Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

And it took 2,000 years to get the catholic church to officially admit that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around.Science is about forming models to explain natural phenomena and then refining or throw those models out completely in the face of new evidence. It is inevitable that along the way there would be people that create hoaxes for fame and money. Excuse me? They? The hoax was done by one individual and then was exposed by other scientists later on. If anything, Piltdown man was a perfect demonstration of how science worked.At the time, the prevalent theory was that human evolution was led by the development of the brain before anything else. So, the model predicted that the missing link had to be an ape-like creature with a large brain. In the eyes of many, piltdown man confirmed this model.But the discoveries of fossils after fossils in Southern Africa of creatures with small brains but having more human features than ape made many scientists doubt the old model. Finally, the old model of brain first was thrown out due to overwhelming evidence. This led directly to the careful examination of the piltdown man supposed fossil. It turned out that the fossil was not a fossil at all but rather a grind down modern ape skull.That's what science is about. It's about collecting evidence and refining or discrediting old models and replace them with newer ones that fit better with the evidence.You seem to be under the ignorant notion that the strongest trait of science is its weakest. Remember that science is not religion. Scientific evidence are not written in stone like religious doctrine.Added by edit.The reason the piltdown man hoax was allowed to go on for so long was because of politics. The Brits wanted to find something, anything, to rival what the Germans found. The Germans were the first to discover Neanderthal fossils. Piltdown man fit perfectly the prediction made by the model at the time and it was British. For political reasons, scientists were prevented from closely examining the fake fossil for 40 years. Only after overwhelming evidence that contradicted the old model were scientists allowed to closely examine the fake fossil of piltdown man for the first time.This brings me to my next point. Politics and science is never a good mix. One reason why I am opposed to creationist's attempts at inserting their religion into the science classroom. They are using politics to do it rather than genuine science.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

So I can be right AND wrong, about the same thing, and that’s OK? I will "nitpick" anything that doesn’t make any logical sense. To you 10,000 years (give or take a few centuries) is OK only because you ASSUME that there are 4.6 Billion years to play with. Science has not proven the age of the earth, yet 4.5 or 4.6 or 4.55 plus or minus 1% is stated as fact in textbooks and on websites. This to me is fudging the truth. If you don’t know say, you don’t know. Dinosaurs died out 70, no, 65, no...65.5 million years ago. What’s 500,000 years anyway, give or take a few millennia.(I hear brainwashing is equally as fun.)

We actually agree on something! Perhaps( and I say this with caution) I should be more against science mixing with politics as I am with religion mixing with politics, than I am against science itself.I have just had some of the most arrogant pompous asses all looking down their noses as me because I challenge what they so religiously assume. I am called "ignorant" because I have the gall to say "hey wait a minute, you are not making any logical sense." I am told to just shut up and “believe” or “trust” the experts and keep my “hillbilly” self under a rock. Evolutionists are not special ultra smart untouchable people that have a pure heart and never lie, never do things for money of fame (because they are scientist stupid) and always, always show the truth with no bias EVER. Please! The very essence of one’s world view dictates what one will pursue as truth.

No. This is why no-one has ever said any such thing to you. No. This is why no-one has ever said any such thing to you. Let me ask you something. You tell us this lie. Do you think that it will convince us? That's a classic. You have no idea why that's so funny, do you?

No, you are called ignorant because you are in fact disgustingly, pathetically, pitifully ignorant. You rave and scream and shout in public about something that you know fuck-all about. You are very very ignorant. That is why people call you ignorant. It's 'cos you are, in fact, ignorant. And then you have to make up halfwitted daydreams to explain to yourself why people call you ignorant. People call you ignorant because you are ignorant. You are ignorant. Now fuck off and learn something.

Note to anyone who opposes evolution, you are a flat earth hillbilly. It is ok for an evolutionist to lie and/or make mistakes, misrepresent evidence, get artist to render up a fake pic of Lucy with feet and hands, but don’t you EVER, EVER question them!

You sound like the one ranting and raving right now! Usually when someone starts flinging insults, it shows lack of intellignece and patience. I have yet to insult any of you on this thread about evolution lies. I have yet to use profanity or call any of you names. Congratulations on being the first melt-down!Rule number 10Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person. Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Why rule number 10 of course!

No, you still don't get it. You are confusing radiocarbon with other forms of radiometric dating. My response to you, above, dealt only with radiocarbon dating. Now you are repeating the same error, and you've totally ignored the lesson you were given concerning radiocarbon dating.Let me try this again, using smaller words:The 10,000 years you are quibbling about is not an error in the results of radiocarbon dating.It represents the upper limit of the method based on the specific equipment that is used. An analogy-- if you have a 12 inch ruler and an 18 inch ruler which is more accurate for measuring something 2 inches in length? They are both the same.Your 10,000 year quibble is the 6 inch difference between the two rulers. One ruler gets poor results after 12 inches, while the other gets poor results after 18 inches. In radiocarbon dating one set of equipment might go to 50,000 years while better equipment might make 60,000 years. But you thought this meant a 10,000 year error.Further, radiocarbon dating, with limits in the 50-60,000 year range has nothing to do with dating the age of the earth or dinosaurs.But your question shows you don't understand this, and your response to my explanation shows you don't really care enough about scientific accuracy to study the subject.What, are you witnessing here or something? Do you get points for the witness, no matter how silly it is scientifically?That's the exact opposite of science; we have no use for wrong answers in science.But on the slight chance that you might be willing to learn, here is a link to my home page on another site. It has a list of several excellent links on radiocarbon and radiometric dating. Warning: science content!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Should be rewritten as:I have just had some of the most arrogant pompous asses all looking down their noses as me because I challenge what they so religiously assume. I am called "athiest" because I have the gall to say "hey wait a minute, you are not making any logical sense." I am told to just shut up and “believe” or “trust” the fundamentalists and keep my “elitist” self under a rock. Fundamentalists are not special ultra saved untouchable people that have a pure heart and never lie, never do things for money of fame (because they are fundamentalist stupid) and always, always show the truth with no bias EVER. Please! The very essence of one’s parents or ayatollahs dictates what fundamentalists will insist is truth, regardless of evidence.

---

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

Im glad you sent me the link to your homepage. I will read every word. Im going on vacation tomorrow to North Carolina so you may not see me for acouple days.PEACE!By the way, Rocky Balboa has taken Ivan Drago's best shots, he is cut and he is bleeding, but he is still on his feet!Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Just having fun...

Very well said. I give you a "Touché"However, the argument works both ways. Science (as it is) can be every bit as bias and stereotypical as religion. Just ask anyone that tries to oppose evolution with a different theory.

Just so you know, you're talking to real live physicists, biologists, logicians, mathematicians, etc., all of which are real live researchers in their own fields. What I've been seeing going on in this thread is that you have been assuming that these people have just about the same knowledge about these scientific disciplines as you do when in fact they actually know a lot more about them. In academia, there is more at stake in a person's career than any other field.Take the couple of research physicists who claimed to have invented cold fusion, for example. After it was proven by the rest of the scientific community that they were either in error or they fabricated their results, they couldn't even sell used cars.In academia, every published result is tested over and over by other groups of researchers to confirm the original claimed results. This is why the scientific community is built on trust. It's a group effort by hundreds of thousands of individuals who seek to stamp out frauds. And believe you me, nowadays if you want to create a hoax without being discovered by other researchers, it's even harder than turning water to wine.This is why some people on here have reacted to you the way they have. You've demonstrated that you have some of the most typical misconceptions about the theory of evolution as well as the scientific method as a whole. And yet you've claimed (in somewhat of an arrogant tone) that the hundreds of thousands of working scientists are wrong based on your misconceptions. This is the same as saying they are a bunch of dumbasses. Please keep in mind that these same dumbasses created anti-biotics that have saved literally hundreds of millions of lives and many other human discoveries and inventions that define the modern age.Creationism, on the other hand, have given us absolutely zip as far as human progress goes. All creationists are interested is using politics to insert the god of abraham into science text books. So, please understand why some people on here are frustrated.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

See, this sentence alone tells me you still have no idea what a scientific theory is.A theory is a working model that is built on mountains of data and confirmed hypotheses. Please try not to think of a scientific theory in the same light as a normal theory in everyday life. A normal person when having a flat tire might have a "theory" that his car ran over a sharp object of some sort. In science, that's not a theory.For 150 years, not a single person or organization has been able to come up with anything to disprove the theory of evolution. What we do see, however, are mountains of misrepresentations and outright lies from the creationist side.Here is a simple way at looking at this. Do you deny that mutation is inevitable? Do you deny that selective pressures can change over time? If you answer no to both of these questions, then you've admitted that evolution is inevitable. Evolution, by definition, is change in allele frequency over time. This is a working model because it is perfectly testable, and we see that the results confirm the model each and every time.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

No It does not work both ways. One side has assertion and the other has evidence vetted through the most through process of scholarship that has ever existed in the history of the planet. One side often has people who purchase their degrees through diploma mills while the other has earned degrees that require years of study. One side has people who almost never read or allow any form of contradictory evidence to enter their heads (such as in your case) while the other either has or is considering all possibilities.There is no comparison.

---

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

Then in this context "assume" isn't the right word. Because the age of the earth being close to the age of the solar system is based on both evidence and reasoning and testing (as noted elsewhere).Maybe the wording would be: "given that there is no way to conceive of the earth's time of formation being much different from other material in the solar system and no evidence that it was...".You have been asked for a reason to doubt that the earth is much different in formation time than more pristine material of the solar system.You have none. The "assumption" is, as also noted elsewhere, a very good bet since no one has a reason to bet against it.