Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Bryan did not say this. You've made a mistake.The Nebraska tooth incident was a mistake, rather than a forgery, and who are you to complain about mistakes, my dear Flea, considering the number you've made so far on this thread?Are you sure the banner at the museum wasn't a picture of this tooth, visited by you in the year 2009?

If a single tooth that belonged to a pig was categorized to be an entire race of intermediary ape-men, I don’t know what else you want as a “forgery”. Really? I thought I listed those in my original post! Then what would a forgery be? Are you telling me that Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, and Grafton Elliot Smith Professor of Anatomy of Manchester England lacked the education to tell the difference between a prehistoric man’s tooth and a pig’s tooth? Come on . .really? The length of time it fooled people is irrelevant, it still fooled people into believing, therefore . ..a hoax, fraud, misrepresentation, or...lie! You only listed one “evolutionist” website. I found the Nebraska man story on the wikipedia website among others and used information to make my point. Do you think that talkorigins would list things contrary to what it teaches and believes? Their goal is to prove evolution and disprove the existance of a God. Your telling me to prove my point, without all available resources. There are many very intelligent people with walls full of degrees that believe in creation or ID. Do I simply dismiss all of them based on the criteria you deem fit?

I am simply saying that this so called “science” is not so sacred. Fame and fortune are true motivators. Why have these hoaxes in the first place? Perhaps to further beliefs, to further funding, to make a name for yourself. Did you read the Ota Benga story I posted? Not a good way to “prove” a theory. Then why did it take over 100 years to correct Ernst and over 40 years to remove Piltdown man? Ah, but we are not discussing Biblical stories on this thread . Testing for the truth?? Scientist rushed out to find the missing link and wanted it so bad, they lied about things. They made pig teeth and entire race of intermediary man, they bought Ota Benga in the slave trade and paraded him around as the missing link until he committed suicide, they forged embryo drawings to look the same so it would be believed we had a common ancestor, and they mixed up fossils of different species to make up an animal that would support their theory. Perhaps they are still doing it. How do I know based on this track record that all the evidence isn’t tainted? Evolution started off on the wrong foot! I think people wanted to believe it so badly, that they lost their objective.

I must admit bluegenes, you do make me laugh!

What does the word "forgery" mean to you? Did someone make (or "forge") the tooth? Yes. There's a reason, as well (probably combined with Osborn's desire to have found something important and interesting!).You won't like the idea, but we're related to pigs and:

quote:

---

As mammalian omnivores, pig teeth are fairly good models for studying the development and aging of human teeth. Dental enamel is formed by the epithelial cells of the enamel organ including the ameloblasts, the cells that produce enamel matrix proteins.

​

As with humans, pigs feature molars, premolars (or bicuspids), canines, and incisors and similar to most mammals, pigs and humans are diphyodont or develop and erupt two generations of teeth into their jaws.

---

http://www.olympusmicro.com/...field/enamelformationpig.htmlOsborn had found the tooth of an omnivorous mammal, but the wrong one! And like us, he was much more familiar with human teeth than pig's teeth. If you found something that looked like one of your own teeth buried in your backyard, you'd probably make the same mistake.But as soon as other pig bones were discovered on the site, all became clear.

Excuse me? Clearly, you are going to kick me no matter what I do, so why should I bow down to your threats?My post is too cranky for you? HOW? BE SPECIFIC.Oh, wait, I forgot. YOU aren't accountable. You get to just ban people because you don't like their position on evolution.Fine. OBVIOUSLY you are going to ban me no matter WHAT I do.I wonder exactly how far YOU have to go before one of the other admins bothers to put an end to YOUR crankiness.As for a link. SCROLL UP THREE MESSAGES - Coyote GAVE one already.Do you REALLY need me to RE-Link the EXACT SAME LINK to the EXACT SAME information?By the way, I can't help but notice that you are asking ME for a link for MY information about Nebraska man, however you are NOT asking Creationist Flea for a link about HIS Nebraska Man information.I'm sure that's just an oversight? Right?I mean, what else could it be. Clearly, you aren't biased. Right?Alright, kick away Captain Jesus.Or better yet, prove how unbiased you are and just delete my posts.

Who did that? An illustrator for a pop-magazine? NOT a scientist. Why should we be held accountable for the actions of this one person?Since this drawing by this woman was NEVER considered evidence for anything, how exactly is this "forgery" part of the evidence for evolution (real or fake). Yes. In the early 1900s, this ONE scientist, presented with ONE tooth from an omnivore, was not able to RULE OUT that it could belong to an unclassified species.That's because there was very little data available for comparison.Did he present the illustration? No, in fact, as I pointed out earlier - He came out AGAINST the publication. The Wiki website is short AND contains the quote I gave.Are you saying you DID read the Wiki site and choose to ignore the quote that contradicts your claim? OR are you lying about reading the wiki site?

Ernst, because there was no technology for ongoing viewing of embryos. His illustrations are not invalid. His conclusions are only partially incorrect. In fact, the basic concept he presents is correct - you can, in fact, see features of earlier forms in developing embryos. However embryos do not go through a "fish stage" then an "amphibian stage" etc.As for Piltdown, there are two reasons it lasted 40 years.
#1) The skull was presented once then hidden away. Most people were dealing with sketches of the skull, not the skull itself.
#2) It predates most of the other finds. As such, finds were checked against it, rather than it being checked against existing evidence. Even still, as more finds were uncovered - it became very clear that Piltdown was out of line with the rest of the evidence. That's why they took it out of the box and tested it. Oh, right. You want to call scientists liars based on information you are getting from Creationist propagandists, but pointing out that the people feeding you your information are dishonest is apparently unfair.Care to explain the logic behind that? "They"? Science didn't put Ota Benga in the zoo, an exploitative entertainer did. Science didn't draw a picture of Nebraska man, a pop-magazine artist did.And the embryo drawings aren't forged. They ARE drawings of embryos. Are you suggesting that he made the drawings WITHOUT looking at embryos? do you have evidence for that?Additionally, you've looked at a 150 year history, and from it you've drawn what? 3-4 potentially incorrect cases?Hundreds of Millions of Scientists collecting data for 150+ years and you've found 3-4 cases which are suspicious?Can you name ANY OTHER FIELD which is MORE reliable? What is your baseline for credibility?I'd like to point out that in less than 20 posts you yourself have made 3-4 mistakes.Does this mean that we should discount EVERYTHING you have to say?

Irrelevant. The vast, vast majority of fossils are not forgeries and show no signs of being honest mistakes. All of them agree with the Theory of Evolution.Let's use cars as an analogy:Some used car salesmen are crooks. They lie, cheat, and do whatever is necessary to screw the customer out of money.Does this mean that all car salesmen are crooks?More importantly, does this mean that the internal combustion engine does not work?None of the very few fraudulent (and honestly mistaken) fossils you've presented have been the basis for the Theory of Evolution. Your entire position rests on these fossils being even relevant to the Theory of Evolution, and they really aren't.Here's the problem, DBAF:Even if every single fossil in the entire fossil record was shown to be a hoax, the Theory of Evolution would still stand. Evolution is not based on fossil evidence.To disprove the Theory of Evolution with fossils, you would need to find a fossil that specifically violates the predictions and expectations of the Theory of Evolution. None of those have ever been found, though a few of the frauds you presented would ave been such an upset (a 1.6 million year old human would have put significant question to all of our conclusions, for example - good thing that one was a fraud, eh?).Your entire argument is a gigantic red herring. Your point is moot. It took a very long time to assemble various dinosaur fossils into accurate representations, as well. As our knowledge increases, frauds and mistakes are more clearly identified. This takes time. Because it is a tiny representation of the total evidence, and isn't even remotely the evidence that evolution is based on. It never was. None of these examples had anything to do with the beginnings of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution began with the direct observation of various finch species over several years, with specific attention paid to changes in average beak size and shape over various populations depending on food source, etc (among other things). The Theory of Evolution is not based on the fossil record, though the fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution. You mean "objectivity." And people did not "want" to believe in evolution. You are operating from the mistaken idea that the Theory of Evolution is a theory specifically designed to prove that a deity does not exist. This is not the case. Many people believe in God while accepting evolution as an accurate model for explaining the diversity of life on Earth. People who accept the Theory of Evolution as an accurate model for explaining the diversity of life on Earth do so on the weight of evidence, not any silly desire to deny God.DBAF, you haven't even managed to cast the slightest bit of doubt on the Theory of Evolution in this thread. You've reminded us that there are unscrupulous individuals out there who will falsify findings in the hopes of gaining fame and fortune, people who make honest mistakes in their conclusions because thy had insufficient data available at the time, and people who prematurely publish tentative findings before they've been verified to sell magazines. But as we've reminded you, the scientific method is specifically designed to weed out such inaccuracies whether due to fraud or honest mistake, and all of these frauds and mistakes were revealed by other scientists. There is no grand conspiracy here, DBAF. Mistakes are made, dishonest people exist, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the Theory of Evolution may be inaccurate.

Summer is here. Do not let this creature irritate you. It knows not what it does.

quote:

---

The head of an ordinary dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis) was captured under darkfield illumination with a compound optical microscope using a 10x objective.

---

quote:

---

Fleas are a relentless summer pest throughout the world,.......

​

........The larva resembles a small legless caterpillar and it feeds on dried excrement, dried bits of skin, dead mites, dried blood, and other organic debris. Fecal matter from the parent flea is essential to the successful metamorphosis of some species of flea larvae. During this time the parent flea consumes a great deal of blood, up to 30 times its own weight, to produce a large quantity of feces for its larvae........

---

A summer pest full of shit, eh? From HereEdited by bluegenes, : title change

New ScientistHere's one or two. I'll start a list.Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.Edited by LucyTheApe, : damn tagEdited by LucyTheApe, : link

You have a bad link.

Thanks Coyote, fixed.

Hot news, that, Lucy!There was a Japanese archaeologist/anthropologist recently, I think.

dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
for·ger·y /frd’ri, for-/[fawr-juh-ree, fohr-]
1. the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing of another person's name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger's name.
2. the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like.
3. something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery.
4. an act of producing something forged.Or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation of a drawing of what a fossil looked like to further a belief, or a writing that misrepresents what the fossil is.