including my own imagination as evidence either. I.e., I can imagine natural ways that such an object can come to be formed much easier than say the origin of Life and so on, yet that does not mean that my own imagination is sufficient evidence or is the default answer that all must agree to without any testing. If I can imagine a way that a physical object can be formed then I ought to test the hypothesis out physically. At any rate, in the interest of brevity...
2.Precambrian, site: Dorchester Mass., item: metal vase
The only thing even close I found was this site Ancient mysteries The explanations they posit are far fetched like aliens and multiple universes.
Far fetched? I suppose it is going quite far to posit multiple universes and yet scientists themselves seem to do so naturally enough, often enough. One is left wondering just how natural all these hypothetical universes are or if calling some a form of heavenly worlds of the Forms and others levels of hell in which our form of sentience can emerge to be born again would be religion and not "science" again. I.e., which areas of knowledge are our self-defined Policemen of Knowledge capable of policing?
As for the item, there were many such reports before the Darwinian creation myth became established and so you probably won't be able to find much. The full report:
The following report, titled “A Relic of a Bygone Age,” appeared in the magazine Scientific American (June 5, 1852): “A few days ago a powerful blast was made in the rock at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall’s meeting house. The blast threw out an immense mass of rock, some of the pieces weighing several tons, and scattered fragments in all directions. Among them was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts, rent asunder by the explosion. On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4-1/2 inches high, 6-1/2 inches at the base, 2-1/2 inches at the top, and about an eighth of an inch in thickness. The body of this vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the side there are six figures or a flower, or bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel a vine, or wreath, also inlaid with silver. The chasing, carving, and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning workman. [...] The matter is worthy of investigation, as there is no deception in the case.”(The Hidden History of the Human Race
by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson :106-107)
3. Cambrian, site: Antelope Spring, Utah, item: shoe print
In fact, it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi. To fully appreciate that fact, which has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, you should read Conrad's account.
Unfortunately I simply cited the beginning of an index of evidence drawn from Hidden History, so the ambiguity of some of it will allow you to more easily reject everything as false pattern recognition and so on. I should note that I'm not really writing for you because you don't even believe in reading what ID types, creationists or UFO kooks or anyone else disagreeing with Darwinism write. It seems that you cannot deal with the evidence they find or reading their perspective and view on the evidence anyway. Instead, you seem to be sitting about waiting for Darwinians to disagree with Darwinism. Ironically, given the inane nature of the Darwinian creation myth they sometimes do just that but most of the time they do not and instead engage in imagining things about the evidence again. E.g., when a hominid fossil does not comport with their creation myth they imagine that a deer stepped on it and then they break it apart and arrange things the "right" way.
On the other side I am indeed left with some crackpots, kooks and so on who stand outside the paradigm. They may sometimes imagine that a pattern is an image of something when it is not. Yet when the paradigm itself is made up of people who are breaking apart the actual evidence to make it fit to their imaginings about the past then I feel more comfortable with the occasional crackpot on my side that imagines something "odd" about the evidence. There is a difference between pattern/image creation and pattern recognition. Note that one is capable of having false positives while the other is not, yet the original degenerate epistemic standard that is often set by Darwinists relies is a case of pattern/image creation: "If I can imagine a little story about the past about that, then that is evidence of how it came to be."
4. Devonian, site: Kingoodie Quarry Scotland, item: iron nail in stone
My search didn't turn up much except to confirm a nail was found there in a rock. Ththweb
You can't exactly trust the web either. But in the interest of brevity...
I'll be honest with you, I got the impression this sort of "evidence" is of the same quality as the image of the Virgin Mary appearing as a stain under a highway bridge being "evidence" for her existence.
For one thing, there is evidence that Mary existed. It is worth thinking about what evidence exists to this day because it illustrates just how easy it is for an organism to recede into the dust without a trace. In fact, without there being a great catastrophy resulting in fossilization that is most likely the typical way of things. But what evidence for the existence of Mary does exist, it's textual in nature. The notion of text relies on a coding system and so on that often can be translated. It is the best conduit for information and the best way of saving information in a world in which forms with spirit and meaning travel from dust to dust. It is the best way of saving the meaning of forms that once were and the like, so information carried on through language is the best and perhaps the only remaining evidence for the existence of Mary. All else is actually more questionable than your original terms and reasoning about fossils made it seem. Things can always be questioned and the information drawn from fossils lends itself to questioning more easily than information saved in text and language.
It's tenuous at best and that Meister print was an outright hoax like Piltdown man.
Again, there is a difference between false pattern recognition and the creation or setting a standard in which the continual imagination of imagery is common. As far as that print, I should note from the same source that their view on it was that it was weak: "...as evidence for a human presence in the distant past, is ambiguous." (Ib. :120) As I said, I began by using the index of evidence that they include in the back of their book. I probably should have begun with cases that are not as ambiguous and then worked backward. I wasn't thinking about it at the time.
You slammed me for saying that scientists had a conspiracy against creationists. You called my assertion a red herring. Very well, if there is no conspiracy and this evidence is solid, then it should be accepted, at least in some areas, of the world's scientific community. Of the few sites that had anything to say about this evidence, the vast majority were young earth creationist sites.
I care little about whoever the world's self-defined Policemen of Knowledge currently are and those who define themselves as the "scientific community" at the moment. The eugenicists were the scientific community of their day, with alchemists before them. It is not all history, as if that was then but science these days is in fact all fact. For instance, most paleanthropologists these days are little better than the phrenologists of old. The tell tale signs of the same forms of charlatanism that propped up mixtures of "knowledge" such as anthropology/phrenology/eugenics seems to begin to emanate from a community that begins with degenerate epistemic standards (as is the Darwinian way) and then falls down from there. Another sign of pseudo-science and pseudo-knowledge is when the "community" seems to be more interested in maintaining its professional identity than in seeking scientia/knowledge as such, thus charlatanism becomes more prevalent in such communities and those within it come to claim a knowledge of more than they know.
What "community" seems to be quite interested in maintaining its professional identity, often more than seeking knowledge as such these days? The pattern of it seems to bleed through in every other argument when it comes to the Darwinian creation myth that is fused to it: "Geologists may as well be truckdrivers if that is accurate knowledge. Geologists are scientists and not truckdrivers, therefore that cannot be accurate. Me scientist, so I know!" Or another: "ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo but we real scientists wear real expensive tuxedos when we go to our scientific conferences. That's the way real science is."
There were no newspaper or magazine articles. That is telling.
Telling of what? It may be that I can find what you cannot but it seems to me that what the Old Press decides to report on often says more about the Old Press than what is worth reporting on. In this case, perhaps on the one hand challenges to the Darwinian creation myth could be sensationalistic stories to report in some respects. Yet on the other the Old Press tends to be "liberal" and so it is biased towards propping up the Darwinian creation myth as it fits in with other myths. E.g., the myth that man has emerged from Nature as the measure of all things and is capable of progressive progress towards "saving the planet" (Why not the Cosmos while we're at it.) and this sort of thing if only the power of the State of man is used correctly. In that myth the true state of man cannot be admitted to but the myth is amusing given that man will never be able to hold the planet in orbit, etc. Yet I meander, all I would say is that the Old Press has its own interests just as scientific charlatans who work with it to generate the illusion of knowledge and control do. An interesting note to bring things back to the issue at hand though, note the proliferation of paleoanthrolopologists making their name and establishing their professional identity through the Old Press with reports on supposed evidence of human origins. It seems that the degenerate nature of the scholarship of what amount to modern phrenologists matters little when it comes to propping up their professional identities as scientists and the like. The results of the need for some to prop themselves up as the Policemen of Knowledge in this case are that we seem to have many types of human ancestors, yet modern apes have virtually none. But it's curious, is it not? Apparently many hominid fossils along the "hypothetical" human line of descent just happened to be preserved and yet there is virtually no evidence left for apes and their line of descent. A more cynical person might note that apes don't read newspapers.
Mynym, if you have the time I would like to ask what you think about this article.
No time now.
...due to the wild goose chase you led me on...
I don't feel bad for you, entering things into Google is a small thing compared to the number of Darwinian claims I've wound up researching. For that matter, I once debated a fellow who got his hand bitten by a spider when he was tracking down some old bit of knowledge at the library. I don't know why you bother anyway. Again, you've already come to the narrow-minded position in which all you can accept as evidence is Darwinians disagreeing with Darwinism and so every challenge is met by an attack on the source for not being Darwinian. So you are left waiting for Darwinists to disagree with Darwinism, or perhaps you are also waiting for a vast change in the views of the current "scientific community," the scientists that you seem to put far too much faith in. Those sorts of things are not going to happen very much and so your views and beliefs are set, even if they are based on an absurd foundations such as faith in scientists of the socialist sort.
Some creationists are very intelligent, articulate and well read. This is where I think they cross the line from ignorance to full blown delusion. You have made it clear that you feel as much about evolutionists. In fact, you think of them like Nazis.
Apparently you have too high an opinion of modern evolutionists and too low an opinion of Nazis as well as the whole "scientific" cultural milieu in which they existed that was based on the very same philosophic naturalism and demarcation arguments that you have been supporting. There were plenty of "nice" people who believed in the Nazi form of scientism just as today there are nice people that are the leading propenents of scientism these days who tend to fall into saying things that the Nazis said. I think that some are like Nazis because they are like Nazis. I have evidence in mind when I say that, so what evidence do you have in mind when you assert that creationists who are intelligent, articulate and well read must be delusional? You make many claims that echo with empty rhetoric. How do you know that they are delusional when you will not even read what they write?
Anyway, please use the Steven Schafersman article as my "evidence" and rebuttal to many of the creationist attacks on evolution. My response is longer than I wanted, so sorry for that as well.
Apparently I will need to read that article and if I am interested then I will use it eventually. Note that you are often relying upon reading only the critics of creationists and as you have argued you won't even read what creationists write anyway. That's why I cited Ronald Numbers from the original article saying something along the lines of: "Creationists respect science, as any reading of their literature clearly shows." That's because he's read their literature while you clearly have not. It's little wonder that you are repeating almost every canard that has ever been spouted by the charlatans of Darwinism these days given that all you seem capable of accepting are Darwinian attacks against creationism.
I still have to demand evidence and not just paranoid imaginings layered over imaginings, so cite leading creationists' texts that portray the worldwide scientific community as a vast conspiracy and so on or cite them attacking science and so on. There are a number of claims that you made about creationists, yet you cite no evidence. I can cite evidence as to Darwinists imagining things to back up my claims or evidence on how Darwinism comported well with Nazism, yet your sweeping rhetorical claims are echoing with the fact that all you've done is read attacks on creationists and so you can't seem to deal with the texts of leading creationists or ID types even though they are supposedly the very people you are referring to.