Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Hiya,

quote:

---

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.

---

Incredible.First you present the standard definition for "forgery" - which does NOT include what happened with Piltdown.
Then you ADD your own personal addendum to the definition as if that changes the word.Piltdown was NOT a "forgery".So you just tried to CHANGE the definition of the word "forgery" to avoid admiting you were wrong !Wow.
Don't think I have EVER seen such dishonest chutzpah before.Iasion

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

Greetings,

quote:

---

Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"

---

Rubbish.Whilst
the drawings are still USED (as examples of bad science usually)
they most certainly are NOT claimed as "evidence for evolution".The thing is -
You keep confusing "using" the pictures
with claiming Haeckel's theory was right.Haeckel's theory (O.R.P.) was wrong,
but
there ARE certain similarities of growth stages in embryos.And Haeckel's pictures were based on this reality of embryonic similarity,
but -
he doctored them slightly - exaggerating certain features to push his incorrect theory.Nonetheless - Haeckel's theory being wrong dosn't stop embryos having similarities.Embryos DO show similar developmental stages.
It's a fact.These similarities can be seen quite well in photos, or less well in Haeckel's exaggerated but largely correct pictures.Meanwhile some lazy text-book editors used these out-of-date pictures to show the facts of embryo similarities.Embryos DO show similar stages.
Haeckel's pictures DO show those stages (albeit less than perfectly.)Nothing in evolution is based on Haeckel's incorrect O.R.P. theory.
Nothing in evolution is based on Haeckel's exaggerated pictures.IasionEdited by Iasion, : No reason given.

Hiya,

quote:

---

Do you or do you not consider it acceptable to use faked data and call it "evidence for evolution"?

---

No.
Because no-one is doing that.
No-one is using faked data as evidence for evolution.Randman simply doesn't grasp the facts at all :* There ARE similarities in embryos growth - it's a fact.
* These similarities ARE "evidence for evolution" - it's a fact.
* Haeckel's drawings DO show these similarities (imperfectly) - it's a fact.What randman refuses to grasp is that Haeckel's drawings were mostly correct - they DO show factual similarities - you could perhaps say they are about 90% correct.Haeckel's drawings ARE slightly exaggerated - you could perhaps say about 10% error.
And the exaggerations of this 10% is rightly dismissed.But - the basic true fact of embryonic similarities is still shown by Haeckel's drawings (even if less than 100% perfectly.)Randman is playing the common cretinist game of all-or-nothing :Haeckel's drawings are not 100% correct -
therefore they are 100% faked.Which is complete nonsense.Iasion

Hiya,

quote:

---

I am not angry at anyone. I am simply questioning.

---

The issue isn't your emotional state.
It's your dishonest and biased behaviour.You complained about frauds in science, then present fraudulent creationist information to try and back it up !The question you were asked is clear :Why are you not angry at the creationist websites that gave you information about Nebraska man for misrepresenting the scientific community's opinions on the incident, and its significance?You presented false information, which you got from a creationist site - while (wrongly) arguing evolution is based on false information.How dishonest is that!Why can't you answer the question?How do you explain the falsehoods of creationist websites that gave you information about Nebraska man misrepresenting the scientific community's opinions on the incident, and its significance?Furthermore -
you claimed there were many frauds etc.,
but have failed to add ANY to our tiny and well-known list.You were challenged to come up with five - why can't you?Iasion

Hiya,

quote:

---

Does this work?
Determining the date for Skull 1470.
...

---

Um, no.
It completely fails.You have been asked many times for five examples of forged fossils.
You have ignored this request many times.Now you present the arguments over dating skull 1470.
Which is not a forgery.In other words - you can't even come up with ONE single further example of a forged fossil (beyond the couple already cited.)What does that say about your claim of many forged fossils?Iasion

quote:

---

"Rampant overstated speculation", much better than "forgery". Perhaps I should go back and edit my OP

---

This guy is a troll.
He cannot be real.Iasion