Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

Hi greentwiga, thanks for adding another creationist hoax to the list: As noted by others you have the perp wrong: he was a creationist, not a scientist.

quote:

---

One problem is that apart from Harold Hill, there is no known source for the NASA story. For many years, whenever anyone wrote to him about it, he sent a form letter which said he had misplaced the source of the information, but would send everybody a copy when he found it. The source never materialized. In his subsequent book, Hill dismissed all skepticism about the story and said that no substantiation was needed. His attitude was that if people believed it and it drew them to spiritual things, it was justified.

---

This is typical of creationist hoaxes: attribute information to somebody else, and claim you don't need to show the evidence, you just need to believe.See CE010: Missing day
PRATT CE010:

quote:

---

NASA scientists, using computers to track planetary motions, discovered that a day of time was missing, corresponding to biblical accounts of the sun's standing still for Joshua for almost a day, plus the sun moving backwards forty minutes for Hezekiah.

​

Response:
1. The origin of this urban legend goes back to 1890. It is entirely baseless. Indeed, it could not be true. There is no frame of reference to measure against to determine whether a day was missing thousands of years ago.

---

Note that even AIG recognizes that this is a hoax (but don't say who the perp is, just that creationists should not use this argument as evidence of creationism):

quote:

---

NASA’s Discovery of the Missing Day

​

It is an urban legend that NASA computers verified the “long days” recorded in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Kings 20:11. According to this popular story, scientists noticed that today’s positions of the sun and moon were not quite where they belonged, but they can be corrected by making allowance for the biblical events.

​

This story was never reasonable. Modern astronomers cannot know the exact positions of the sun and moon prior to these biblical events. So it is impossible for computers to calculate changes from such unknown positions.

---

Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added aig

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

Thanks greentwiga, we all make mistakes (I'm guilty as well).We also have this addition now from wirkkalaj in Message 99 on 101 evidences for a young age...: Yes it is. The problem is that the picture is altered in the creationist "source":http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
http://s8int.com/meso-cylinder.html

quote:

---

Seal and impression. Located at the Louvre Museum. Note the points of comparison between the head of the "Mesopotamium sauropod" and the skull of Diplodocus Longus, as highlighted in the graphic below.

---

Look at the "s8int" blow up of the head again:Note (a) that the head is out of scale to the body in the seal compared to the dinosaur, and (b) what is apparently shown is a bare bone skull -- no flesh, no eyes, etc. -- complete with holes in the bones through the head, and (c) that the shape is still wrong.What this would have proven - at best - is that the ancient people could have found fossil bones and assembled them but could not have a clue to what a living head looked like, however it doesn't end there: that would be just misrepresentation or misunderstanding, not really a hoax or a fraud.But that is only part of the story ... from:
404One of the markers of a creationist hoax\fraud is that the references are not complete enough to follow up on, and there is no direct link to the actual evidence. I looked at all the search results for "seal" (129) "dinosaur" (none) and "mesopotamia" (146) and finally found it:

quote:

---

La glyptique l'époque proto-urbaine Sceau-cylindre
Frise de lions monstrueux et aigles tte de lion
poque d'Uruk
Jaspe vert

​

Acquisition 1877
Département des Antiquités orientales

---

Curiously, the heads are more distinct here, showing eyes and ears and lion like snouts.The picture on "s8int" has been altered, it is a forgery, a hoax, a fraud -- a lie. And another creationist website has been shown to be willingly dishonest and deceitful.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /qsEdited by RAZD, : pic

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

On Message 207 Archangel says: Do we finally get a creationist ready and willing to defend the creationist frauds and hoaxes?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

in EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Archangel cites this website:Evolution Fraud and MythsAside from the usual Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, this site adds CC021: Orce Man

quote:

---

Claim CC021:
A skull fragment from the Andalusia region of Spain, originally hailed in 1983 as the oldest human fossil from Europe, was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey.
Source:
Gish, Duane T., 1985. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, p. 190.
Response:

​

1. There is not enough of the fossil to make its identity clear. It is still uncertain whether the fragment is hominid or equine. It is a misrepresentation to call it misidentified when there was never a consensus on its identification in the first place. If not for its importance as possibly the oldest European human, the fragment would receive little attention.

---

This site ALSO claims that Java Man and Neanderthal are frauds? There must be some massive bliss going on there.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : tid#

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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) • • •

Thanks to Kaichos Man for bringing this to my attention:The Fossil Record-- using information from 1978 science and 1988 creationists to misrepresent the truth about forams to the gullible.See Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process Message 40Enjoy.

---

Hi Velky Vezir, and welcome to the fray. Interesting list. To bad he didn't live to see validation. Got any links for that? Also for his purpose in so doing? Perhaps someone else here knows.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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)

Hi Panda, That this is a tread devoted to listing both scientific and creationist frauds. See Message 1.To qualify it only needs to be shown that it was done on purpose: the intent was to deceive. And some are dishonest in a way that gets them money or fame.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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 site has not been listed on this thread before, but it has been used (attempted anyway) on a number of other threads.Scientific Evidence for Creation Home pageAs an example of the false information they present I have looked at this common creationist falsehood:http://www.bible.ca/...-fraud-horse-fetal-vestigial-toes.gif

quote:

---

Evolutionist argument: This diagram shows the fetal development of a horse foot. (a) is the foot at 6 weeks. Note, there are three toes. (b) is the foot at 8 weeks. The middle toe now dominates. (c) is the foot at 5 months. The middle toe is now the hoof. So, modern horses have vestigial extra toes, which are too small to be easily noticed.

​

Evolutionist argument rebutted: These structures are not vestigial but perform a critical function of assisting the horse to run with balance. These additional side structures not only reinforce the leg for strength, but aid in balance. Think of them as laminates that strengthen the leg in the same way the layers of plywood makes it stronger than unlamintated wood. The three sections are fused together in such a way as to resist breaking and increase torsion strength of the leg of the horse. Without such, the horse would break its leg more often.

---

Of course that "critical function" was not the original support function of the toes, so yes they are vestigial, and this secondary adapted function is why they have not disappeared.Vestigial Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

vestigial (vɛˈstɪdʒɪəl)

​

adj
1. of, relating to, or being a vestige
2. (of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009

---

Notice that it does not say the vestigial trait has no function (the creationist straw man), just that the size and function are reduced.The development of an organism from fetus to adult is also very instructive in determining the vestigial character of a specific trait.Amusingly you can see that the fetus has three toes (of the original five, two having disappeared in earlier evolutionary stages (that are easily linked to this by fossils) with the central one elongated slightly more than the other two) forming a three toed foot, and that these toes become reduced and redirected during development until the two side ones become splints in the final foot.Finally the function served by these remaining toes is not necessarily a benefit:
Page not found - Suite 101

quote:

---

If you were trying to convince someone of the theory of evolution, the horse would be a great example to use. Fossil remains of prehistoric horses provide one of the best documented examples of the evolutionary changes of an animal species. And if the fossil remains are not convincing enough, we can look at the anatomy of the modern horse and find possible evidence that the horse once had toes.
...
It is the three toes of the horse’s ancestors Mesohippus and Miohippus (which existed about 25-40 million years ago) that are most universally acknowledged in the anatomy of modern horse. Between the knee and fetlock joint (equivalent to your ankle) is the cannon bone. On either side of the cannon bone hang two useless bones that are called the splint bones. They are frequently injured and the resulting hard lump is called a splint. We will discuss splints more in future articles on leg and hoof problems. It is generally accepted that these bones are what remains of the two smaller toes of Mesohippus. Those of us who have had deal with horses popping splints wish evolution would hurry up and get rid of them all together.

---

Looks like that "Evolutionist argument rebutted" falls flat on it's face. They are vestigial rather than totally gone because they now serve a secondary function, and that poorly, because it is not their original purpose. This is what vestigial means.The splints are vestigial toes that serve no support function - their original function - for the modern horse.You may enjoy taking apart the other falsehood and fraudulent information on that site, but there are just too many (Gish Gallop?) to answer all of them at one time.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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)

Hi Mr Jack Thanks, that's a pretty good definition. If they have been adapted (by evolution) to serve a non-toe function, then they no longer serve as toes. That would be a case of adaptive evolution rather than vestigial remnant.In this case we have splints along the sides of the main toe bones, and I would venture to predict that they are of varying degrees of thickness and length.Certainly when these splint bones have problems it adversely affects the horse, which like the appendix in humans, would not cause that effect by their absence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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)

Hi jar, Interestingly we also see polydactylous horses and horses with atavistic polydactyly.http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/...te%20Evolution/3ToeHorse.htm

quote:

---

Left. Owen Marsh's "horned horse from Texas." Right. Toes of normal and polydacylous horses. Roman numerals refer to toe number. Left-right. Normal condition. Toes II and IV are represented by splints. Middle-right. Polydactyly by duplication of the middle toe. Side splints are still present. Right-right. Polydactyly by atavism. The extra toe is an hypertrophied splint. In most two- and three-toed horses, the extra digits are duplications of toe III. But in roughly a third, supernumerary digits are enlarged splints - a condition hearkening back to the days when this was the norm. From S. J. Gould. 1983. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. W. W. Norton Co. NY.

---

Bold for emphasis.The atavistic hoofed toe is (rather obviously) a pale vestige of when the toe supplied direct support to the (evolving) horse.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen 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)

Hi Portillo, Yep. And?Haeckel's Embryos

quote:

---

Haeckel noticed that vertebrate embryos pass through a series of similar stages in early development, and argued that there was a good reason for this. As an organism evolves, he reasoned, it does so by tacking on new stages to its process of embryonic development. Therefore, as an organism passes through embryonic development it actually re-traces every stage of its evolutionary ancestry. This idea became known as "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny," which literally means "Development is a replay of Ancestry." As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past.

​

One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nontheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development

---

More from the link above.Note the image is actual photos of actual embryos during development, and they show how some elements are inherited, just not all.So the fact that Haeckel committed fraud does not alter reality, and the evidence of evolution.Note further that the fraud was uncovered by scientists, not creationists.Any questions?Enjoy.

Hi Panda Yep, and I agreed that it was a fraud. Problem?He also listed information showing asserting that this fraud was still being perpetuated, which is not entirely correct - the drawings have been used, but the discussion around them is not that his hypothesis was correct, but how it has been corrected.Enjoy.

Hi caffeine, Thanks. So it could have been his conviction that he was right influencing what he saw, rather than outright fraud. Interesting. However, this does not change the fact that his hypothesis was wrong and has been corrected by later science.Enjoy.

Hi Portillo, They do still appear in some textbooks, however when they are used it is to discuss what embryology does and does not show. As caffeine has pointed out, they are not that inaccurate in what they show, the inaccuracy was the hypothesis, which has been invalidated - not ALL stages of phylogenic history are repeated, just some, and different histories are retained in different branches of descent.Other textbooks, like the one by Ken Miller and Joe Levine (5th edition) do not - they use drawings based on actual photos:Haeckel's Embryos

quote:

---

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development.

​

So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it!

​

In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs:

---

This says more about how textbooks are developed by publishers - do they spend money on new photos or do they use existing material? - and how textbooks are selected by schools (cost & convenience vs accuracy) than about how the actual science is done.But also please note that this thread is not for discussion of the different frauds, but to list them. If there is some doubt about this actually being an intentional fraud by Haeckel, then I am willing to list it on the evolution side, fraud does happen in science, however I also note how much it is overbalanced by frauds on the creationist side.If you are going to argue that the drawings show that the alleged fraud is still being presented, then you need to present the words in the textbooks and show that they are fraudulent or perpetuate a false hypothesis.Thanks for your interest.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : book info

Hi Jefferinoopolis, just saw your new post proposal, and thought you might want to look at this thread. They are probably already covered here. Of course it would be interesting to see how CrytoGod presents information to show that hoaxes are an integral and intentional part of science ...Enjoy.