|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Well this nails your colours to the mast at least. Unfortunately for you it completely disqualifies you from science. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1357 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Archangel writes: And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines. Evolution Fraud and Myths Peepul writes: Ok I picked one. I picked the Archaeoraptor. And what do I find in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE? I find this :-
The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999
.So National Geographic is now a journal is it, rather than a popular magazine? This deception by the author. It's utterly typical. I long to see integrity and honest evidence, but yet again there is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. Archangel, just present facts, shorn of manipulation and sleaze. What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY. It is precisely facts like those which evolutionists tend to ignore, conveniently forget about and purposely dismiss out of hand. The frauds which have survived for so long before being proven false by new discoveries have all been originally supported, endorsed and defended from within this fraudulent and self supporting closed community which has a specific agenda which goes much deeper than the pure science it holds up as a mask to cover and hide its true goal of erasing the creator God from the equation for how life came to be on Earth. This is evolutions agenda and represents why I and other believers must stand against what it and its proponents represent. And really peepul, aren't you embarrassed about taking a very serious charge of fraud regarding this much defended falsified evidence by your community, and making an argument over semantics regarding the usage of the word JOURNAL? How can you in good conscience ignore the damning evidence revealed in the fraud itself? "Archaeoraptor" is actually being defended by evolutionists on other threads in this very forum as we speak. Does that not embarrass you and make you reconsider where you are putting your intellectual efforts at all? Will you spend a lifetime defending a lie without ever looking critically at the evidence you rely on in accepting this man made philosophy? Edited by Archangel, : add content: Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Hello Archangel,
Neither of these show any evidence of fraud.
Archangel writes:
You are assuming that because scientist were mistaken about it being extinct, that they were also wrong about its dating.....not only that they were wrong but you are assuming that the are trying to decieve people. There is no deception, only what has been pointed out repeatedly to you: Science is dynamic and when new evidences is presented, theories are modified or discarded. well, since we were wrong about it being an extinct transitional fish for so long, maybe our science is also wrong about its dating practices and methods Are you denying that this is a transitional species or denying the fossil age?If someone showed you a fossil of a horseshoe crab, does that mean it cannot possibly be alive today without some sort of fraud? Archangel writes: So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community? Again, this shows NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD .This is not the only example of soft tissue found from millions of years ago. Archangel writes:
Can you show me a video of decomposition under the exact conditions of burial of this fossil. Chances are it was an environment devoid of oxygen.
based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word Key point is neither of these are actual evidence of deception, please try again Still waiting for your response to my previous questions, especially definitions of (true) science and evolution Thanks,Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1357 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
dokukaeru writes:
Of course I do. Now go ahead and reveal the trap I have just been duped into ignorantly walking into. I welcome it! Show me how sharing 98% of our DNA with chimps means we must be genetically related to them through common descent, and then prove it. And of course according to this link we are also related to the mouse, right? WRONG!!! OF MICE AND MEN / Striking similarities at the DNA level could aid research Do you believe the science of genetics and that DNA is a "True Science"? Just for the sake of argument, let us imagine if man was genetically unique to all other creatures in creation, how would we absorb proteins and enzymes or amino acids when consuming foods, vegetables and fruits? Because even those have genetic similarities to all animal life. Have you considered the self perpetuating symbiotic relationship in the chain of life when evolution theory thrives on survival of the fittest and relies on one organism out competing all others as it fights for survival? Have you no appreciation for the conflict your shallow philosophy endorses in light of how reality works?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You've just shot yourself in the foot. National Geographic is NOT subject to peer review. That is the very distinction that Peepul was pointing out.
quote: Who, and on which threads ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Archangel writes: What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY Again THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF FRAUD ON THE PART OF Scientist This was caught by the peer review process National geographic and many scientist were duped themselves. They corrected their mistakes after Xu Xing pointed out by sheer coincidence that it was a composite fossil: BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - The Dinosaur that Fooled the World - Transcript
NARRATOR: By an almost unbelievable coincidence Xu Xing had found not another Archaeoraptor, but the counterslab of the National Geographic specimen. Yet as he moved up from the tail to the pelvic region there was something very mysterious. The pelvises of the two fossils should have been identical, but they were completely different. The Archaeoraptor's was small and damaged. The new fossil's was large and intact and showed two hind legs which were very different from the Archaeoraptor's. It made no sense. He compared them again. The photos of the Archaeoraptor showed a clear fracture between the tail and the pelvis which didn't exist on the new fossil. As Xu Xing studied the two specimens an awful realisation dawned on him. There could only be one explanation. Somebody had glued a different head and upper body onto the tail of the National Geographic specimen. It was a fake. Xu Xing emailed National Geographic in Washington. XU XING: I'm very sorry to tell you that I am now 100% certain that the fossil you have is a composite made from more than one specimen. NARRATOR: The news of the fake came as a thunderbolt to National Geographic. Could it be that the most popular educational magazine in the world had got its facts wrong? The magazine had never faced such humiliation in its 113 year history. BILL ALLEN: My first reaction was not necessarily disbelief, but... Wait a minute. It was disbelief, it was total disbelief. LEWIS SIMONS: Allen was beside himself. He was furious, he was livid, he was hurt, he was angry in ways that, that are almost unimaginable because it wasn't as though they just buried this somewhere in the back of the publication. It was a big, important story and now he's been told you've been had.
I am still waiting for your definitions please ThanksJoe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dokukaeru Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 129 From: ohio Joined: |
Archangel writes: I have just been duped into ignorantly walking into. I welcome it! Show me how sharing 98% of our DNA with chimps means we must be genetically related to them through common descent, and then prove it. And of course according to this link we are also related to the mouse, right? WRONG!!! Wrong trap. Have you ever heard of an Endogenic Retro Virus (ERV)?I will give you some time to research that and me some time to actually accomplish something at work I am still waiting for your definitions please Thanks,Joe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Archangel writes:
No, they weren't. NG is a popular science magazine, and is not, I repeat, NOT peer reviewed.
WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY. "Archaeoraptor" is actually being defended by evolutionists on other threads in this very forum as we speak.
So, you don't know the difference between archaeopterix and archeoraptor. Yet you're supposed to know better than the rest of us....Right....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Archangel,
We've been over these issues before, and we still can't understand your position. It seems to have two significant flaws:
Your whole argument is based upon the false premise that if some people in an endeavor commit improprieties that it invalidates the whole endeavor. Beyond that, the very idea that the public is convinced evolution is true by frauds that they know are frauds is ludicrous. National Geographic (which is a popular magazine, not a peer reviewed journal) not only admitted that they'd been duped, but actually printed a lengthy article about the results of their investigation. The portion of the public that accepts evolution definitely does not cite the Piltdown, Nebraska or Archaeoraptor frauds as their reasons for accepting evolution, and in general, known frauds do the opposite of convincing people of anything. Those who accept evolution or religion or anything else do so in spite of any of the frauds and mistakes that are inevitable in any human endeavor, not because of them. AbE: Forgot to mention, you're confusing Archaeoraptor with Archaeopteryx. No evolutionist is confusing the two, just you. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add AbE comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Well why not just say it's a respected science magazine and not PRETEND it's a journal? Can you give me links to the original journal articles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Peepul writes: Can you give me links to the original journal articles? You mean the NG articles? The NG website archives only go back to 2005, and a search for "archaeoraptor" returns no results. References to the articles can be found in the References section of the Wikipedia article on Archaeoraptor. I might still have them at home. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1357 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
I marvel at how evolutionists can twist and misinterpret what is said by me in order to make sure you ignore the meat of the point that's being made. I didn't say at all that Nat Geo is a peer reviewed publication. What I said is that many of the scientific discoveries they report on have been peer reviewed which is true of the frauds being discussed here. It isn't necessary for the magazine to peer review anything they publish when they understand it to have been peer reviewed by others in the scientific community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Archangel writes: I marvel at how evolutionists can twist and misinterpret what is said by me in order to make sure you ignore the meat of the point that's being made. I didn't say at all that Nat Geo is a peer reviewed publication. Sure you did. You said, "What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information..." You said this because you erroneously think that National Geographic is some kind of popular science magazine that distills peer reviewed journal papers into understandable articles for laypeople, but for the most part that is not what they do. Most of their articles are original reporting on nature, ecology, etc. Those of us familiar with NG could only interpret what you said as indicating that you think NG is a peer reviewed journal, because the Archaeoraptor never appeared in any peer reviewed journal. It was more original reporting by NG.
What I said is that many of the scientific discoveries they report on have been peer reviewed... Do you even read NG? Reports of scientific discoveries do appear in NG, but that's a tiny and minor part of what they do. And again, Archaeoraptor never appeared in any peer reviewed journal. People are not persuaded by frauds they know are frauds, all the frauds you mention are well known, and most are really, really old. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hey Angel,
And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines. Dude, you have had numerous responses to your OP. Why not address one of them? Why not answer my question from waaaaaay back on page one. What evidence do you have that Orce Man is cited as evidence of evolution? It's pretty simple, but so far you have completely ignored your own topic. Pretty shabby. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
While this has been stated many many times, I think it deserves mentioning once again. Just for your information Harun Yahya is a terrible source of information. I am reminded of one of their videos where they show one of the Pliocene hyena skulls from China and present it as "This 80 million year old tiger skull is identical to those living today". Your cut and paste from living fossils is also a cut and paste from the Harun Yahya site.
ABE: I just finished reading through your Living Fossils page, and found a great example of fraud. They describe the discovery of the Okapi in 1901 and the fossil relatives dating back to the Miocene. All well and true. But then the claim is made that this discovery invalidates the scenario of horse evolution! FYI - the okapi, its fossil relatives, and the giraffe belong to the group of mammals known as artiodactyls (even-toed hoofed mammals). Horses, rhinos, and extinct relitives are in the group of mammals called perissodactyls which are probably not closely related to the even-toed hoofed ungulates. I will argue that no 'evolutionist' anytime anywhere believed that the okapi had anything to do with horse evolution. This is yet another creationist fraud. Back to the fishes....
Arch writes: Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung. I am assuming by this you/they mean that this was shown to be false. The living coelacanth does have a primitive 'lung'. A far better wording would be "The coelacanth, like all living and extinct crossopterygian fishes including tetrapods, posses a primitive swim bladder that often functions as a lung". This is why the other living non-tetrapod species are collectively called "lung fishes". In fact, this 'lung' is seen in most primitive actinopterygian (ray-finned bony fishes) fishes. In advanced bony fishes the 'lung' is fully developed as a buoyancy organ or absent altogether. The lung of the modern coelacanth is lipid filled which makes it the only surviving lungfish that is not an obligate air-breather (they drown if not allowed to breath air).
Arch writes: Speculation regarding the C—lacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct. Not even sure where to begin... I collect old scientific books and literature relating to evolution. In essence what is being stated here is that at some time between 1859 and 1938 the fossil coelacanth was regarded as "the most significant evidence for evolution" and paintings and drawings were produced that showed coelacanths leaving the water. Here is a fun challenge: Name one. Just one. Find me a reference from between those dates that claims coelacanths as the most significant evidence for evolution. The earliest drawings I have seen (or still see) show Eusthenopteron foordi or similar fish but not any coelacanth. I have seen, however, Eusthenopteron misidentified as a coelacanth in creationist literature, so perhaps that is the source of the claim. By saying the above ideas were "based on the idea that the creature was extinct" the implication is given that somehow the living specimen dethroned the coelacanth from tetrapod history (and by association all lobe-fins of any subclass). All the finding of two species of living coelacanth did was disprove the idea that the entire lineage went extinct 70 mya. It gave us more material than we had before to resolve the early history of tetrapod evolution. Why creationists think this hurt the science is beyond me. Molecular studies have confirmed that both the coelacanth and lungfishes are closer to living tetrapods than they are to any other living fishes. By the way, the claim that the modern coelacanth is identical to the extinct forms is simply false. They are different genera from the extinct forms. Creationist sites rarely mention that extinct coelacanths are shallow water freshwater species usually under 50 cm in length, while the living species are deep sea, saltwater forms reaching almost 2 meters. Now onto Green River...
Arch writes: So what are we to take from this. Are 50 million year old fossils surviving with soft tissue attached or could there be some massive misinterpretations of evidence taking place by the evolution community? Not to mention of course the incredible denial of reality which considers that such a thing is possible based on real time observations of how quickly a body decomposes in the real word. I mean, must I post another time lapse video for you deniers of reality?
I have a fair collection of Green River fish fossils. What makes these fossils amazing is that you can see, in detail, where the soft tissue used to be and even its details. There is not one piece of actual soft tissue present. Your wording makes me think that you think these fish still have flesh on them. They are all 100% mineralized. The very slow decay rate (due to anoxic conditions) and fine grained sedimentation preserved the impressions of soft tissues. Ex-YEC Glen Morton has an informative page about the formation here So please explain where in the coelacanth story or in the Green River Formation there is any fraud of any kind. How does the discovery of a member of a thought-to-be-extinct subclass of fish (especially one that confirmed many speculations about early lobe-fin adaptations while suggesting others were incorrect) topple even a sub-set of evolutionary thought? If as important as your source claimed these were I would expect to hear of at least one evolutionary ichthyologist whose worldview was crushed that fateful day in 1938. Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Added Okapi information (paragraph 2) Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024