Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 220 (654944)
03-05-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-23-2012 2:19 PM


Fraud - idscience
From Best Evidence Macro-Evolution, message 144
My blog on this subject is called "evolution's shell game"WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here
A quick look:
quote:
EVOLUTION’s SHELL GAME
The deception here is in his use of the word evolution. Evolution covers every thing now. Any change of anything over time. How convenient is that. Now statement like his can be made and be technically be correct. Convenient, the evolutionist lobby has been able to define their belief in a way that they can defend it. ...
Typical misinformation and ignorance being spread to delude the gullible, once again.
Also see
http://www.idscience.ca
EVOLUTIONS BEST EVIDENCE?
For more of same. Fraud posing as knowledge.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
Edited by RAZD, : changed hoax to fraud

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2012 2:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nwr, posted 03-05-2012 10:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 103 of 220 (654955)
03-05-2012 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nwr
03-05-2012 10:10 PM


Re: Hoax from Fraud idscience
ok, fraud then, posing as knowledge, pretending to know more than he does.
agree on the site. particularly bad on my screen when his text extends down out of his boxes.
bad design.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : code

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nwr, posted 03-05-2012 10:10 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 112 of 220 (658162)
04-02-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Portillo
03-30-2012 11:20 PM


Hi Portillo,
Piltdown man
Nebraska man
See Message 1
Java man - Java man was built on a skullcap and teeth now known to have belonged to an orangutan or gibbon.
Orce man - Found in 1982, Orce man was supposedly a 17 year old male who lived 1.6 million years ago. Later it was discovered to be the fossil of a donkey not a human.
It appears you are quoting a creationist hoax\fraud here -- source please.
These have also been discussed before on this website: see EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: and note that it is the thread that inspired this one.
Leakey footprints - Footprints were discovered in ash layers that were dated to 3.5 million years ago, around the time apes started walking erect. A scientist by the name of Russell Tuttle later began studying tribal people that walk around their whole lives barefoot. And observed that the arch in their foot completely disappears, are completely flatfooted and leave tracks identical to the footprints in the ash.
There is more to the matching of footprints to australopiticines than a flat arch. The shape of the foot, and in particular the splayed first toe also match the bone structure of australopithicines.
Please note that you not only need to show false information be promoted by a scientist (or group of), you need to show that there is intent to deceive:
quote:
Message 1: Here are some definitions:
fraud -n1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.
3.
    a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
    b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
hoax -n
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)
GROUND RULES:
  • it must meet the definitions given above
  • to be a "scientific hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a scientist, preferably an evolutionary biological scientist (cold fusion does not qualify)
  • to be a "creationist hoax\fraud" it needs to be deliberately perpetuated by a creationist
Pretty simple criteria.
Posting a falsehood on a website and claiming that it is true meets this criteria, especially if it has been pointed out to be false.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Portillo, posted 03-30-2012 11:20 PM Portillo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 220 (661852)
05-10-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ScottyDouglas
05-10-2012 4:21 PM


MORE OFF TOPIC DRIFT
Hi again ScottyDouglas
... Thier are many lies. ...
This thread is about listing frauds and hoaxes by creationists and sciences. If you have a list of these lies then please post it.
... No because you like smash creationist but because you want someone to.Cause inside you know it but you cant prove it.thats the reason for this thread.
No, the purpose of the thread is to document Scientific and Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ... and so far the number of creationist frauds and hoaxes outnumber those perpetuated by scientists by a large number.
... .You love to debate it. ...
This thread is to document frauds and hoaxes, rather than to debate the validity of evolution.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-10-2012 4:21 PM ScottyDouglas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-10-2012 6:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 220 (661893)
05-10-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ScottyDouglas
05-10-2012 6:09 PM


Giants
Hi again ScottyDouglas,
Does Giants-put a frown on evolution?It would be signifiant? ... If Giants exist I mean 10 to 30 feet tall is that a signifiant piece of facts for evolution?
Short answer, no: there are lots of hominids of many different sizes, some larger and some smaller (Homo floresiensis for example) than humans, however not any discovered to date in scientifically documented digs have been that big.
If one were found, then it would just be another piece of the natural history of life on earth, the data that needs to be explained by theory.
New finds have caused changes in the knowledge of the natural history, and then fit into the pattern of the development of life on this planet -- feathered dinosaurs is an example that has cropped up in recent times, showing that many dinosaurs were feathered before flying birds evolved. They also show ancestral traits to birds plus derived traits from older ancestral dinosaurs, thus fitting into the transition between dinosaurs and birds.
As far as giant bones go, though, an interesting book you might want to read is
The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times by Adrienne Mayor:
quote:
Griffins, Centaurs, Cyclopes, and Giants--these fabulous creatures of classical mythology continue to live in the modern imagination through the vivid accounts that have come down to us from the ancient Greeks and Romans. But what if these beings were more than merely fictions? What if monstrous creatures once roamed the earth in the very places where their legends first arose? This is the arresting and original thesis that Adrienne Mayor explores in The First Fossil Hunters. Through careful research and meticulous documentation, she convincingly shows that many of the giants and monsters of myth did have a basis in fact--in the enormous bones of long-extinct species that were once abundant in the lands of the Greeks and Romans.As Mayor shows, the Greeks and Romans were well aware that a different breed of creatures once inhabited their lands. They frequently encountered the fossilized bones of these primeval beings, and they developed sophisticated concepts to explain the fossil evidence, concepts that were expressed in mythological stories. The legend of the gold-guarding griffin, for example, sprang from tales first told by Scythian gold-miners, who, passing through the Gobi Desert at the foot of the Altai Mountains, encountered the skeletons of Protoceratops and other dinosaurs that littered the ground.Like their modern counterparts, the ancient fossil hunters collected and measured impressive petrified remains and displayed them in temples and museums; they attempted to reconstruct the appearance of these prehistoric creatures and to explain their extinction. Long thought to be fantasy, the remarkably detailed and perceptive Greek and Roman accounts of giant bone finds were actually based on solid paleontological facts. By reading these neglected narratives for the first time in the light of modern scientific discoveries, Adrienne Mayor illuminates a lost world of ancient paleontology. As Peter Dodson writes in his Foreword, "Paleontologists, classicists, and historians as well as natural history buffs will read this book with the greatest of delight--surprises abound."
It should be available at your local library.
It is perfectly reasonable that ancient people would find bones of prehistoric animals from elephants to dinosaurs, and have developed explanations for them.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-10-2012 6:09 PM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 220 (662140)
05-12-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Giants
Hi ScottyDouglas,
I hope you realize that most of this is poorly documented and assembled hearsay and anecdotal evidence, rather than objective empirical evidence.
People 7 to 8 feet tall do occur (Andre the giant, various basketball players), certainly none of these are 30 ft tall giants eh?
The History of Marion County, Ohio (complied from past accounts, published in 1883)
Please provide the url for the website you copied this information from so we can check it to see if it is honest or another creationist fraud site.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 4:10 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by dwise1, posted 05-12-2012 6:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 139 of 220 (662157)
05-12-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
Hi again ScottyDouglas,
This one site!
another
and another
More hearsay anecdotal testimony rather than objective empirical evidence, mixed with a little conspiracy theory and alien fantasy. Let me know when you come to hard empirical objective evidence.
I did a google on smithsonian "giant human" display and did not find any reference to one. Lots of blog reports of such skeletons being "repressed" with more hearsay conspiracy talk.
If you can find a picture of one, let me know.
How can you date fossils anyway but a previous estimate of one you think is that old and then tests will run off that example to then run test on other things by the age of the previous sample. Saying the very first sample has to be a figment estimate.
There are many ways to date fossils, but none as ludicrous as you describe. If you want to discuss some of these dating methods I can point you to several threads where they are discussed. In terms of validating how the various dating methods actually works I suggest you read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
How do have fossils anyway by sudden death and burial.Only a catastphe brings.
And there are plenty of localized catastrophes to bury fossils, from landslides to volcanic eruptions.
Curiously, however, there are other means that can result in fossils: being frozen, being mummified, being deposited in an anaerobic environment ... any means that result in a dead body not being subject to decay can result in a fossil.
The slow accumulation of foraminifera skeletons at the bottom of the sea is another method ...
article 8
... there is a continuous record of foram fossils from over 66 million years of accumulation on the sea floor.
Evolutionist stick to thier gunns that no flood within the last 4000 years but the evidence is the opposite. Whale fossils found deep inland only something that can happen if the land was once submerged. ...
Indeed we find that various parts of what is now dry land were under water at various times. We do NOT find evidence of these occurring at the same time, and the fossil evidence clearly shows completely different ecologies and other information that point to separate small incidents of sea floor being lifted out of the water being more consistent with the dates, and with geological and biological information.
... Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.
Or that the land that is now mountain top was one time at the bottom of an ocean, but has since been lifted by plate tectonics.
Curiously we can measure the rate of rise in mountain ranges, and we find, for instance, that the current rate of rise of Mount Everest is entirely sufficient to raise sea floor to the elevations of Mount Everest in the time since the fossils found on Mount Everest were deposited. We can do the same in other places and we find a consistent pattern of uplift being within the amount that results from the measured rates of uplift.
Ocean life on top of mountain?
Now, if you want to look at this objectively, then you must know that the fossils found are all of mature marine ecosystyems, with organisms that show development consistent with growing for many years, decades in the case of fossils like brachiopods that have growth rings on their shell ... one of the kinds of fossils found on Mount Everest ... so if they grew there during a flood, then the flood must have lasted decades for each layer ... and there are hundreds of layers.
A similar pattern is found in all other places of marine fossils on mountains, but the types of organisms in the deposits vary from location to location, depending more on the age of the mountains than any other factor. Centuries of marine growth are recorded in layer after layer of marine fossils.
The duration of the purported flood was not long enough for any of this kind of growth to occur, so rather than this being evidence for a noachin flood, it is evidence that invalidates such an event as supposedly recorded.
According to this, and all the other similar bits of evidence from mountains all over the earth, either the global flood lasted centuries or it did not occur.
Anyone telling you that marine fossils are evidence of a global flood are deluding you, either intentionally or through their own ignorance of what the evidence actually shows.
For more on this see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Enjoy.
ps ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : grmr

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 3:03 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 160 of 220 (662332)
05-14-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:05 AM


David Coppedge: another creationist fraud.
Hi ScottyDouglas
Though evolution is not science! There is not any true observable scientific evidence. To claim that evolution is science you must have actual observed it happening and no one has seen evolution take place ...
Sadly, for you, this is a absolutely false statement: evolution has been observed and documented over and over and over again. You have evolved from your parents, for instance, because you have unique mutations that you did not inherit from them, and you are (so far) surviving with those mutations.
Evolution is observed in every generation of every species on this planet, as well as those that came before. Failure to understand this means you fail to understand evolution.
Denial of this evidence does not make it go away, it just tends to make you delusional:
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
... If evolution was real then practically every species today would still have sub species still left and also sub species going into our next evolve would be taking place. ...
The other common creationist pratt (points refuted a thousand times) is "if we descended from apes then why are there still apes?" ... and of course the fact that there are many species of apes, monkeys and primates that are still living.
To begin with, you mean transitional individuals rather than species -- individuals such as yourself, being a transitional individual between your parents and your offspring -- and these also cover the earth. Every living individual organism is a transitional individual.
The fact that you, individually, are living does not mean that your great-great-grandparents must also be alive for evolution to be true ... just that you have inherited traits from them.
... Saying it would never stop the process is in fact not evolution becasue it is a continual state of motion. It would be taking place always and sub species would be and always been.
You are correct: evolution occurs in every species in every generation, every living organism is a transitional individual between their ancestors and their progeny.
However, just like your great-great-grandparents have (presumably) passed away, older variations are left behind when the individuals from that generation die.
In fact you are being unscientific to claim facts to things unwitnessed.
The objective empirical evidence has been witnessed -- evidence that you too can observe and test against the various proposed explanations of the evidence to see which explanation best fits ALL the facts.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
Oh look: a quote mine.
Problem, for you, is that text books are not peer reviewed, but assembled by editors that are by and large ignorant about science in general and biological evolution in particular.
This of course does not mean that horses did not evolve, just that it was a little more complex than it was thought to be 50 years ago, AND that the changes are due to finding more fossils and information about horse evolution. For a more modern picture of horse evolution see:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
quote:

The picture on the linked site is interactive, so you can look at descriptions of each of the species involved in equidae evolution.
This is, of course, a nested hierarchy rather than a lineal descent.
You can not deny that, esp. if you claim no flood, that million upon millions of all different varities of species bones and sub species and then so on and so on. Our grounds all over the planet should be filled of fossils but it is not. No one has found one fossil that is deemed signifiant enough to account for billions upon billions of years of life and in the complexitity we have today. The links for all forms today is not in the fossil record because it simply never occured that way. This also proves that billions of years of life has not been on earth for that long.
The continuous counting of annual age layers in a variety of different systems shows (a) that no such record was interrupted by a flood, and (b) that the earth is a minimum age of 740,000 years ( Vostok Ice Core layer counts).
Once again, you need to read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 -- failure to do so leaves you looking more and more like a desperately deluded individual that refuses to look at the information available concerning reality.
If you think that an old world is just not possible then the onus is on you to show how all the correlations between age measuring systems in that thread occur and result in the same ages.
"Darwin is liked by evolutionist because he liberated science from the straightjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job sercurity so they can wander through biology labs as if they belonged there." -David Coppedge
Thank you for providing yet another example of another creationist fraud, right on topic.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:05 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 220 (662334)
05-14-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 3:03 AM


Re: Giants
Hi again ScottyDouglas,
We have millions of animals today to have so would been million upon millions of species before us. ...
Given that the species alive today are less than 1% of the total number of species that have lived on earth this would seem to be in the right ball-park.
... Not only does multi-species(hybrids) between species would and should still be taking place in every species all over the world. But also we would have a fossil record littered of these animals of every species, but we do not. ...
Amusingly, we do not, but it is because evolution does not work that way. Your straw man is false.
... We have a few so called evolved examples and even they do not show exstinsive example of evolving. ...
And biological evolution scientists do not expect "exstinsive" evolution between generations.
To walk from Maine to California it is not necessary to make giant steps, just to put one foot in front of the other and keep making normal steps. The kind of steps we see occurring in species alive today.
Even if evolutionist had a few examples of animals evolving ...
Which we have in abundance.
... that is only partcial evidence because billions should be found.
Again, every species in every generation shows the process of evolution occurring: every individual organism is a transitional individual between their ancestors and their progeny.
You have practically no fossil record.
First, not all organisms form fossils. Estimates of the proportion of fossils to living populations are very very low.
Second, there are more fossils covering the earth than could be provided in just 5,000 years. The amount of known fossil evidence alone makes a young earth concept invalid.
You can not witness it happening.
And yet, curiously, I have. Evolution occurs in every known species in each generation.
And our simple form from the beginning to create our form today can not be found or repeated. End of story you have no emperical evidence except from biology which only proves animals have simliar traits and dna.
We have seen objective empirical evidence that single cell life forms can form multicellular life forms. We have seen objective empirical evidence of divergent speciation, where new species have evolved.
Your storified palentologist find bones then create a story of thier history and nothing more.
quote:
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
Willful ignorance and fast held delusions do not change reality or the objective empirical evidence of reality that we use to test scientific concepts.
Now, this is really off-topic, and if you want to continue this debate please start another thread: I will be happy to debate further on this. however this thread is supposed to just list 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 3:03 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 163 of 220 (662341)
05-14-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Coyote
05-14-2012 9:33 PM


unintended consequences ...
Hi Coyote,
I think we have been seeing ample evidence of both in his posts.
...
I think his posts are entirely appropriate here; as examples!
Ironic isn't it, that so far all creationists have provided us is evidence of more creationist frauds and hoaxes, rather than examples of scientific frauds and hoaxes, especially when this is designed to be their opportunity to do so.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 9:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 220 (672532)
09-09-2012 8:19 AM


for Jzyehoshua to explain further
from Message 2 of thread Climategate Email Quotes on Dendrochronology, Ice Cores, and Coral Dating in the Proposed New Topics forum
quote:
From the Climategate emails, it appears evident the multiproxy dating approach actually involves methods which all have serious methodology issues. Dendrochronology, coral, and ice core dating are all admitted by those at the heart of the Climategate scandal to be weak, unreliable methods. They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. It is very obvious from reading the emails how shoddy the research behind such methods, as performed by the same clique responsible for Climategate, really has been.
I realize certain people on this forum believe very strongly in these methods, so I thought I'd see what thoughts are about the obvious flaws as witnessed from the Climategate emails.
... They were deliberately reconstructed through bias to try and achieve results supportive of liberal evolution and global warming agendas as clearly seen in the emails. ...
This would qualify for discussion on this thread, so please use this thread for further discussion of this issue.
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)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 194 of 220 (686473)
01-01-2013 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Genologist
09-17-2012 9:57 AM


Re: motivation for hoaxes and the exclusion of a Creator
Hi Geneologist, and welcome to the fray (if you are still around)
This thread is about documenting hoaxes and frauds from both creationist sources and scientific sources. So far creationists are losing ...
I believe that true science is compatible with Christianity when we point out definite evidence, (unfortunately even definite can be subjective) but we must then proceed not to "so readily" let our ideas generated from compiling such evidence become "theory and even fact". I find it sad that people consider theories such as evolution FACT, fait accompli, as if there were some ageless being with a clipboard documenting the whole thing.
Science deals with natural processes -- processes put into effect with the creation of the universe.
There is valid science and there is invalid science, and no conclusions of science are accepted as more than tentatively true, as opposed to absolutely true. Theories cannot be proven, but they can be disproven.
There are also many different kinds of Christianity ... including some that hold delusional beliefs (beliefs contrary to objective empirical evidence).
For instance the YEC concept that the earth is young is an invalid (proven to be false) belief, falsified by the mountains of evidence for an old earth (and you can review the tip of this mountain at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 should you believe the earth is young).
When it comes to evolution, we can see that various processes do in fact occur -- such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, speciation -- and thus that it is true, it is fact, that these things do occur.
If you want to discuss this further we can move the discussion to Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity.
If you have any evidence that evolution is a hoax, then please feel free to present such evidence here, including how the hoax was uncovered, by whom, and who were the perpetrators. Good luck with that.
Regarding\believing\hoping something is a hoax does not make it so -- you need evidence, objective empirical evidence, to actually demonstrate that it is a hoax.
For instance see Message 193 for an example of evidence of a hoax being perpetrated by the Discovery Institute ... click on the link to "this nice-looking laboratory" ... and then explain why the Discovery Institute should post such a hoax.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Genologist, posted 09-17-2012 9:57 AM Genologist has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 195 of 220 (713676)
12-15-2013 11:41 AM


Redwall interbedding ... with snow?
From Percy Why the Flood Never Happened, Message 188
quote:
I used an image from a Biblical site thinking Faith might find it more credible as an example of interbedding, but it looks like I walked right into the middle of some creationist hanky panky. Take a look at this discussion from EvolutionFairyTale where this image was posted and critiqued in Message 21:
The author of Message 21 noticed the white scattered about the canyon and thought it might be snow and that therefore the claims about interbedding between the Redwall and Mauv didn't really hold up.
It's a little hard to tell, but if you look carefully you'll see that the image I posted is a cropped area of this same image. I didn't pay any attention to the labeling in that image, but obviously it is wrong. There could be no interbedding between the Mauv and any layer above because the top of the Mauv is an erosion layer that was once overlain by other ancient now-gone layers. The Wikipedia article on the geology of the Grand Canyon area says, "deep channels were carved on the top of the Muav Limestone," by either streams or marine scour. The top of the Mauv was obviously eroded down and could never have interbedded with any above layer.
There could also be no interbedding between the top of the Temple Butte and the bottom of the Redwall because the top of the Temple Butte is also an erosion interface.
But hey, add a dusting of snow that selectively remains on some layers and not others and you can claim that the white layers are the Mauv interbedded with the Redwall.
The level of deceit is criminal.
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)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 199 of 220 (735390)
08-13-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds -- or not?
Hi dcurtis00745 and welcome to the fray
It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.
By that metric all science could be considered fraudulent ... which might be convenient for all those beliefs contradicted by science (such as the age of the earth), yes?
Curiously, though, and as has been noted, fraud involves the intent to deceive, and given the willingness of science to discard or revise concepts whenever new evidence is found\presented, it would seem hard to argue intent to deceive as opposed to intent to find the best explanation, yes?
But when we look at creationist literature and their arguments, many of which have been falsified (again, the age of the earth, for example), but which are still repeated ... it would seem intentional on their part to disseminate false or misleading information in order to deceive people. The Creation "Museum" comes to mind ...
Perhaps you could give us an example of what you find most ... misleading about how evolution is taught and used by scientists?
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 203 of 220 (735405)
08-13-2014 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Tangle
08-13-2014 3:17 PM


No, it means we're board ... (ducks again)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2014 3:17 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by mram10, posted 08-23-2014 6:08 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024