Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 11:59 PM
22 online now:
DrJones*, herebedragons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 62/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
19202122
23
24Next
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 331 of 346 (471701)
06-17-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 6:44 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
No, it doesn't need the fossil record. It's just the easiest to visualize, especially for the layman.

When it was first proposed in Darwin's time, there really wasn't a fossil record to go on.

Maybe you should do a bit of reading on the subject before you try to debunk it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 6:44 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 332 of 346 (471702)
06-17-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Misleading Flea, with a misleading O.P.!!
"Hesperopithecus was not mentioned by anyone during the course of the Scopes trial, although other major discoveries of fossil hominids were discussed from the stand and in written testimony. Recent claims by Hitching that "the Hesperopithecus tooth was proudly displayed [at the trial] as evidence that man had a long evolutionary past" (1982, p. 211) are simply untrue; [snip]"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

why are you lying, Flea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 6:41 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 333 of 346 (471704)
06-17-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 4:46 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 4:46 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1615 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 334 of 346 (471706)
06-17-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 4:52 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 4:52 PM Dont Be a Flea has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Coyote, posted 06-17-2008 7:11 PM Kapyong has not yet responded
 Message 337 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 7:52 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 335 of 346 (471710)
06-17-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Kapyong
06-17-2008 6:59 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
This guy is a troll.
He cannot be real.

When all of your scientific research is done on sites like AnswersInGenesis, you naturally get a distorted view of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

And you might even get to believing that what AIG writes is accurate.

That only prepares one for a rude awakening on encountering the real world and all the evidence there actually is.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Kapyong, posted 06-17-2008 6:59 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 7:50 PM Coyote has responded

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 336 of 346 (471716)
06-17-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Coyote
06-17-2008 7:11 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
YI have not used the answers in Genesis website as one single source on this entire forum. This is typical. I have a valid arguement, and its not valid enough because YOU said so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Coyote, posted 06-17-2008 7:11 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 8:04 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded
 Message 345 by Coyote, posted 06-17-2008 9:31 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 337 of 346 (471719)
06-17-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Kapyong
06-17-2008 6:59 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
Troll. Interesting. Did I evolve into one?

I thought you were supposed to argue the topic, and not engage in insulting its participants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Kapyong, posted 06-17-2008 6:59 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 8:05 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 338 of 346 (471722)
06-17-2008 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Misleading Flea, with a misleading O.P.!!
Please provide evidence it was used in the scopes trial.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 6:41 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 8:05 PM ramoss has not yet responded

grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 339 of 346 (471723)
06-17-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 7:50 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I have a valid arguement

you can keep saying that (and possibly even believing it) but you have yet to support its validity

consequently, it has been debunked all over these 4 pages


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 7:50 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 340 of 346 (471724)
06-17-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ramoss
06-17-2008 8:03 PM


Re: Misleading Flea, with a misleading O.P.!!
Please provide evidence it was used in the scopes trial.

i've already provided evidence that it was NOT used, so good luck there
This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ramoss, posted 06-17-2008 8:03 PM ramoss has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 341 of 346 (471725)
06-17-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I thought you were supposed to argue the topic, and not engage in insulting its participants.

It's an easy way for evos to avoid debating the topic, imo. Probably evidence you are making some headway in presenting a formidable case. Btw, I tried to mention such behaviour towards you to one of the admins per their constant request, but the admin that responded just insulted me for bringing it up.

Keep up the good work. I especially liked your graphics awhile back. How someone can pretend you are a "troll" after such informative posts is beyond me.

Basically what's going on is you are bringing up very good points on evo reliance on overstatements and sometimes even hoaxes, and your detractors are trying to quibble than discuss the topic head-on, imo.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 7:52 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by grandfather raven, posted 06-17-2008 8:27 PM randman has not yet responded

grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 342 of 346 (471726)
06-17-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by randman
06-17-2008 8:05 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
Basically what's going on is you are bringing up very good points on evo reliance on overstatements and sometimes even hoaxes, and your detractors are trying to quibble than discuss the topic head-on, imo.

you're welcome to keep believing this, but, objectively, every point raised by you or the OP has been addressed and debunked

repeating something AFTER it's shown to be wrong doesn't magically make it right


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 8:05 PM randman has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 343 of 346 (471733)
06-17-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 6:41 PM


Just a question ...
This topic seems to be jumping all over the place, and perhaps what we need are some foundations for arguments.

It was discovered in 1922, and used at the Scopes trial in 1925. A nice rendering was done of a one million year old entire race of humanoid by Amedee Forestier who was especially interested in prehistoric man and loved to bring him to life, not by fictitious imaginings but by the most careful reconstructions based on scientific research, and who also drew of all things, Piltdown man.

The same “authorities” who “debunked” the discovery at one time, (even a short time) endorsed an entire race of humanity out of one pig’s tooth.

Surely, there is a lesson here for us concerning the reliability of so-called "expert testimony," which is so often used to manipulate and intimidate the layman.

Several questions:

(1) does the fact that a pigs tooth was misinterpreted as a hominid prove that evolution does not occur? that all the massive evidence for evolution must likewise be fictitious? that all evolutionary biologists are then engaged in a world wide conspiracy to deceive the world (no matter what the private beliefs of the scientists are)?

OR

(2) does the fact that a pigs tooth was misrepresented as a hominid mean (a) some people make mistakes, and some people are dishonest (earthshaking news that) and (b) that the validity of evolution is neither validated nor invalidated? Did the cold fusion fiasco in any way affect the validity of physics?

The question in the OP is Why Lie, and the answer is that you don't need to. The fact remains that frauds, hoaxes and fakes are discovered and discarded in the scientific literature all the time, in all sciences, as disproving concepts that are false is what science is a about.

Can you name a single evolutionary fraud, hoax or fake that is taught as factual truth? If not then what is the big deal here.

And what is this? Is this KNM-ER 1470?

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html

quote:
KNM-ER 1470

ER 1470 was originally thought to have been a representative of the species Homo habilis, apparently vindicating Louis Leakey's long-held belief that large-brained members of the genus Homo existed in eastern African millions of years ago. The specimens cranial capacity of 775cc, is well in excess of earlier australopith brain size. The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but species indeterminate."

In the years that followed, as more examples of Homo habilis emerged, its assignment to the species H. habilis became a subject of debate. When compared with other Homo habilis specimens, such as KNM ER 1813 several morphological features differ from the classic habilis pattern. For example, in ER 1470, there is only a slight supraorbital torus without a depression behind it.

Many researchers now place ER 1470 within the species Homo rudolfensis along with several other early human fossils that had previously been assigned to H. habilis.


Are you implying that this fossil is a fake? a fraud? a hoax?

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/rud.html

quote:
he species Homo rudolfensis was originally proposed in 1986 by V. P. Alexeev for the specimen to the left, KNM ER 1470. Originally thought to be a member of the species Homo habilis, much debate surrounded the fossil and its species assignment. It was thought that 2 million years ago there existed a single species in the genus Homo, and this species evolved in a linear fashion into modern humans.

But the differences in this skull, when compared to other habilines, are too pronounced, leading to the formulation of the species Homo rudolfensis, contemporary with Homo habilis.

It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo, or if H. habilis was.


Does the fact that there is some dispute about possible lineage mean that this is not a hominid?

Or are going to get a argument based on the problems in dating the fossil as "proof" that all dating is fraught with errors?

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm

quote:
KNM-ER 1470

Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete Homo habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The skull is surprisingly modern in some respects. The braincase is much larger and less robust than any australopithecine skull, and is also without the large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. It is however very robust in the face. A number of leg bones were found within a couple of kilometers, and are thought to probably belong to the same species. The most complete, KNM-ER 1481, consisted of a complete left femur, both ends of a left tibia and the lower end of a left fibula (the smaller of the two lower leg bones). These are quite similar to the bones of modern humans.


Are we going to get an argument that because there was uncertainty on the age of the fossil being 3 million years old and that it has now been dated by more accurate procedures to 1.8 million years mean that the earth is 5000 years old?

What exactly is your argument?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 6:41 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-17-2008 9:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 344 of 346 (471742)
06-17-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by RAZD
06-17-2008 8:58 PM


Need more focus - Closing in about 15 minutes
RAZD writes:

This topic seems to be jumping all over the place, and perhaps what we need are some foundations for arguments.

It's jumping all over the place and running in circles even when it's on-topic because the topic is pretty broad. Then there have been quite a few way off-topic runs and quite a bit of generally irrelevant sniping at each other. Besides, we're now well past 300 messages which tends to indicate that a fresj start or something is needed.

Closing in about 15 minutes. Feel free to propose new more focused topics.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by RAZD, posted 06-17-2008 8:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-17-2008 9:50 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 345 of 346 (471743)
06-17-2008 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dont Be a Flea
06-17-2008 7:50 PM


Re: Five forged fossils
I have not used the answers in Genesis website as one single source on this entire forum. This is typical. I have a valid arguement, and its not valid enough because YOU said so.

My post said websites like Answers in Genesis. The information content of your posts echoes creationist literature and websites; which ones is not an important issue.

You do not have a valid argument for a lot of reasons; many of these have been pointed by posters on this thread. In fact, I suspect all of your claims have been rebutted by now.

And on some subjects, "that I said so" should count for something as I have actually studied the subject in some depth. I did six years of grad school, with about half of it spend studying evolution, fossil man, osteology, human races, anatomy, primates, and other related subjects. I actually handled and studied most of the important fossils (as casts) that were discovered prior to about 1979.

You, on the other hand, have made extravagant claims which you have not been able to back up.

I am still waiting for the five forged fossils, and you have not been able to come up with even one additional sample beyond the two I spotted you.

I think you should instead come up with an apology for your blatant over-exaggeration and libel of thousands of hard-working scientists worldwide.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-17-2008 7:50 PM Dont Be a Flea has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
19202122
23
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019