Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

You are correct, here is the proper quote.“The Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes.” ~ Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural HistoryI will correct any mistakes I make, and I promise, It wont take 40 years!

You realise, as has been pointed out to you, that the construction of a hominid from the tooth was not done by a scientist, but by an illustrator upon seeing the tooth?Upon discovering the tooth, Osborn had this to say."I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ...""Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)In your quotation, "affords" doesn't mean "is" - he means "could possibly be".Oh, and it was completely debunked as not belonging to a hominid in 1925 3 years later. This isn't 40 years at all. But you knew that, right?Why lie?edit: I'm failing to see how Nebraska man is an issue at all. This is a summary of what happened:1917: A rancher finds a tooth on his property.
1922: Scientists speculate it could be a hominid tooth. A popular science magazine picks it up and runs with it, their illustrator draws a fanciful picture based off the tooth. This is done with zero scientific input, and is published in zero scientific journals.
1925: Scientists conclude that it is a pig's tooth, and not a hominid's.I'm failing to see how this is a deliberate conspiracy to hide the failings of evolution. Scientists speculated on the origins of a tooth, then scientists (not creationists) concluded they were wrong 3 years later. That's all that went on there. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.

Things like this are all creationists have to go on.Otherwise they wouldn't keep harping on dead issues like this.

Personally I think it's amusing that a mistake made by an illustrator 80 years ago that was corrected 3 years later is something to harp on about, but flat out lies and obvious dishonesty from leading creationists on science is a dime a dozen, and could easily fill another thread. I know flea has stated he wants to avoid ID/Creationist lies, but it bears bringing up based on the subject and the stock he seems to place in frauds.e: I'm trying my hardest not to come across as too insulting, but seeing as flea finds the subject of lying very important, maybe there should be some comparison of the amount of lies perpetuated by creationists vs the amount of lies perpetuated by scientists. It's only fair for both sides, right? Whichever has most is the most unreliable. Does that sound fair?Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.htmlI think one is pretty clear. Had they not found the rest of the skeleton, evos maty well be still trumpeting Nebraska man. The saga of erroneously showing Pakicetus shows the propensity of evos to overstate evidence in the most egregious manner.

From your souce:

quote:

---

Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn.

---

Was it the scientists that were doing these reconstructions? I don't think so. As pointed out up-thread, it was some non-scientist illustrator that did it. You and your source are blowing these illustrations WAY out of their real significance.If some science fiction writer take a valid scientific concept and then goes off on some wild speculation about it that turns out to have no connection to reality, are you going to blame the originators of the valid original concept for this disconnection from reality? I certainly hope not. But that seems to be what your source and you are doing with "Nebraska Man".Hope I'm not part of a great redundancy in replying to your message.Moose

Kinda reminds one of Scientology. It is a religion, founded by a science fiction writer that even has the term 'science' embedded in the name. Plus it also has Tom Cruise finding his inner arthropod on Oprah's couch.As far as any contact with aliens goes, I hope it is more like Star Trek First Contact where it is Vulcans instead of some alien species with unresolved issues emanating from their childhood.At any rate, sorry for the diversion, now back to your regularly scheduled program.Edited by anglagard, : a winky guy for the satire-challenged

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

That's quick for a creationist! Have you corrected the museum poster mistake yet? (I may have missed a post about it. Jaderis can check anything with the museum, remember).Then there's your mistaken claim in the original post that there are "many forgeries". How many have you described so far? Remember, it's relative, and thousands of fossils have been described, so "many" should surely be at the very least tens if not hundreds. It's also worth considering that if most of what they're describing is correct, evolutionary paleontologists have no reason to make forgeries to make their point, and indeed, were any of the fossil forgeries mentioned in this thread so far actually made by scientists?It seems that only one forgery*, Piltdown Man, fooled people (and not everyone, by any means) for a significant length of time, and what contribution did that make to the out of Africa view we have of human evolution? None, obviously, other than to confuse people. *"only one forgery": That's ignoring the Paluxy River footprints, which are still fooling some hillbillies more than 70 years after the first forgeries were made.

The man who found the tooth described them as "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

So, you are saying that scientist are always objective? They would never falsify data or misrepresent it? They are pure at heart and always want the truth, never financial gain, or self-promotion? WOW! I should become a scientist (however you get that title) so I can be 100% truth.It’s the media’s fault isn’t it? Scientist would never commission an artist to render an image based on miniscule findings. It’s all the bohemians of the world that take science and bend it to suit their needs. (Why would that be?)So who should be in question, science or the media?See, a creationist doesn’t need science. Science needs science and in a pure form, science is a great tool. However, we introduce the human factor. Just like politics and religion, science is just as corrupt. I see how the scientific community will laugh at any idea that doesn’t fit their mold. It prevents other discoveries from happening.Scientist love to hop over that boundary between fact and faith. They take small amounts of data to build a big picture and call it proven. Faith is the ability to believe without seeing, and there are a lot of “scientific” theories and ideas that leap over fact and into faith. Because most evolutionist rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, they would never even consider the possibility of a “creator” or “designer” so any evidence, regardless of how lucrative or miniscule would automatically be dismissed as “not science” but faith. It amazes me just how faithful science is.I watch the History Channel and it seems that science argues with science all the time. It also seems that the most popular idea is the one that is “fact”. I watched a show on the origin of life and it truly amazed me. They argued back and forth about things they had no idea about. It was a bunch of interesting theories and possibilities, but even under the most controlled experiments, they could not reproduce organic material from inorganic. Yet, they ping ponged to and fro about which possibility was the most suitable. One will eventually win, whether we “evolved” from crystals or clay and it will be “fact”. Oh boy, cant wait!They used mega-tools to try to recreate the origin of life and could not do it. They used controlled environment and complex machinery and still could not do it. And they expect me to just “believe” in good “faith” that it was some kind of freak accident?What is this mysterious force of evolution and what fuels it? It seems to have no consciousness, but, out of nothing, create everything including human thought and emotion. Interesting . .I don’t trust what the latest greatest scientific discovery is any more that a politician promising to lower the gas prices or a priest saying its wrong to drink. There are always more things to question, not just taking the word of a person full of flaws.Sorry if I get your goat....or perhapes its the common ancestor of you and your goat?

I just realized this this very morning, just minutes ago.Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, led to the striking down of the "monkey laws" which had been on the books since the early/mid 1920's. For a little more than 40 years.The immediate anti-evolution response was to create "creation science", an outright and deliberately crafted deceptive attempt to circumvent the courts. Through all its different avatars over the next 40 years -- a new set of sheep's clothing crafted every time the current set has been identified and exposed for the outright deception that it is, each new set of sheep's clothing deliberately crafted for the same purpose: deliberate deception.The deliberate deception of "creation science" has been going on for 40 years now. Part of which is their lies about "Nebraska Man", a mistake that was corrected by its discoverer within 3 years.Gotta love the irony!PS
BTW, part of the "Nebraska Man" story was that the tooth had apparently been rotated in its socket and thus had unusual wear patterns that made it look more like an anthropoid ape's tooth.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

Yes, they could. I think you are confusing organic material with organic life. Did you mean that they couldn't produce rudimentary living organisms or a full complement of organic material that might be needed for living organisms?To claim that they could not produce organic compounds from inorganic elements is simply to deny the well documented results of the experiments.TTFN,WKP.S. I'm not sure why you think experimental controls would make the creation of anything more likely, all controls tend to do is show you if your results are the products of experimental artifacts.

Nobody has a monopoly on honesty, it is true. However, science is self correcting, as has been pointed out to you. It is futile to lie, falsify, and misrepresent data in science - you will be found out and you will lose your job and all credibility. You have falsified and misrepresented Nebraska man, so what is with this tangent? Now you're completely misrepresenting. A science illustrator drew a fanciful illustration of the species that owned the tooth. That's okay, because it was a popular science magazine. They're not expected to be 100% accurate.You would have a point if the illustration was published in a science journal or a textbook. We agree on this. You really have no idea about the scientific method, do you? It prevents discoveries with no evidence or not following the scientific method from happening.It's self correcting. When a paper is published, it has to go through a stage called peer review - the scientists peers take it on themselves to be as brutal as possible to the paper and try their best to prove it wrong. This weeds out most weak or wrong science.Scientists get reputation and credibility from exposing frauds and proving science wrong. This is why you never see these "frauds" exposed by diligent Creationists - they are exposed by SCIENTISTS working to self correct the body of human knowledge. I'd like to see an example of a scientific theory that you think does this.I'd also like to hear what you think would be an example of evidence for a creator.Problem is that in science, all claims must be testable - this means that there must be something that you can do to prove it wrong. You can't prove God wrong. This means that God has no place in science. Believe in Him if you want, it's not going against science to do so, but it is definitely not scientific, and He has no place in science.In this big tangent you've gone off on, you still have failed to bring up 5 examples of fraud, and explained why you have twisted and manipulated Nebraska man so much. Maybe you should discuss this in a thread dealing with biological evolution - you don't seem to be very well read on the subject. What is the extent of your science education? Yes, I agree. Fortunately in science you're not just taking the word of a single person - you're listening to an entire community of people all dedicated to weeding out the false and weak science. If somebody falsifies, misrepresents, or outright lies about data, they will be found out and they will lose all credibility and research grants. Lying is serious business in science.In your little tangent, you keep on ranting and raving about how science and scientists can still be wrong and fraudulent - you still haven't provided any solid examples. All you have to harp on about is a single case of a science illustrator for a popular science magazine drawing a picture of a prehistoric hominid based on a tooth, that scientists decided was a pig's tooth 3 years later. This isn't exactly scandalous, and it isn't exactly a history of lies and fraud and deceit that you seem to be implying.Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If some science fiction writer take a valid scientific concept and then goes off on some wild speculation about it that turns out to have no connection to reality, are you going to blame the originators of the valid original concept for this disconnection from reality? I certainly hope not. But that seems to be what your source and you are doing with "Nebraska Man".

---

Ever since the early 1900s scientists have been planning to create sex robots that will abduct our women! What hath science wrought?!?!Also, a snippet from Flock of Dodos about the Haeckel's Embryos thing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSDmUuOOulg

I’m not trying to prove creation.Creation is not provable. It takes faith to believe, just like life came from inorganic material. Similar to the "big bang", you cant really prove it, it takes faith based on arguable data. It takes faith to believe that nothing generated something that generated everything. It takes faith to believe that life came from rocks and elements. Until we see evolution happen spontaneously before our eyes, (hence your self correcting scientific method) it is just a theory that is arguable and unproven.