Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

I've donated number three, with some sweet irony in it:

quote:

---

Scientist in on God’s Prank
In the early 18th century Dr. Johann Beringer of the University of Wrzburg devoted his research to the discovery of fossils that seemed to indicate prehistoric life. Beringer, however, believed that these fossils were "capricious fabrications of God," used to test man’s faith. His belief seemed confirmed when at one site he discovered fossils of birds, beetles, moons, and stars. Little did he know that two mean-spirited colleagues had planted the fake fossils. Perhaps trying to get caught, they even planted tablets inscribed with the Hebrew and Arabic words for God. Beringer published a book, Lithographia Wirceburgensis, in 1726 describing his findings and his theory. But then he made another discovery: a similar buried tablet inscribed with his own name. He immediately began trying to buy back all the available copies of his book, but it was too late. Because of the hoax, his book became a bestseller.

---

From here Good, eh!And now, I reveal dinosaur hoax number 4. Remember this? And:I think that some of the Paluxy River "humans with dinosaurs" footprints were carved out, so that could be number five, and, thanks to me, Flea wins.But I'm sure you don't mind.{I've heard rumours that Lithographia Wirceburgensis is still a standard textbook in creationist schools}

Forum rule 5, you know:

quote:

---

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

---

AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: OK, only one of those links is pretty bare. The other references the above quotation.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

True, the second one is pretty bare, only accompanied laughing smilies, so I'll expand on it here. It's self explanatory, really, and it's a very good link for people who had not heard of that particular hoax/experiment before. The page I linked to describes the original joke, and links to the original hereThe reason I refer to it as an experiment is because it did have a scientific reason behind it, as the author explains here:

quote:

---

WHY DID WE DO IT?

​

Earlier this year, I debated Paul Gammill at our January 13th NMSR meeting. Gammill presented the case for "Intelligent Design," and I presented the case for "Evolution." Both of us had agreed to present hypothetical findings which could, in principle, falsify the theory each of us was defending. One of the arguments I presented as something which would certainly call evolution into question, if it were ever discovered, would be to find the bones of a human and a dinosaur inextricably linked, as shown below.

---

quote:

---

---

The team perpetrating the hoax behaved like scientists, and kept a careful record of the reactions to their joke/experiment, which made it all the more interesting.It was deliberately outrageous, rather than designed to fool reasonable people. I wonder how long the author of this thread would have believed this non-existent character: Personally, I think Flea might have fallen for it, at least for a while. It gets the conspiracy theory thing that many creationists suffer from pretty well. Governments and scientists are, of course, hushing things up.I think this was a genuinely informative experiment from a sociological/psychological point of view.Great joke, too.

It should also be noted that Onyate Man is missing a foot.This stems from a local on-going controversy. One conquistador had dealt with one Indian tribe's up-rising by having one foot cut off of all the men. In this century a statue was dedicated to this conquistador despite protests. Now it's an on-going struggle in which somebody (or bodies) keeping cutting a foot off of the statue and the city keeps having to put one back on.A result of the Onyate Man experiment was that most creationists, while thrilled at the prospect of this "evidence", were also cautious and wanted to verify it before using it. In contrast, when Kent Hovind heard about it he immediately used it that night in a presentation.

Did he? I knew that many were hopeful but cautious, but I didn't know anyone had been that foolish.I thought that the experiment was ethical, because it was a sufficiently unlikely and spectacular find to arouse anyone's suspicion or caution.Well, obviously I should amend that to "anyone near normal".

Well, if you don't want to be called ignorant, at least learn about what you are opposing, and give valid arguments against what it really is, rather than a creationist stereotype that has nothing to do with what the TOE says at all.

Have we got the 5 fake fossils yet?

If you mean 5 fakes that have or could be used to support the theory of evolution, no. But fakes in general we could easily find far more than five, as there's a commercial market for fossils, so they'll certainly be plenty of fakes around.The claims of this site illustrate how widespread the problem could be.FAKE CHINESE FOSSILS FOSSIL FORGERY FROM CHINA

Actually, it does work both ways. That is, it does, if would if you had said it like this: However, since you actually said it like this: I agree with anglagard.Religion does not subject itself to the scrutiny that science subjects itself to, nor does it ever question its tenets. The entire point of science is to question things, because questioning is the only way to make it stronger.So, if one biased scientist wants to forge something, the first group of people he has to convince may be the media, but he'll eventually have to face up to his scientist colleagues. As soon as he publishes his work, he submits himself and his academic reputation to his colleagues, many of whom consider it their duty and privilege to assail any new, paradigm-changing idea that comes along the pike. He no longer has control over what happens to his study.Have you read about Homo floresiensis, the "hobbit" fossil found in Indonesia? Somebody found a dwarf hominid that survived until something like 15,000 years ago on Flores Island, which they described as a new species derived from H. erectus. There are several scientists who believe it's just a pathological human, and they have attacked it with a rash of papers over the last couple years about possible alternative explanations for the fossils.As far as I know, the species is still accepted by the scientific community at large, and the original description still stands. But, if it had been a fake (or even if they researchers had just been mistaken), do you think it would have survived this kind of pounding? Here is a link to a search window on Fox News's website that talks about a large handful of the studies that have come out about H. floresiensis. Feel free to peruse them and see what the critics (these critics are scientists) are saying about the fossil.Also know that, whenever something important and high-profile comes out in science, scientist critics pop up all over the world to challenge it, just like they did to Homo floresiensis.So, no it doesn't work the same way between science and religion.

---

Darwin loves you.

Whoops,
I said "Piltdown man" was not a forgery, of course it was.We were talking about Nebraska man and the pig tooth.
I meant to say "Nebraska man pig-tooth".Apologies.Iasion

Hiya,

quote:

---

It is ok for an evolutionist to lie

---

No it isn't.
This is an outright lie.

quote:

---

but don’t you EVER, EVER question them!

---

Another outright lie.
They WERE questioned, and they WERE rejected - by scientists.Iasion

We appear to have seen more lies from a single creationist in a single thread than he can point to in the last 150 years of biology.So, the question arises, why all the lies?

We've got the fossils and all of the other evidence. It is internally consistent and supports the theory of evolution.For religious reasons some folks can't tolerate the theory of evolution.One way to make that theory go away is to convince yourself that the fossils and other evidence, as well as the dating methods, are flawed, or based on "assumptions." Then the whole house of evolutionary cards comes tumbling down.Once folks delude themselves into believing this, it is necessary to convince others.That is where the lies/frauds/hoaxes come in -- it is necessary to convince others that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is flawed whether it is or not because belief depends upon doing so.

"One accused fraud or proof of one does not negate another."um, yes. yes, it certainly canif my lie is "you are lying", pointing out my lie would be the best indication that you are, in fact, not lyingbut if you did point out my lie, it would sure be nifty to have the excuse to say "nuh uh, you're changing the subject!"

very good point.....makes you wonder, doesn't it?