Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:23 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,172 Year: 9,208/19,786 Month: 1,630/2,119 Week: 390/576 Day: 65/128 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 323 (524630)
09-17-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Typical creationist nonsense
Your list of "frauds" is itself a fraud.

You presume to demonstrate massive fraud in evolution, and all you can find is the standard few examples always used by creationists.

Lets take a closer look:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Piltdown was a hoax. It was designed to fool the British paleontologists! It wasn't something they perpetrated to fool the public or anyone else.

And it didn't fit! Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit with the rest of the evidence. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. Piltdown was increasingly ignored until it was finally disproved in the early 1950s.

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

A pig tooth fools one guy and an illustrator, and is quickly figured out, and that's a major fraud? Surely you creationists can do better than that if there are thousands of frauds, eh?

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Don't even bother citing creationist nonsense. They have made fools of themselves for years over Java Man.

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

As science has figured out the details of these finds, creationists have continued to stick to their early disbelief. They continue to let belief overrule evidence (creation science as usual).

"Knowledgable creationists" may not claim that Java Man is an ape any more, but there still seem to be quite a few non-knowledgable creationists out there, such as Duane Gish (1995). Old lies die hard, however. An article published in 1991 in Creation, the popular magazine of Weiland's organization Answers in Genesis, suggested that the Java Man skullcap was probably that of an ape. That article is still on the AIG website as of 2005...

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

More creationist nonsense.

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

From this source:

Two French scientists had suggested the fragment "may have come" from a donkey. Another scientist quoted in the news report admitted there was some doubt as to the bone's identity, but thought it was still quite likely human. A third scientist quoted in another news report from Associated Press claimed it was definitely humanoid. Instead of it being a "fact" that the fragment is "most likely" a donkey, a fairer assessment would be that it was still unidentified, but possibly an equid (not necessarily a donkey).

By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.

It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.

So it looks like it is creationists that have egg on face rather than paleontologists. Some specimens are genuinely difficult to figure out. (Often those are transitionals, with characteristics of earlier and later populations.) But creationists take any tiny thing they think supports their beliefs--whether it does or not--and run with it. And, once formed, they are very reluctant to ever change those beliefs.

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Still more creationist nonsense, coupled with major errors.

The first Neanderthal remains were found in the Neander Valley of Germany in 1856. (Duh!). At that time there were virtually no hominid fossils known, and folks didn't know quite what to make of them.

So that is a fraud?

Is that the best that creationists can do? There are thousands of evolutionist frauds and that's all you can come up with? What a joke.

I guess that's creation "science" for you, eh?

Edited by Coyote, : Additional details on bare links


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2009 10:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 323 (524665)
09-18-2009 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


Frauds?
If you are looking for long term damage done by (purported) frauds in evolution, perhaps we could also look at frauds perpetrated by creationists.

You have posted several at the beginning of this thread.

And rather than correct errors, creationists just go on spreading their falsehoods. At least when scientists make mistakes they correct them when they discover them.

Any tar you're seeking to spread to science would come back upon creationists a hundred fold--if only they were as willing to acknowledge their mistakes. But they pile misrepresentation upon fraud upon denial upon lie.

So, where is the public acceptance of evolution vs. creationism in regard to these frauds, as the original post asks? Science rejects frauds and corrects its errors and creationists moan and groan for centuries. Creationists pile one lie on top of another and think its virtuous, never correcting a falsehood.

Creation "science" at its best, eh?

And you're casting stones?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 09-18-2009 1:11 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 24 of 323 (524668)
09-18-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AdminNosy
09-18-2009 1:11 AM


Re: Topic
Good point.

I'd like to see more example of these frauds.

If there are so many, coming up with more examples should be easy.

So far we have:

Piltdown: a hoax designed to fool scientists, and discovered by scientists.

Nebraska man: a mistake by one scientist, quickly corrected.

Orce: still being debated. No fraud there.

Java: a legitimate discovery. No fraud there.

Neanderthal: a legitimate discovery. No fraud there.

Where are all the frauds in hominid evolution?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AdminNosy, posted 09-18-2009 1:11 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by obvious Child, posted 09-18-2009 1:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 323 (524732)
09-18-2009 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


Back to "frauds"
Where are all the frauds?

That is the subject of this thread, a thread that you started.

You implied that there are hundreds or thousands of frauds. Lets see some!

So far all you have done is trot out the standard creationist propaganda, a mix of ignorance of the subject and outright misrepresentation, reinforced in creationist circles by being repeated over and over as if they meant anything.

Where are all the frauds you claimed?

Perhaps its time to put up or shut up, as they say.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 323 (524826)
09-19-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Archangel
09-19-2009 7:13 AM


Worldview?
You must stop expecting me to explain my worldview according to your evolutionist definitions of life and how it came to be as it is.

Awwwww. You're no fun.

Reading your elaborate fantasies and observing your deliberate and self-imposed ignorance is most amusing and entertaining.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:13 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 323 (524896)
09-19-2009 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Archangel
09-19-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes?
No one has any actual or absolute evidence at all that neanderthal's are anything more than lower animals which is precisely what they were.

Neanderthal buried their dead (with flowers, no less), made sophisticated tools, and cared for elderly or crippled members of their group.

Your "interpretation" that they were lower animals is absolutely wrong. But that's no surprise, as its based on religious belief rather than evidence. (See tagline.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 9:09 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 10:20 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 323 (524901)
09-19-2009 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Archangel
09-19-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
You're funny to the point of pathos.

I hate to have to tell you this, but you would make a fine case study in abnormal psychology.

Your elaborate belief system is impervious to logic, reason, and massive amounts of evidence that shows you are wrong.

That may seem fine to you, but that puts you so far out on the fringe that you couldn't see your way back to the mainstream with the Hubble.

I'm not going to engage you any longer on this thread. You have shown that you're not listening to anything we are saying, you're just repeating the details of your anti-science and anti-realism--and totally mythical--belief system. That those details have been explained to you as false has made no impact on you.

Your mind is truly closed, and I won't waste your time or mine with further evidence.

But you do have my pity.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 10:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 100 of 323 (524946)
09-20-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
09-20-2009 1:48 PM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
This is why you have to start talking about the evidence. You can see the early signs of disgust in the reactions of some of the other participants as you ignore the evidence and instead just bluster along with repeated unsupported accusations that evolution is based upon frauds and lies.

Creationism has no evidence, they have only belief.

If they had evidence they would have presented it by now. But what we see instead are unsupported statements of belief. This thread is littered with them.

Doesn't the new creationist museum have a sign something to be effect, "Believe, don't think" -- I don't have time to search for a photo right now.

That is the exact opposite of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-20-2009 1:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-20-2009 2:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 116 of 323 (525097)
09-21-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Archangel
09-21-2009 2:07 PM


Re: God complex
Are you getting my point here? In one paragraph I have listed five theoretical applications which contribute to our beliefs in what you assert to be factual contributors to how we date the universe, yet you must admit that if we have any aspect of even one of those theoretical observations is in error, then the complete results derived from their combined use could be off by incalculable degrees of error. Yet you claim it to be a fact.

I think I see one problem in your approach to science: you think that "theory" means "mere guess" or even "wild-ass guess."

That is incorrect. A group of related hypotheses doesn't become a scientific theory until they have successfully explained a body of evidence, withstood multiple tests, and successfully made predictions.

If your religious beliefs were subjected to the same types of tests and requirements as scientific theories they would not fare nearly as well. Look at the young earth and global flood beliefs as two examples. Both have been disproved by the scientific method.

Of course you won't accept that, as your belief is not based on science.

So, since your beliefs are not based on science, and you won't accept either the scientific method or scientific evidence, why should we pay any attention to any of your posts concerning science?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 2:07 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 323 (525141)
09-21-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Archangel
09-21-2009 10:13 PM


"True" science and other creationist fantasies
...although true science is based on a factual and unchanging foundation, evolution isn't because there is no factual foundation upon which one can build.

Who told you that? Some preacher? Some anti-science creationist website? Your "common sense?"

In any case you, and they, are wrong. You just have an extremist anti-science position because you don't like some of the results of science.

Why don't you let scientists decide what is and what is not science, eh? They're qualified, and you have demonstrated that you're not.

That is what you are missing. The foundational science upon which true science rests doesn't change EVER. Only the advances add to its original content.

And what would that "foundational science" be? Physics? Phlogiston chemistry? Is it based on earth, air, water and fire or some such? Do the positions of the stars make any difference?

No? Well, how about the scientific method. Perhaps anything that follows the scientific method is science whether creationists agree or not.

The claim made in the past few years about "true" science, in a further effort to discredit the evolutionary sciences and any other parts of science that creationists disagree with, is inherently dishonest. All science follows the same methods--and no, laboratory repetition is not required; that is a creationist lie.

You guys should just go ahead and do your own "science" -- but please, don't call it science when it is the exact opposite.

I made that very clear and stand by it since you can't offer one iota of evidence that life as you state came to be spontaneously some 3.5 billion years ago as you claim. That is one hump you evos will never get over with me as you continue to focus on minutia rather than dealing directly with the challenges I throw at you,

There is no scientific theory about the first life; there are competing hypotheses which are seeking evidence. Perhaps one day we will have a true scientific theory.

But that's better than what you have; you have a religious belief that doesn't need or want evidence.

But what do origins have to do with evolution anyway? Evolution works just as well with 1) life from the proverbial warm pond, 2) life from a comet, or 3) Old Man Coyote or some other deity creating it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 10:13 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 131 of 323 (525199)
09-22-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-22-2009 11:11 AM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
Since I have clearly proven my point above, and you have actually agreed with me that you have no hope of currently proving anything about our origins which you claim are true, you have by default admitted that everything you believe regarding this theory of evolution is based on nothing more than faith in the men who's unprovable/untestable/unverifiable research you rely on.

You have not proven your point. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY PARTICULAR ORIGIN! Your claims to the contrary mean nothing; science will proceed whether you say yea or nay.

And for you to claim not to be anti-science is a joke. You hate the results of evolutionary sciences and are looking for any way to undermine those sciences and peoples' trust in them. You don't know squat about those sciences, but you hate them anyway--for reasons having to do with religion, not science, and for reasons having nothing to do with the accuracy of those sciences.

Therefore, my faith in a personal and infinite God who is much more reliable in every way than finite man who has no better a perspective than I, myself do; then how can you question the preference to trust His word over the unprovable fables of men with absolutely no eternal perspective at all? I'm relying on the creator of everything as you rely on fallen man.

You left off, "Amen." That kind of posting is nothing but preaching. It undermines your paltry attempts to sound scientific, and gives away your whole approach to science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 11:11 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 151 of 323 (525291)
09-22-2009 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:19 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
The trick is to find unbiased sources which are interested in pure science no matter where it takes them.

Creationists are interested in science; they are interested in destroying it.

The last thing they want is for science to come up with conclusions showing their religious beliefs are unsupported by empirical data.

Your false dichotomy of "true" science vs. "false" science is but one example of the anti-science attitude of many creationists.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:19 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 159 of 323 (525311)
09-22-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.

Nonsense. Lots of things are "true" and conflict with genesis. The flood and an old earth are two examples. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Empirical evidence is not on your side.

AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL.

That's the rub, right there. You are not looking at empirical evidence, you are accepting religious beliefs and seeking to justify them any way you can, even it it means destroying science to remove that pesky evidence and those inconvenient interpretations.

You choose "divine" revelation and scripture over empirical evidence and you don't want to be called anti-science? What a joke!

But this is off-topic. I'm still waiting for all those frauds you were going to round up for us. You're not doing very well there, now are you?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 169 of 323 (525337)
09-23-2009 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Archangel
09-23-2009 12:01 AM


Preaching
But wont you and all of your secular humanist defenders of evolution be sorely and sadly shocked on that final day when you inevitably learn how right we were and how absolutely wrong you were as you believed evolutions lies just as I am warning you about.

You're preaching!

You're peddling your narrow interpretation of religion, thinking it has something to do with science.

Why do you think for a minute you have anything useful to say about science?

Answer: you have nothing useful to say about science. You are peddling your religious beliefs concerning evolution in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and you're ignoring any evidence that we post that contradicts your beliefs. You appear to be nothing but a zealot with a totally closed mind, and nothing you say can be trusted unless you can produce some empirical evidence. But you are amusing to watch--seldom have I seen the like.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 12:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 199 of 323 (525505)
09-23-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Archangel
09-23-2009 3:11 PM


Another creationist exaggeration? Or just a mistake?
I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180? Will every post you all write be rife with denials and excuses rather than actual evidence which deals with the facts regarding these many frauds which define this pseudo science?

Please document the presence of soft tissue.

It looks more like there are the fossilized impressions of where soft tissue was some 50 million years ago.

And if so, doesn't this invalidate your point here?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 3:11 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019