Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 4:31 PM
348 online now:
Astrophile, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Faith, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (8 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,513 Year: 29,119/21,208 Month: 1,185/1,847 Week: 108/452 Day: 108/115 Hour: 4/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 67
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 211 of 220 (735850)
08-26-2014 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Coyote
08-24-2014 12:41 AM


Re: Creationist's hoaxes and frauds
As for Piltdown, that was a hoax perpetrated on British anthropologists by someone intimately familiar with them and their theories. Piltdown was widely ignored by almost all but a small bunch of British researchers--the hoax had been designed to catch them. Some researchers working in other areas recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (they were correct). In fact, Piltdown was largely ignored from the mid-1920s, when the South African finds started coming because it simply did not fit.

It may amuse you to know that Charles Dawson reported having seen a sea serpent from a ship in the English Channel on Good Friday 1906 (J.E. Walsh, 'Unravelling Piltdown', The Softback Preview, (1997), p. 195-6). Nobody believed him at the time, and even creationists who believe in living plesiosaurs have been curiously unwilling to use this supposed sighting as evidence. Still, it may shed some light on Dawson's character, and on the origins of the Piltdown hoax.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Do quote box code.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2014 12:41 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2014 9:39 PM Astrophile has not yet responded

    
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 67
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 212 of 220 (735851)
08-26-2014 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


Nebraska man and piltdown man weren't a hoax??? How long were they taught in schools to be "science"?? How long were they still being taught after they were proven to be false?

Piltdown man was exposed as a fake thirteen months after I started school. In those 13 months, so far as I can remember, I wasn't taught anything about Piltdown man, or about evolution. In fact, religious education took up more of my primary school time than any other single subject. By the time I was old enough to choose science books from the local library, in the late 1950s, Piltdown was being described as an undoubted fake, and being laid at Charles Dawson's door. Since 1953, I have never seen anybody attempt to make out that Piltdown was genuine.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (no "/" at end).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by mram10, posted 08-23-2014 6:08 PM mram10 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 213 of 220 (735852)
08-26-2014 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Astrophile
08-26-2014 8:59 PM


Re: Creationist's hoaxes and frauds
Welcome, and thank you for joining us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Astrophile, posted 08-26-2014 8:59 PM Astrophile has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 214 of 220 (735854)
08-27-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
08-24-2014 9:02 AM


None, as far as I can tell. Can you tell me why that is? Why do so many creationists seem to be so totally uninterested in the "truth" that the ignore evidence and republish known falsehoods?

Let's give Answers In Genesis a bit of credit for their list of "Arguments to Avoid" which warns against using a relatively large number of particularly stupid answers, and more to the point, for recognizing the harm that such answers do to their own cause.

CMI maintains a list, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" which tends overall to be older and even more stupid arguments. CMI is also a bit less emphatic about the arguments not being used.

Both list contain lies and misstatements about evolution and those who accept it, but that's what creationists do.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2014 9:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2014 10:34 AM NoNukes has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 215 of 220 (735855)
08-27-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
08-27-2014 9:06 AM


When AiG published that list, they immediately got an angry response from Kent Hovind, since that list included claims that he liked to use. As I recall (that was circa 2002), Sarfati responded with the position I have consistently held on-line since the late 1980's, that the false claims used by creationists do real damage, most of all to the faith of their followers as they discover that they've been basing their faith on falsehoods. Of course, the irony was lost on Sarfati that his own site also contributes to circulating those false claims that he was warning against.

I can no longer find that response on their site, but I save parts of it, which I'll post here later.

Edited by dwise1, : Corrected misspelled name


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2014 9:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2014 10:45 AM dwise1 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 216 of 220 (735856)
08-27-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by dwise1
08-27-2014 10:34 AM


Kent Hovind

Hovind's dishonesty is a matter of public record.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2014 10:34 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2014 11:33 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3045
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 217 of 220 (735861)
08-27-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
08-27-2014 10:45 AM


Exerpts from Sarfati's response (AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002), which I also post on my quotes page at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#AiG:
quote:
As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’.

...

But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?

...

... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were ‘admirable’ and ‘showed integrity’ in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.



Of course, when I try to tell creationists the exact same thing, I am reviled for it with extreme visciousness and accused of hating God, attacking Christianity, and damned to Hell, etc, etc, etc. All for trying to warn them that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Though in re-reading that, I noticed this: "So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire ... " Uh, what about seeking the truth? What about defending the truth? Apparently to them, the truth takes a back seat to effective proselytizing, or is given absolutely no consideration. So what else is new?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2014 10:45 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by herebedragons, posted 08-27-2014 12:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 218 of 220 (735866)
08-27-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by dwise1
08-27-2014 11:33 AM


Though in re-reading that, I noticed this: "So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire ... " Uh, what about seeking the truth? What about defending the truth? Apparently to them, the truth takes a back seat to effective proselytizing, or is given absolutely no consideration.

The irony of all this is not lost on me. Sarfati's book "Refuting Evolution" was the final straw for me in my break from YEC. His book is chocked full of misrepresentations, falsehoods, half-truths, etc. Obviously the truth is not the primary motivation. What they mean by "avoid arguments that are likely to backfire" is that the arguments need to be ambiguous enough and have enough truth in them that they can't be easily refuted.

Your quote above misses the critical portion of his statement. "... and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’." No matter what they do, they cannot submit to evidence for its own sake, but must make it conform to preconceived ideas. That is the essence of dishonesty.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2014 11:33 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
46&2
Junior Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 24
From: Kailua-Kona
Joined: 04-10-2014


Message 219 of 220 (761161)
06-29-2015 12:14 AM


1801 Hualalai eruption
This is an old one, but I've seen it touted quite a bit recently. It's really pretty egregious, as the TITLE of the scientific paper that is cited defeats the argument:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by JonF, posted 06-29-2015 7:58 AM 46&2 has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 220 of 220 (761167)
06-29-2015 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by 46&2
06-29-2015 12:14 AM


Re: 1801 Hualalai eruption
Yeah, Slimy Sal Cordoba raised that one just a few weeks ago at The Skeptical Zone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by 46&2, posted 06-29-2015 12:14 AM 46&2 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017