Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 12:58 AM
354 online now:
granpa, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), RAZD (3 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,955 Year: 25,561/21,208 Month: 1,188/2,338 Week: 309/450 Day: 2/72 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
saab93f
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 196 of 220 (713844)
12-17-2013 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
01-01-2013 9:44 PM


That pic alone shows what a hoax everything creationistic is. There is no way or reason in sugar-coating: creationism breeds on ignorance andlies and can only be upheld by keeping the followers ignorant.

I have always thought of myself as a benign person but towards the creationists I feel nothing but loathing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-01-2013 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
dcurtis00745
Junior Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 11-23-2013


Message 197 of 220 (735387)
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Evolution Frauds
It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.

Edited by dcurtis00745, : No reason given.

Edited by dcurtis00745, : Misspelling


Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2014 3:01 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2014 8:27 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded
 Message 200 by dwise1, posted 08-13-2014 1:30 PM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-13-2014 3:03 PM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 198 of 220 (735388)
08-13-2014 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds
dcurtis writes:

It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.

A fraud is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent for personal gain. It has happened in science, but it's rare and the fraud is always outed by other scientists. It usually ends their career and sometimes - as tragically, happened just lately - their lives.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ved-false-commits-suicide.html

'Evolutionary statements' are not fraudulent, they're normally hypotheses presented with evidence which develop our understanding of the natural world. If they are later shown to be wrong or, more likely, incomplete, they are adapted to suit the new evidence. That's the scientific process.

But if you give us an example we can discuss it less theoretically.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19089
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 199 of 220 (735390)
08-13-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds -- or not?
Hi dcurtis00745 and welcome to the fray

It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.

By that metric all science could be considered fraudulent ... which might be convenient for all those beliefs contradicted by science (such as the age of the earth), yes?

Curiously, though, and as has been noted, fraud involves the intent to deceive, and given the willingness of science to discard or revise concepts whenever new evidence is found\presented, it would seem hard to argue intent to deceive as opposed to intent to find the best explanation, yes?

But when we look at creationist literature and their arguments, many of which have been falsified (again, the age of the earth, for example), but which are still repeated ... it would seem intentional on their part to disseminate false or misleading information in order to deceive people. The Creation "Museum" comes to mind ...

Perhaps you could give us an example of what you find most ... misleading about how evolution is taught and used by scientists?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2971
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 200 of 220 (735397)
08-13-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds
As has already been noted, fraud involves the intent to deceive. And while fraud has been known to exist in both science and "creation science", the two endeavors' goals and methods react differently with very different outcomes.

The goal of science is to discover and learn and figure out all we can about the universe. Since that is too much for any one scientist to do, scientists doing their own research rely on the research done by other scientists. Because your research depends on everybody else's, you want to assured that their research was done properly. As a result, other scientists' research is tested and verified; indeed, science students' laboratory assignments frequently consist of reproducing experiments. When news of "cold fusion" was first announced, physists around the world were waiting late into the night for compatriots to FAX the paper to them the instant it was released so that they could verify its results. And it failed, so cold fusion is no more except in Hollywood movies (eg, "The Saint").

In such an environment and with such prevailing attitudes and practices, scientific fraud cannot survive for long as it is actively being sought out.

In "creation science", the goal is to convince. They want to convince the courts that they are actually science so that they can be admitted into the public schools. They want to convince themselves and fellow creationists that their ideas are true and that science is wrong; their attacks on science will even target topics that have absolutely nothing to do with creationist claims, such as ozone layer depletion. And they want to be able to convince non-creationists and non-Christians to convert.

In that environment, the only valuable property of a claim is that it sounds convincing. It doesn't even matter whether it is true, just that it sounds convincing. It doesn't matter that it has been soundly refuted a thousand times; if it sounds very convincing then it will continue to be used -- eg the "leap second" claim. Only if a convincing-sounding claim gains too much bad publicity for being false (eg, ICR's moondust claim) will creationists withdraw it -- well some of them will --, but then after enough time has passed they brush the dust off of it and start using it yet again (or, as in the case of the ICR's moondust claim, continue to present it in books that are not updated and in footnotes).

In that environment, fraud not only survives, but it actually thrives as it is rewarded by the system.

Two very different systems with very different goals and very different results. I discuss it more fully on a page that's still under construction: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 201 of 220 (735399)
08-13-2014 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds
It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.

Insofar as this means anything, it is obviously false.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the English language before you post again, so as to avoid posting more things that aren't true.

hoax (hôks)
n.

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.

2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 202 of 220 (735400)
08-13-2014 3:17 PM


It seems we are preaching exclusively to the choir, the entire ecclesiastical support service and the bishopric of EVC.

Does that mean we win? In all forii?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2014 7:25 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19089
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 203 of 220 (735405)
08-13-2014 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Tangle
08-13-2014 3:17 PM


No, it means we're board ... (ducks again)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2014 3:17 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by mram10, posted 08-23-2014 6:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 1062 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 204 of 220 (735755)
08-23-2014 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
08-13-2014 7:25 PM


As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.
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?

This is where you blame the publishing companies. Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts? How many were demanding that these hoaxes/lies/frauds were no longer taught??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2014 7:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 08-23-2014 6:14 PM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2014 6:39 PM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2014 12:41 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-24-2014 12:49 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 209 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2014 9:02 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 210 by Pressie, posted 08-24-2014 9:32 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 212 by Astrophile, posted 08-26-2014 9:11 PM mram10 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 205 of 220 (735756)
08-23-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


mram writes:

How long were they taught in schools to be "science"??

Why don't you tell us, with dates. Then tell us who discovered the fraud and exposed it. Then explain why you consider this to be a valid argument for anything other than the scientific method.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : Connectivity issues


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15960
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 206 of 220 (735762)
08-23-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.

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?
This is where you blame the publishing companies. Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts? How many were demanding that these hoaxes/lies/frauds were no longer taught??

That is a peculiar thing to post in reply to RAZD's post, which read, in full:

RAZD writes:

No, it means we're board ... (ducks again)

Could you begin by pointing out which bit of his post you consider to be bashing creationism?


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: 6014
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 207 of 220 (735766)
08-24-2014 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


Creationist's hoaxes and frauds
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?

If you knew anything about Nebraska Man, you would realize how far off you are. Try this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

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.

Now, compare this with the nonsense that creationists peddle year after year, after having it debunked time and time again. Look at this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

This is an index to creationist claims which have been debunked. It is so extensive that the claims have been coded by type.

Given this track record, creationists are in no position to criticize science.


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 204 by mram10, posted 08-23-2014 6:08 PM mram10 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Astrophile, posted 08-26-2014 8:59 PM Coyote has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3829
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 208 of 220 (735767)
08-24-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


Nebraska man, Piltdown man topics
Nebraska man:
Was Nebraska Man a fraud? - Now closed because it went WAY off topic.
Related topic?:
Evolutionist Frauds

Piltdown man:
Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
History of the Piltdown Man Hoax - Link to massive information on the Piltdown man.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

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

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19089
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 209 of 220 (735770)
08-24-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.
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?

If you read Message 1 you will see that both of these were listed:

Pretty simple criteria.

Here is a starting list:

Nebraska Man - does not qualify, the initial publication was an interpretation of a single tooth, the rest is mostly all newspaper hype (including the (in)famous picture), and the original scientist determined it was a pig on further investigation. No scientist has since claimed it was a hominid fossil.

Piltdown Man - does not qualify: the hoax was perpetuated ON science, not by a scientist. It was exposed by science.

China bird ancestor "fossils" - does not qualify: perpetuated by non-scientific people looking to make money, exposed by science.

Personally I think we'd have to list almost every existing YEC creationist website (I say "almost" for scientific tentativity, as I am not aware of any that stick to the truth, but it is possible ...). Certainly every one that has a false definition of evolution or that portrays evolution incorrectly is a fraud.

This is where you blame the publishing companies. Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts? How many were demanding that these hoaxes/lies/frauds were no longer taught??

Almost immediately.

How many creationists call for revision of creationist literature that is shown to be false and full of misinformation and lies?

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?

And so I would go further and say that every Creationist website that portrays these items as examples of science hoaxes are themselves perpetuating a hoax, because that is known to be false information: science did not create these hoaxes, and it exposed the false information.

And I would list any creationist site that continues to post any one of the PRATT's posted on
Talk Origins PRATT list - An Index to Creationist Claims is perpetuating a hoax by reprinting false information, information that a little bit of research on google would show to be ludicrous falsehoods designed to fool the gullible into believing untruths ...

Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts?

And how many creationists clamored then or now for the "truth" to be taught in science texts? Or do you even know what the "truth" is? ... I'll give you a starting hint: the earth is old, very very very old ...

... and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass. ...

Care to make a list of any others? That is the purpose of this thread -- you list the scientific frauds and hoaxes and we list the creationist ones ... so far there have been way more creationist frauds and hoaxes listed ... probably because there are way more creationist frauds and hoaxes ... if not, then you need to set the record straight. Good luck with that.

As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.

Curiously I am happy to list any scientific hoaxes and frauds -- all you have to do is provide the information here. It is a simple task ... but don't whine to me that the evidence to date shows that creationist frauds and hoaxes out number scientific ones by over 100 to 1 ... you should go clean your own house first of mud and muck before complaining about a little dust ....

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2014 9:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1808
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 210 of 220 (735771)
08-24-2014 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


mram10 writes:

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

Also curious to know. Could you enlighten us on the school books, with exact references (including the dates), where Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man "were taught in schools as "science""? It would be interesting to know.

I ask this, because in the country I live in, the theory of evolution was not even allowed to be taught till 1994. For religious reasons. The text books only mentioned fossils very vaguely in a sentence or two under the heading: What do Palaeontologists do?. That was in career education/ social sciences classes.

Please provide those references. I think that you are not telling the truth here.

mram10 writes:

How long were they still being taught after they were proven to be false?


You tell us. Exact references, please. Without that I think that you were not telling the truth.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


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

    
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017