|
Author
|
Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
|
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: Flea bitten
quote:
We are not talking about creationist lies on this thread I don’t see how finding lies in one thing takes them away from another. Sort of like . .I killed a man, but the guy in the cell next to me killed 2 men, therefore I’m innocent. ???????
more like this: Flea, i have a friend, here, who says *YOU* are lying. without addressing whether my friend, here, is being truthful or not (since that's not the topic at hand), please tell us WHY you are lying. enjoy
|
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5770 days) Posts: 143 Joined: 05-13-2005
|
Re: Five forged fossils
No, a troll is somebody who pretends to be deliberately dense or deceitful in order to provoke flames on the internet for their own amusement.
|
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5770 days) Posts: 143 Joined: 05-13-2005
|
Re: Five forged fossils
Address my points then instead of ignoring them. How is a scientist proposing a hypothesis, then discarding it 3 years later a hoax rather than the scientific method in action? What is the extent of your science education, anyway? I'm curious how you managed to miss something I learned in 6th grade science class.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 290 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:30 PM | | Alasdair has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: Flea bitten
How is quoting biblical quotes in science class, and trying to equate evolution and planned parent hood to nazism a new theory?
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 290 of 346 (471629)
06-17-2008 4:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 288 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 4:04 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 288 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 4:04 PM | | Alasdair has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: Five forged fossils
That is perfectly fine. But are you using accurate information to 'question' evolution is the concern. When it was pointed out to you that the source you used about the Nebraska man was inaccurate, and misrepresented things, you ignored that, and merely repeated the incorrect information. If you are going to be questioning evolution, don't you think you should at least be using accurate information, and addressing what evolution actually says, rather than a straw man attack on an 85 year old error that was never really accepted by the scientific community to begin with?
|
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5770 days) Posts: 143 Joined: 05-13-2005
|
|
|
Message 292 of 346 (471635)
06-17-2008 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 290 by randman
06-17-2008 4:30 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
Randman, I have found nothing showing that it was used in the Scopes monkey trial - maybe you would like to show that it was? "Hoax" is completely false. The speculation on the origins of the tooth were never presented as anything more than speculation. The scientist who discovered it thought it could have been a human. The popular science magazine went with this based on the speculations. 3 years later, the final conclusion was that it was a pig tooth. Piltdown man was completely a hoax, yes. The "discovery" was by Charles Dawson - an aristocrat whose hobby was archeology - not a real scientist. He didn't allow scientists to properly examine the skull, providing only drawings. The scientific community eventually reckoned something was up, and debunked the hoax. That's right, evolutionary scientists discovered that it was a hoax and discarded/debunked it. So, somebody (not a scientist) produced a hoax, the scientific community debunked it. I'm failing to see how this is science making things up. I'm not sure what you're talking about by Rampithicus, you will have to find me more information on the scenario. With Pakicetus, why does it matter if a popular science magazine's staff illustrator drew an illustration built on the speculations of scientists? This doesn't mean that the scientific community thought that it was the truth or the only conclusion. Again, it's a popular science magazine's interpretation of scientist's speculations. Why is this a problem?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:30 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 296 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:55 PM | | Alasdair has not replied |
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
|
|
Message 293 of 346 (471638)
06-17-2008 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 263 by Coyote
06-17-2008 11:22 AM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
But I'm still waiting for evidence of the five forged fossils I asked for back in post 10 of this thread. Does this work? Determining the date for Skull 1470. In late 1972, an enigmatic fossilized skull was unearthed near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus. Skull 1470 was very modern in its appearance but was found in rock initially dated at 2.9 million years, much too old for a modern skull. Richard E. Leakey, the founder of the skull and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which they rejected because the date obtained was not "right". Finally Leakey used an argument based on the size of pigs teeth found in the strata to get the date for skull 1470 that he thought was correct. All dates were tossed aside in favor of a date of 1.9 million years, a date that fit the human evolution better, based on the certainty of the dates of pig evolution. In the course of time, the pendulum began to gradually swing the other way as various students started to doubt the accuracy of the original reconstruction. So, it’s ok to toss out your own dating methods because they don’t line up with evolution? Leakey and his wife, reconstructed the skull improperly, and changed their data to match the existing evolutionary timeline. Skull KNM-ER 1470 Homo rudolfensis - Wikipedia http://www.trueorigin.org/skull1470.asp http://www.northave.org/MGManual/Earlyman/Eman2.htm
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 263 by Coyote, posted 06-17-2008 11:22 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 294 of 346 (471641)
06-17-2008 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 290 by randman
06-17-2008 4:30 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
No, it was not used in the scopes trial at all. As a matter of fact, the original scientist who initially made the incorrect identification was having strong doubts about it, and was no longer discussing it in papers by the time the scopes trial happened. He originally identified it in 1922 as hominid, but by the scopes trial (july 1925), was already having second thoughts. In 1924, this footnote appeared in the book "Human Origins" by George Maccardy
quote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."
That shows that Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community. One person's mistake that is not accepted does not make either a good lie , fraud or hoax. On the other hand, creationist use of the Nebraska man has shown much dishonesty in the representation of it, including such web sights 'Answers in Genesis' to this very day. The fact they have to jump on one honest mistake (which never was accepted by the scientific community) and blow it out of proportion and misrepresent it says a lot about the strength of their case.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:30 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
|
|
Message 295 of 346 (471642)
06-17-2008 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 290 by randman
06-17-2008 4:30 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
"Rampant overstated speculation", much better than "forgery". Perhaps I should go back and edit my OP with that instead. Neandratals are next on my list. Reading.....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 290 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 4:30 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 296 of 346 (471643)
06-17-2008 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 292 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 4:41 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 292 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 4:41 PM | | Alasdair has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 301 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 5:12 PM | | randman has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 632 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: Five forged fossils
Rampant over speculation,for something the mistake of one person that never was accepted?? Surely you jest.
|
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5770 days) Posts: 143 Joined: 05-13-2005
|
Re: Five forged fossils
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?
|
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 5466 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: Five forged fossils
quote:
"Rampant overstated speculation", much better than "forgery". Perhaps I should go back and edit my OP with that instead.
please do, but i really don't see it happening "Why make mistakes? (Re: Non-Scientists get stuff wrong)" just doesn't have the same emotional impact or gotcha-factor as "Why lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)", does it?
|
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: 04-23-2008
|
|
|
Message 300 of 346 (471653)
06-17-2008 5:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 298 by Alasdair
06-17-2008 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: Five forged fossils
Welcome Alasdair, I never said hello. Discarding your own data in favor of "fitting" evolution is dishonest, and fraudulent. The skull was reconstructed improperly (and I speculate) because of the validity of the find. If they could prove a missing link, they would receive notoriety and possibly grant money to further their research. Again, I want to say, I am not against “science”. I have a problem with evolution or Darwinism. Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 298 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 4:58 PM | | Alasdair has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 305 by Alasdair, posted 06-17-2008 5:18 PM | | Dont Be a Flea has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2