Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1358 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 31 of 323 (524720)
09-18-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by ApostateAbe
09-18-2009 1:31 AM


AdminNosy writes:
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.
I marvel that you could suggest that I could be accused of being guilty of Gish Gallup while attempting to frame an argument in light of the widely varied expansion of the debate subject offered by the opposition.
For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings:
The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes?
And then he say this:
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.
Then you post these photos as evidence that each of these skulls belong to Neanderthal:
Can Abe actually say that these APE skulls even belong to the same family/genus of Ape? Because I see no obvious resemblance at all. From the width/shape of the skulls to the protruding of the brow ridges. I mean at every level of rationale I see no way to prove that these skulls represent any true and real connection to human development or evolution. With every piece of evidence you post, you prove my point that no real and verifiable evidence exists which supports your belief in evolution.
Sure, he will place every single fossil skull of a primate found in some manufactured category of human based evolution, but that doesn't mean it is a true or reliable assumption at all. And only if we are able to absolutely prove you wrong will you even consider that an error has been made. And even then, evolutionists will just poo poo it as part of the process of getting to your so called truth. But the truth to evolution is whatever furthers your agenda and doesn't impede the overall fairy tale evolution is promoting.
Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:31 AM ApostateAbe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 09-18-2009 8:43 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 9:47 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 09-18-2009 10:12 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 44 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-18-2009 1:26 PM Archangel has replied
 Message 45 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:33 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 46 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2009 1:35 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 3:13 PM Archangel has not replied

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


Message 32 of 323 (524722)
09-18-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peepul
09-18-2009 5:33 AM


Peepul writes:
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?
Are you deliberately ignoring the point I am making here? Have you no appreciation for proper time placement or context? Now go back to the 40 years after the Scopes Trial but before the 1952 acknowledgement of the fraud involved and every historical reference which the world heard and saw regarding this fraudulent evidence was from the perspective that it was first offered during the scopes trial and contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science. Which of course is a blatant and unmitigated lie.
But you apologists and defenders of evolution on this very site are evidence of the effectiveness of that decades long lie and propaganda which was allowed to persist unchecked for those decades as you have been raised to believe this lie and misinterpretation of the bones of long dead animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 5:33 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 09-18-2009 9:36 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2009 10:22 AM Archangel has not replied
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 12:20 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 40 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 12:45 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 41 by tuffers, posted 09-18-2009 12:53 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2009 1:06 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 33 of 323 (524723)
09-18-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


Draw us a line between the last ape and first human in that series of pictures, Arch. I double-dog dare you.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 323 (524731)
09-18-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


Hi Archangel,
One key part of your premise is that evolution as "legitimate science" is a "blatant and unmitigated lie" because frauds have been committed in its name, and I think I can explain why no one is buying it.
For the sake of discussion, let us say that 1% of the world's population are liars, frauds and cheats, and that they're equally distributed amongst all occupations, from policemen to lawyers to bricklayers to scientists. Does the fact that some policemen fabricate evidence and give false testimony mean that criminals are innocent? Does the fact that some lawyers are dishonest shysters mean that our legal system doesn't work? Does the fact that some bricklayers take a deposit and disappear mean that contracting is a lie? No to all these, right? So in the same way, does the fact that some scientists fabricate evidence or misrepresent their findings mean that science is lie? Again, no, of course not.
Another way to look at it is by considering some aspect of science that you have no problem with, astronomy, for example. Let's say I'm an astronomer and I issue a false report about an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and a bunch of other astronomers commit similar frauds. Does their fraud mean that the science of identifying threatening asteroids is a lie?
Unfortunately, some proportion of the effort in all human endeavors must be dedicated to separating truth from fiction because some people are more competent than others and some are more honest than others, and it's no different in science. The broad acceptance of evolutionary theory within the scientific community is due to the large amount of supporting evidence that has been judged both authentic and compelling. Huge amounts of evidence and inferences based upon evidence have been cast aside for various reasons ranging from being inconclusive or insufficient (Ida, for example) to being outright frauds like Piltdown, but the evidence that has passed muster has been more than sufficient for scientists to conclude evolution for well over a century.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add concluding clause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 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 replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 36 of 323 (524733)
09-18-2009 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


Archangel writes:
For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings:
(And then, after the picture)
The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes?
Thanks for clearing that up Archy, you just called a skull from a Homo Sapiens (Skull N) an "apeskull". So, you agree that modern humans are apes. Thanks, that should take some confusion away.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 10:25 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 323 (524734)
09-18-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


Are you deliberately ignoring the point I am making here? Have you no appreciation for proper time placement or context? Now go back to the 40 years after the Scopes Trial but before the 1952 acknowledgement of the fraud involved and every historical reference which the world heard and saw regarding this fraudulent evidence was from the perspective that it was first offered during the scopes trial and contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science. Which of course is a blatant and unmitigated lie.
We all agree that hoaxes, mistakes, and press/discoverer over-enthusiasm were involved in the cases cited. Can you show evidence of your claim that these cases contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science (presumably in the public eye)? If anything, so far you have only shown how they have harmed the public acceptance of evolution.
Indeed - there are significant numbers that reject evolution and if you ask them why they reject it you will probably hear about hoaxes and frauds from a good number of them.
Can you show that significant numbers of people cited any of the frauds, misidentifications etc you name as significant or primary reasons to accept evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

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


Message 38 of 323 (524736)
09-18-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Huntard
09-18-2009 10:12 AM


huntard writes:
Thanks for clearing that up Archy, you just called a skull from a Homo Sapiens (Skull N) an "apeskull". So, you agree that modern humans are apes. Thanks, that should take some confusion away.
Not only that, H, but he seems to be under the impression that
* humans aren't apes (we can perhaps forgive this one)
and
* that skulls were all that were found, apparently magically placed on a pillar complete with identifying tags - namely that the skulls shown are all the evidence there is.
That's mighty thick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Huntard, posted 09-18-2009 10:12 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 323 (524754)
09-18-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


Are you deliberately ignoring the point I am making here? Have you no appreciation for proper time placement or context? Now go back to the 40 years after the Scopes Trial but before the 1952 acknowledgement of the fraud involved and every historical reference which the world heard and saw regarding this fraudulent evidence was from the perspective that it was first offered during the scopes trial ...
You are making stuff up again. Of course Piltdown Man was not presented "from the perspective that it was first offered during the Scopes trial", because it wasn't "first offered during the Scopes trial".
But you apologists and defenders of evolution on this very site are evidence of the effectiveness of that decades long lie and propaganda which was allowed to persist unchecked for those decades as you have been raised to believe this lie and misinterpretation of the bones of long dead animals.
Uh, no. I for example, first heard of Piltdown Man as a fake. What with me being born in 1974. My acceptance of evolution is therefore not even tangentially a result of the Piltdown hoax.
It is strange that you should keep railing about lies and frauds, when you yourself can't seem to get through a single paragraph without saying something blatantly and stupidly untrue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 40 of 323 (524758)
09-18-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


quote:
Are you deliberately ignoring the point I am making here? Have you no appreciation for proper time placement or context? Now go back to the 40 years after the Scopes Trial but before the 1952 acknowledgement of the fraud involved and every historical reference which the world heard and saw regarding this fraudulent evidence was from the perspective that it was first offered during the scopes trial and contributed to the validation and acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science. Which of course is a blatant and unmitigated lie.
Of course I understand the context. But the negative impact to the cause of evolution caused by the exposure of the hoax since the 50s outweighs any positive contribution it had back then. Why do I say that?
- Creationists constantly use Piltdown to attack evolution
- The acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science NOW is based on huge amounts of evidence which is not affected one jot by Piltdown.
What is your argument to the contrary?
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 41 of 323 (524759)
09-18-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


Archangel,
Even if people were duped for a long time by a few pieces of fraudulent evidence, such as Piltdown man, and even if some people remain duped by those few pieces of fraudulent evidence, it doesn't in any way detract from the thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence for evolution that come from all kinds of different areas (not only fossils) and stand up to scrutiny.
Do you really think every single person or institution that uncovers some evidence for evolution is part of a worldwide conspiracy? And what would be the purpose of such a conspiracy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

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


Message 42 of 323 (524760)
09-18-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
09-18-2009 12:20 PM


quote:
But you apologists and defenders of evolution on this very site are evidence of the effectiveness of that decades long lie and propaganda which was allowed to persist unchecked for those decades as you have been raised to believe this lie and misinterpretation of the bones of long dead animals.
No, fraid not. I have always known Piltdown as a fake, as has everybody who has learned about evolution in the last 57 years. So that's everyone under 70 then.
So somehow we have been led to believe evolution is true by something we have always known as a fake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 323 (524761)
09-18-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:41 AM


But you apologists and defenders of evolution on this very site are evidence of the effectiveness of that decades long lie and propaganda which was allowed to persist unchecked for those decades as you have been raised to believe this lie and misinterpretation of the bones of long dead animals.
Archangel, try and appreciate the fact that there are innumerable, empirical ways that verify evolution. Yes, it is true that there have been frauds, but those people acted independently. There is not some global conspiracy to push evolution without merit.
Consider your OWN source and what they are willing to do to skew facts in favor of their clearly biased position. Their entire theology is predicated on the bible being completely accurate. It hangs precariously upon a wobbly precipice that at all times is ready to fall and shatter to pieces. The authors and webmasters on that site will defend creationism on the basis that if the creation story is not true, then what else in the bible is also not true?
These psuedo-scientists do not conduct legitimate science because their answer comes before experimentation. That's not how science works. If the data yielded results contrary to what the bible describes, then in their mind, and obviously yours as well, it couldn't possibly be true.
People believe that evolution explains natural history because it has insurmountable evidence that supports most it.
Is it not possible that the people that are telling you that it is a lie are in fact the liars and manipulators?
Consider your position: People in the past have manipulated science to favor evolution therefore all of evolution is false. What kind of absurdity is that?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:41 AM Archangel has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 44 of 323 (524763)
09-18-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


Neanderthals are apes?
Hey arch,
Just so I get this right, you are saying the the three photos Apostate posted of Neanderthals are clearly apes? I am assuming, now, you mean "apes" in the "just an ape" sense of the word as in "ape kind as opposed to human kind" not "neanderthals are apes because all hominins are a derived clade of African apes".
If that is case you have some 'splanin' to do. Have you seen a neander skeleton? We have pretty much complete ones. While different in many important ways from modern humans they are much much more like us than 'just an ape'. They walked upright very much like we do, the differences are mainly due to bone and muscle mass. They also buried their dead in a ritualized manner, probably had music, etc. Most creationists I know claim they were 'just human', you are the first in some time to claim them as apes. Please elaborate!

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:04 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

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


Message 45 of 323 (524765)
09-18-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM


I marvel that you could suggest that I could be accused of being guilty of Gish Gallup while attempting to frame an argument in light of the widely varied expansion of the debate subject offered by the opposition.
For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings:
The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes?
...
Can Abe actually say that these APE skulls even belong to the same family/genus of Ape? Because I see no obvious resemblance at all. From the width/shape of the skulls to the protruding of the brow ridges. I mean at every level of rationale I see no way to prove that these skulls represent any true and real connection to human development or evolution. With every piece of evidence you post, you prove my point that no real and verifiable evidence exists which supports your belief in evolution.
Sure, he will place every single fossil skull of a primate found in some manufactured category of human based evolution, but that doesn't mean it is a true or reliable assumption at all. And only if we are able to absolutely prove you wrong will you even consider that an error has been made. And even then, evolutionists will just poo poo it as part of the process of getting to your so called truth. But the truth to evolution is whatever furthers your agenda and doesn't impede the overall fairy tale evolution is promoting.
Archangel, you are right that you are certainly not guilty of the Gish gallop. And I think you have a very good objection to the set of Neanderthal skulls. To be honest, I am not sure why it is that anthropologists think they all belong to the same species. They could be three different species, for all I know.
Here is the important point: THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ACCEPT FOR EVOLUTION. Not the Piltdown Man. Not the Nebraska Man. Not the Orce Man. The skulls that are actually offered to the public as evidence are the skulls that you should be focused on if you want to disprove evolution.
I think you are a very good thinker, and I hope you stay with us. Shake off the condescension and the dismissals and the unjust attacks against you. You are doing good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM 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