|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That sounds like a like of hokey misrepresentation of the facts to me.
It, actually is a good way that scientists will take further information and reevaluate their initial impression. The fact that when a full jawbone was discovered they changed their mind shows the strength of being able to admit you are wrong. It does look that Yayhah is greatly overstating the case, and misrepresenting on the impact the scientific reevaluation had on the TOE (absolutely none). It also points out the similarities between hominids and other great apes. This shows it is it not a lie, a fraud or a hoax. An error that was reevaluated with further information , yes, but it had very little impact if any on the TOE. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The dating appears forged. Perhaps that's too strong a word. I prefer descriptions lile rampant overstated speculation, but the point is that the data was manipulated to try to bring it in line with evo assumptions, and that's really what this thread is about, not quibbling over whether something should be called a "lie" or "hoax" or "forged" or just overstated, though some things are hoaxes.
The main point is that data is consistently interpreted in a manner to try to fit in with evo theory, causing a severe lack of objectivity in how to just look at the data for itself. Imo, this a major flaw in evo science and these are some examples of it. Some examples are worse than others, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
That isn't a forged fossil though. How is scientists arguing over the age of the skull a hoax, a fraud, or dishonest? Why do you think the skull was reconstructed improperly? Where does the dishonesty/fraud come into play here? The issue has become clear: there aren't five forged fossils. All folks can do after Piltdown and Archaeoraptor is pick on generally old, and generally minor, issues -- issues, not forgeries. The claim over improper reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 involves the angle of the face; if I remember correctly it is attached only at the nasals so there is leeway in the angle, and the original reconstruction was not supported by subsequent analysis. In other words, science straightened out an error. This has been dishonestly magnified by creationists into a huge blow to the theory of evolution. (If you got no data supporting your case you gotta do something to keep all of the creationists' disbelief in the theory of evolution going.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
I did it GF! Welcome to the fray!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such.
The vast majority of evolutionary theory's evidence has nothing to do with fossils. It is not dishonest to take the theory of evolution and what we know when interpreting the fossils that we find. When something doesn't fit, you need to investigate further - and they did, leading to the scientists having an argument. That's just using the body of scientific knowledge to help you interpret the evidence presented. Also, what missing link? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpgExplained at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
ramoss, evo speculations are passed on as essentially facts all the time. There never was any solid reason for these mistakes. They were overstating the evidence and their case, and this is a real problem in the history of evo science. It becomes difficult, imo, for the data to be viewed objectively for what it is because evos are always trying to make it more than it is and exaggerate their case.
That goes for their logic as well. For example, evos will take something like the peppered-moth story, which wasn't even a factual example as the moths hardly ever rest on trees, and then present it as evidence or as an observation of evolution. In reality, natural selection is not debated, but merely showing natural selection does not show evolution. It was used to bolster a case in a deceptive manner since in reality, besides being bogus science, it really doesn't show anything substantive. Just because natural selection or evolution defined as heritable change happens doesn't mean that evolution as defined by universal common descent via gradualistic means (small changes accumulating) has been shown. They are 2 different things and suggesting since one is observed that the other concept of evolution has been observed is a fallacy, at best, and a deception or delusion at worst. I think that's what this thread is getting at. We have a long history of absurd overstatements and downright frauds like Haeckel's data, and illogic being passed off as genuine, sound, objective scientific opinion on the facts, and it just isn't so. Why is that? Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such. Open any textbook or any textbook when I went to school and you can see your statement is wrong. Fossil findings are routinely listed as evidence for the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
It is not dishonest to take the theory of evolution and what we know when interpreting the fossils that we find. When something doesn't fit, you need to investigate further - and they did, leading to the scientists having an argument. That's just using the body of scientific knowledge to help you interpret the evidence presented. So, in other words, potassium-argon and C-14 dating methods are only accurate and accepted, when the fit the evolutionary mold? WHAT!? Sounds more like when evidence is contrary to Darwinian Evolution, regardless of how accurate it is, it is discarded as not “right”. This is the type of rationalization that makes me question everything about evolution. Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : This is post number 69. How Bill and Ted of me!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Overstatements?? That sounds like a real real big overstatement to me.
It sounds like you are trying to blow things out of proportion. As for the peppered moth, yes, they pinned a moth to the tree to show the contrast. OF course, it is very difficult to get moths to stand still for a photography session. Experiment after experment has shown the peppered moth conclusions to be totally correct. To say other wise is incorrect. Here is a little article about it. from Talk origins.
quote: Now, if you use this supposed example again, I will know you are using'willful ignorance' because of a religious prejudice against science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
I think that's what this thread is getting at. We have a long history of absurd overstatements and downright frauds like Haeckel's data, and illogic being passed off as genuine, sound, objective scientific opinion on the facts, and it just isn't so. That is EXACTLY what this thread is getting at! Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
When I went to school, it wasn't. I have yet to see any textbook that makes the claim you said it made.
Give me a direct example.. show me the book, and page number.. then i can look at your claim in context. I have noted you do seem to have tunnel vision, and can't read context very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have noted you do seem to have tunnel vision, and can't read context very well. Since you guys say the same old crap to everyone that disagrees with you, it's hard to take such comments seriously. Let's move on to something constructive. Exactly which claim are you referring to, the fact that fossils are used in textbooks as evidence for evolution, or are you talking about peppered moths? Just want to be clear what your stance is, and then we can look at textbooks perhaps. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such. Hey there Alasdair and ramoss, thought I would post up the very first thing when you google search "evidence of evolution". Enjoy.
How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred? The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources: 1. the fossil record of change in earlier species2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms 3. the geographic distribution of related species 4. the genetic changes in living organisms over many generations http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm Number 1. of course in interesting. :-) Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : I had to add ramoss!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
DbaF, you misinterpreted what the scientists were arguing about.
The original dates do not in any way, shape, or form not match up with the theory of evolution. What they didn't match up with was the exact details of man's recent evolutionary history. None of the findings fail to match evolutionary theory as a whole. What you have found are scientists arguing about the details of evolutionary theory, not whether or not it occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grandfather raven Junior Member (Idle past 5476 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: |
quote:no, it was DbaFlea's claim that the fossils HE listed WERE, and ARE STILL, being used as SPECIFIC evidence for evolution. this has been debunked repeatedly over these 4 pages, yet keeps getting repeated. (which re-raises the question, "why the lies, frauds, and hoaxes?") nobody has said "no fossils anywhere are ever used as general evidence that evolution happened". that's a straw-man of your own construction Edited by grandfather raven, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024