|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits.
http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/scopes/scopes.html "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial ... As this is not true, please feel free to accuse yourself of fraud.
... the evidence lasted in the public domain for decades before being exposed for what it was. This is not true either. Nebraska Man was identified as a hominid in 1922, and reidentified as a peccary in 1925. A formal retraction was published in 1927. This is not a secret, you could have easily found out that you were not telling the truth. I think I shall start keeping count of the number of creationist frauds you perpetrate in this thread, it will be an interesting exercise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1387 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits. Actually, your quoted info perfectly supports what I said about the long term damage done because of the Scopes Trial.
The Scopes Trial generated a lot of publicity, and the possibility remains that commentators outside the trial made mention of Nebraska Man. However, this still renders the original assertion false. The Institute for Creation Research grudgingly admits that Nebraska Man was not entered as evidence.
It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.
[...] The imaginative newspaper coverage and the timing of the find made a big impression at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Nebraska man was never introduced into the trial, since the lead paleoanthropologist Dr. Fay Cooper cole had some misgivings about it, but it was there nonetheless.[End quote -- RM Cornelius & JD Morris, 1995, Scopes: Creation on Trial, ICR, p.40.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim. You are lying. Your precise claim, as you know perfectly well, was that "Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man [...] were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial". It is really not possible for you to argue for creationism without continually telling lies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
So your argument is actually that the media is piss-poor and that science reporting is often very bad. No argument there. I fail to see though;
a) How this is the fault of the actual scientists and b) How this constitutes fraud. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topics are each very big and will generate a lot of discussion. It gets very hard for anyone to track what is said if they are all merged together.
There is no reason why you can't build a case by supporting each item and then when you have put it to bed you can summarize in one place. If you handle each one well then it is clear you will make your case when you summarize. If you have trouble then it will only be worse if they are all mixed up. Beside someone might accuse you of a Gish gallop if you mix too many topics up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If you are looking for long term damage done by (purported) frauds in evolution, perhaps we could also look at frauds perpetrated by creationists.
You have posted several at the beginning of this thread. And rather than correct errors, creationists just go on spreading their falsehoods. At least when scientists make mistakes they correct them when they discover them. Any tar you're seeking to spread to science would come back upon creationists a hundred fold--if only they were as willing to acknowledge their mistakes. But they pile misrepresentation upon fraud upon denial upon lie. So, where is the public acceptance of evolution vs. creationism in regard to these frauds, as the original post asks? Science rejects frauds and corrects its errors and creationists moan and groan for centuries. Creationists pile one lie on top of another and think its virtuous, never correcting a falsehood. Creation "science" at its best, eh? And you're casting stones? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic here is evolutionary frauds not any others.
In fact, the topic here is fraudulent human antecedents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Good point.
I'd like to see more example of these frauds. If there are so many, coming up with more examples should be easy. So far we have: Piltdown: a hoax designed to fool scientists, and discovered by scientists. Where are all the frauds in hominid evolution? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4657 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Archangel, the evidence is not based on just a few fossils. Hundreds of transitional hominid skeletons and skulls have been found, many of them near complete. If you want the evidence, don't start with people with a strong interest in refuting the evidence. They will only give you the strawmen. Start with the authorities who accept it, and then be a skeptic. Take the evidence that people actually accept to the skeptics, and then ask them to explain it. For example, examine this image, because it is a great place to start. Millions of us evos accept this image as representative of the evidence for common descent with other primates. It is from TalkOrigins.org, and the images are collected from the Smithsonian Institution. The letters in the image correspond to the specimens in the list, so you can verify them by clicking on the links in the list.
None of those skulls are the examples you listed, except for the Neanderthal skulls, (J), (K) and (L). Three skulls, not just one. Do a Google search and you will find many more of them. For more details, go to this page at AnswersInCreation.org La Ferrassie 1
Shanidar 1
Shanidar 2
La Chapelle-aux Saints 1
Le Moustier
Notice the consistently jutting eyebrow ridges and the protruding mouths. They are the closest human relatives, but they still show those transitional features, from primitive apes, in their skulls. No human alive today has a skull that look remotely like these. And you just can't explain them with arthritis or rickets. Edited by ApostateAbe, : Missed a few Neanderthals Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Indeed. I'd like to see some actual fraud, like Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk human embryonic stem fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Archangel writes: And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial Coragyps writes: I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits. Archangel writes: Actually, your quoted info perfectly supports what I said about the long term damage done because of the Scopes Trial. Oh, I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where you apologised for your false statement, admitted that it was indeed false, and made an honourable retraction. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5047 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: You have this completely backwards. Ask people what they know of Piltdown man and if they know anything about it they will tell you it's a fraud. How does that support evolution's public acceptance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.
oh noes! the press reports scientific news badly! And the public believe them sometimes! Wait Archangel - would you say that deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud? The reason I ask is because of your stubborn refusal to accept your glaring mistakes. 1 of your 5 examples was a hoax, and that was discovered by the scientific community - the retraction is blatantly ignored by creationists. If anything, therefore, the fraud is entirely on the side of the creationists who are misrepresenting known facts, lying about others, making up even more and refusing to correct these mistakes - the refusal could be taken, being deliberate, as fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5047 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: For these three, this shows that scientists were wrong in their initial findings. This is not fraud. What evidence do you have that fraud was committed in these cases - ie that known facts were deliberately distorted, or suppressed for some ulterior motive? The fact that you don't seem to distinguish between fraud and error makes me suspicious of your position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024