|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5762 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Didn't evos use Nebraska man in the Scopes Monkey trial? Maybe "hoax" is too strong....just rampant overstated speculation. Wasn't Piltdown man a hoax, not just fanciful and overstated speculation, btw? Wasn't Neanderthal man grossly misrepresented for decades? Wasn't Rampithicus or whatever the name, actually not a "missing link"? Wasn't the 1983 depiction on the cover of Science, I believe, showing Pakicetus as a swimming whale based on nothing but part of the skull an absurd overstated speculation presented as factual?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Seems like a pattern to me. I have heard and you can find people saying Nebraska man was used at the trial. I will see if I can find a site that documents that.
With Pakicetus, why does it matter if a popular science magazine's staff illustrator drew an illustration built on the speculations of scientists? It was more than that and not just a popular magazine. The findings were overstated in trying to classify it as a whale or should we say, a swimming whale. Evos still call it a whale even though it is now understood to be a fully terrestrial animal.
Ramapithecus is regarded as one of the worst errors of the theory of evolution. This name was given to fossil remains found in India in 1932, which were claimed to represent the first step in the separation of human beings and apes, some 14 million years ago. Evolutionists used it as iron-clad evidence over the 50 years from its first discovery in 1932, until it was realized to be completely erroneous in 1982. In the May 1977 edition of Scientific American, the American evolutionist Dr. Elwyn Simons wrote the following about Ramapithecus: "This extinct primate is the earliest hominid or distinctively man-like, member of man's family tree. The finding of many new specimens of it has clarified its place in human evolution." He then added, with even greater confidence, "pathway can now be traced with little fear of contradiction from generalized hominids-to the genus Homo."142 The importance of Ramapithecus in human evolution was realized with an article Simons wrote for Time magazine in November 1977, in which he stated: "Ramapithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is."143 (1) Dryopithecus(2) Ramapithecus An article by Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, published in Scientific American in 1972, considered the conclusions from 24 different measurements of Ramapithecus teeth and those of Dryopithecus (an extinct species of gorilla). Dr. Eckhardt compared these measurements to ones he had previously taken from chimpanzees. According to these comparisons, the difference between the teeth of living chimpanzees was greater than that between Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus. Eckhardt summed up his conclusions: Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.144 Like Eckhardt, Richard Leakey had his doubts about Ramapithecus. According to Leakey, it was far too early to come to any definite decision about Ramapithecus, which consisted of a few jawbones. Leakey summarized his thoughts in these words: "The case for Ramapithecus as a hominid is not substantial, and the fragmentary material leaves many questions open."145
http://www.hyahya.org/...ism/transitional/transitional06.php I'll look up some more and edit and add to this post in a little while. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Without rehashing all the details of the peppered-moth saga, keep in mind it's not really evidence for evolution as it's just variation within a species. I could get into the flaws and there is a thread here somewhere on it, but the biggest flaw is the idea that merely showing natural selection and adaption is significant evidence for ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
no, it was DbaFlea's claim that the fossils HE listed WERE, and ARE STILL, being used as SPECIFIC evidence for evolution. Really? The comment was actually:
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. This was in response to a discussion on Leakey's discoveries and dating. I don't think then you are correct, and yes, he did make a point to comment on fossils in general as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I thought you were supposed to argue the topic, and not engage in insulting its participants. It's an easy way for evos to avoid debating the topic, imo. Probably evidence you are making some headway in presenting a formidable case. Btw, I tried to mention such behaviour towards you to one of the admins per their constant request, but the admin that responded just insulted me for bringing it up. Keep up the good work. I especially liked your graphics awhile back. How someone can pretend you are a "troll" after such informative posts is beyond me. Basically what's going on is you are bringing up very good points on evo reliance on overstatements and sometimes even hoaxes, and your detractors are trying to quibble than discuss the topic head-on, imo. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024