Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 323 (524658)
09-18-2009 12:13 AM


I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits.
http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/scopes/scopes.html

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 323 (524659)
09-18-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Archangel
09-17-2009 11:39 PM


Re: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial ...
As this is not true, please feel free to accuse yourself of fraud.
... the evidence lasted in the public domain for decades before being exposed for what it was.
This is not true either. Nebraska Man was identified as a hominid in 1922, and reidentified as a peccary in 1925. A formal retraction was published in 1927.
This is not a secret, you could have easily found out that you were not telling the truth.
I think I shall start keeping count of the number of creationist frauds you perpetrate in this thread, it will be an interesting exercise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:39 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 18 of 323 (524661)
09-18-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
09-18-2009 12:13 AM


Coragyps writes:
I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits.
Actually, your quoted info perfectly supports what I said about the long term damage done because of the Scopes Trial.
The Scopes Trial generated a lot of publicity, and the possibility remains that commentators outside the trial made mention of Nebraska Man. However, this still renders the original assertion false. The Institute for Creation Research grudgingly admits that Nebraska Man was not entered as evidence.
[...] The imaginative newspaper coverage and the timing of the find made a big impression at the 1925 Scopes Trial. Nebraska man was never introduced into the trial, since the lead paleoanthropologist Dr. Fay Cooper cole had some misgivings about it, but it was there nonetheless.
[End quote -- RM Cornelius & JD Morris, 1995, Scopes: Creation on Trial, ICR, p.40.]
It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2009 12:13 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 1:01 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 20 by Granny Magda, posted 09-18-2009 1:02 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:10 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2009 4:41 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 6:15 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 323 (524662)
09-18-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.
You are lying. Your precise claim, as you know perfectly well, was that "Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man [...] were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial".
It is really not possible for you to argue for creationism without continually telling lies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 20 of 323 (524663)
09-18-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


So your argument is actually that the media is piss-poor and that science reporting is often very bad. No argument there. I fail to see though;
a) How this is the fault of the actual scientists and
b) How this constitutes fraud.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 21 of 323 (524664)
09-18-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:01 AM


Focus
The topics are each very big and will generate a lot of discussion. It gets very hard for anyone to track what is said if they are all merged together.
There is no reason why you can't build a case by supporting each item and then when you have put it to bed you can summarize in one place.
If you handle each one well then it is clear you will make your case when you summarize. If you have trouble then it will only be worse if they are all mixed up.
Beside someone might accuse you of a Gish gallop if you mix too many topics up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:01 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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 replied

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

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 23 of 323 (524666)
09-18-2009 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
09-18-2009 1:10 AM


Topic
The topic here is evolutionary frauds not any others.
In fact, the topic here is fraudulent human antecedents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:10 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:21 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 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 replied

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

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 25 of 323 (524670)
09-18-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Archangel, the evidence is not based on just a few fossils. Hundreds of transitional hominid skeletons and skulls have been found, many of them near complete. If you want the evidence, don't start with people with a strong interest in refuting the evidence. They will only give you the strawmen. Start with the authorities who accept it, and then be a skeptic. Take the evidence that people actually accept to the skeptics, and then ask them to explain it. For example, examine this image, because it is a great place to start. Millions of us evos accept this image as representative of the evidence for common descent with other primates. It is from TalkOrigins.org, and the images are collected from the Smithsonian Institution. The letters in the image correspond to the specimens in the list, so you can verify them by clicking on the links in the list.
None of those skulls are the examples you listed, except for the Neanderthal skulls, (J), (K) and (L). Three skulls, not just one. Do a Google search and you will find many more of them. For more details, go to this page at AnswersInCreation.org
La Ferrassie 1
Shanidar 1
Shanidar 2
La Chapelle-aux Saints 1
Le Moustier
Notice the consistently jutting eyebrow ridges and the protruding mouths. They are the closest human relatives, but they still show those transitional features, from primitive apes, in their skulls. No human alive today has a skull that look remotely like these. And you just can't explain them with arthritis or rickets.
Edited by ApostateAbe, : Missed a few Neanderthals
Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM ApostateAbe has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 26 of 323 (524672)
09-18-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
09-18-2009 1:21 AM


Re: Topic
Indeed. I'd like to see some actual fraud, like Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk human embryonic stem fraud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:21 AM Coyote has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 27 of 323 (524683)
09-18-2009 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


Archangel writes:
And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial
Coragyps writes:
I think we can drop the Scopes trial anyway, as "Nebraska Man" was never mentioned, and Piltdown Man only in passing, buried in affadavits.
Archangel writes:
Actually, your quoted info perfectly supports what I said about the long term damage done because of the Scopes Trial.
Oh, I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where you apologised for your false statement, admitted that it was indeed false, and made an honourable retraction.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 28 of 323 (524691)
09-18-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


quote:
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 manuntil 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!
You have this completely backwards. Ask people what they know of Piltdown man and if they know anything about it they will tell you it's a fraud. How does that support evolution's public acceptance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Peepul has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 29 of 323 (524693)
09-18-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
09-18-2009 12:30 AM


It was the media press which influenced and remained in the publics memory. You have just supported my precise claim.
oh noes! the press reports scientific news badly! And the public believe them sometimes!
Wait Archangel - would you say that deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud?
The reason I ask is because of your stubborn refusal to accept your glaring mistakes.
1 of your 5 examples was a hoax, and that was discovered by the scientific community - the retraction is blatantly ignored by creationists.
If anything, therefore, the fraud is entirely on the side of the creationists who are misrepresenting known facts, lying about others, making up even more and refusing to correct these mistakes - the refusal could be taken, being deliberate, as fraud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:30 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 30 of 323 (524696)
09-18-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


quote:
Human Ancestral Frauds
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.
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)
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)
For these three, this shows that scientists were wrong in their initial findings. This is not fraud. What evidence do you have that fraud was committed in these cases - ie that known facts were deliberately distorted, or suppressed for some ulterior motive? The fact that you don't seem to distinguish between fraud and error makes me suspicious of your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024