Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

All scientific theories are like that. All scientific theories are like that. All scientific theories are like that. Not even the Earth being spherical is viewed by all as a fact.
*shrug*
There's not much that can be done about deluded idiots. Correct.
Science does not deal with truth.
It deals with the best explanations for know facts.
Have you only just learned this?

And you would be wrong. The term "hoax" has a specific dictionary definition: A humorous or malicious deception.In the case of the theory of evolution there is evidence to support all of the aspects of the theory, so at worst case one or more of those aspects could be an error which could be corrected or overturned by subsequent findings. I think "assumed accurate" would be a better term than "assumed true." "Truth" is a term not often used in science.A theory is simply the current best explanation for a series of facts. A theory also is required to account for all relevant facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. Finally, a good theory makes predictions which can be tested.A theory which changes to accommodate new evidence is still "the current best explanation for a series of facts." We know that. See above. I think you would do better if you understood the role of theory in science, and stopped using "true" where it is inappropriate. I'll include some definitions which may help at the bottom of this post. See the definitions below:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

​

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

​

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

​

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

Here is an article that explores this subject in more depth: Evolution & Creationism: Terminology in Conflict

No isf something is static and does not change if new evidence arises that contradict it than that is NOT TRUE.
But on the other hand the basic theory of evolution hasnt changed in over 150 years reproduction with variation and natural selection that is evolution. Now the first evidence that darwin observed was enough for him to formulate this theory all he had was the animals alive then and a hand full of fossils (not sure about the fossils), But he managed to put together an idea from what he observed in nature, he saw minor variations in offspring they where a bit different then their parents, he saw species related to each other but different, so he used his little brain and came to the conclusion that the variation of life could be explained by variation in reproduction and natural selection. Now just about everybody laughed at him because everybody knew life in its present form was made 6000 years ago by magic man it says so right in his book. But then fossils where discovered tones of them ragin in billions in number now and still more are found and if you look closely you can se changes in the fossil record you litteraly have a film showing how species changed, but that is not all soon after came radiometric dating methods and when one dated the fossils they stacked up neatly one could see the trail of change, but that is not all numerous other dating tehniques combined with the fossil record showed a neat little film of change of evolution. Ohh but we are not done yet, then came genetics and the genetic tree lined up perfectly with the theory of evolution yes more evidence supporting it. The geological contained a neatly stacked line of evolutionary change. And you have experiments like a virus that had a gen removed that was responsible for the coating of the virus enabling it to infiltrate a cell more easily, in only 7 generations the offspring of that virus had a compleatly NEW gen different then the one before BUT preforming the SAME function. and tones of experiments like this.Yea its clearly true evolution is just a made up pack of lies. Thing is you cant prove a theory its not how science works you can only DISPROVE a theory. You go if evolution is worng then the fossil record should not show any sighnns of change over time. Dang the fossil record does. Ok what else if evolution is wrong then genomes of different kinds should show no relation at all. Dang they do. If evolution is wrong then the offspring of a family house mice deposited on an island 150 years ago should have identical genes to the mice left behind in Europe. Holy shit their cromosomes fused different genes hmm what else.... Thing is Evolution is fact, things evolve period, every biologists excepts that, i dont care what your car salesmen and lawyers think.The THEORY of evolution explains how things evolve. dint the americans have a trial about creationism being taught in schools, something about it not being constitutional rings a bell. The rest of the world is luckely smart enough to see what creationism really is and no sane man would want it taught in a public classroom as a theory. Yea the same goes for the Round earth THEORY, yea still a theory and those dam flat earthers just wont eccept the truth we should teach both in the classroom just to be democratic and on the safe side. Flat earth taught side by side with the Round earth.The Flat Earth Society Edited by frako, : No reason given.

I provide history, and most certainly history provides proof of that. Just because it is not your belief and deemed not empirical by you means nothing. Just because you and all of acience who claim it is not real or proof means nothing as well thats your opinion and not unprovable. I rely on the truth of thousands of years who tell of the future and end instead some theory brought as truth in the last 150 years. That solely relies on belief of that theory and untestable time to say their theory is so and their expert opinion is inquestionable. Do I agree species adapting and stronger or more clear traits take over and this would be looked trademark within groups. This is valid and reasonable. Not to be able to see a man turn into another full species in a lifetime or two or twenty is clearly plausable. What is not plausable is the fact that it is no way around that transitional species should be abundant today and past. We should enormous amounts of transitional species not only in man but all species and 'you say 20 million artifacts of transition.' Ok thats a real real small number compared that we have atleast 6,000 to 10,000 years of life and you have 20 mill? You should have billions upon billions. It should be mass amounts of fossils beyond finding. Some things in this world are beyond finding and that is what all of you can not understand and refuse by your simple science of observation and not being the observed. You use these theories with science as your banner but your theory is nothing about science. It is fiction, a fairytale, a hoax, trivial, and less than a God. You ignore that real of Occum razor- the simplest thing- God is the simplest thing to believe. Evolution- science in general is like the grass and sky we all look up and see blue and look at grass and see green. It doesnt take study and theories to know that. What you do need is to interpret what you see between each other and evolution and by sciences help interprets bad. Anyone would know and see the clear evidence of what takes place but evolution has come and not proved nothing. We knew and know all animals and life forms are simliar nothing from evolution, this is the way Creationist see it as well.You take ourside here. We easily say a God come here and make this earth, plants, animals, and man. Man has a soul inner knowing and ability. We all know we do. But yall say that we evovled into massive amounts of pre-existing animals and so on. First I take a whole different approach to creationism. My God doesnt make formless and void things and therefore it was reason why it was Gen 1:2. This hints previous life with other passages. Second you can take the stance that two sets of man was created. You can take that eons of time happened between the 7 days because 1 in a 1000 and 1000 in 1. But in those days 1,000 was also equal to infinity. Nothing contridicts the Bible at all. Miss translations from Hebrew to other languages. Hebrew is a destinct language and believed by record that could be the first. Hebrew is a simple form of talk with deep meaning in its words.
You know as a absolute that evolution does not have 1/10 of the fossils it should to be thought as a absolute. Then lack of this much of a record that should be there is far cry from a absolute. After billions of years of this life the fossil record fit well within Biblical account. If you think I will or I will support anyone believing in things at best taking a well educated guess into our past and origin. Biology proves common ancestor- so does creationism- God. Evolutionist bing forth that theory and fits it within known facts and what doesnt isnt talked about. Then palentologist is allowed to go to the feild and use methods to date things that at best will test 100,000 years. Then they can dig up the fossil and make a story of know facts and evidences found ever. This is how things should be do if people seek things beyind God then evidence and your test do. But that doesnt make you a exspert in anything to do in the eons of time. Just today and now.

I see that you are unwilling to address the points I make. You probably aren't even reading them. Instead you just preach on, saying the same thing you started with.You apparently are here to preach, not to learn.Guess I'm wasting my time posting to you.

My hoax is because you claim that this is because of that. And then that is because of this here. This here is because that there. And that there is because of this there. This there is because then there. And then there was because of that. That and then there shows use what that, then, and there is.
The simpliest answer will do.Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.

Do you actually read what you write? Some basics. Science does not deal in "Truths", it deals in reality.Any theory that does not change to accept new evidence is called "wrong".And it seems, you have never learned what a theory is in the first place.Evolution is a FACT and the Theory of Evolution is the ONLY model that explains that FACT.Yes, it should be accepted by all and it is accepted by all honest scientists in the field of Biology.And Creationism is NOT taught in any schools except in the Avoidance Schools devoted to keeping kids from learning.The only hoax you present are the teachers that deny evolution and try to keep kids from learning about reality.

Yea and all of this and that there enabled you to write on this forum, probably saved you from dying in childbirth, and is responsible for all advances humanity has ever made.Oh and the creationist version this is because it says so in a bronze age book. And we know that is true because the book says that everything written in the book is true.

Hi Scotty,This thread is about scientific and creationist frauds and hoaxes. An example of a scientific fraud is Piltdown man. An example of a creationist fraud is the Paluxy River footprints.Unless you are writing about a specific scientific or creationist fraud, please do not post to this thread again.

Hi ScottyDouglas 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Thank you for providing yet another example of another creationist fraud, right on topic.Enjoy.

Hi again ScottyDouglas, 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. Amusingly, we do not, but it is because evolution does not work that way. Your straw man is false. 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. Which we have in abundance. 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. 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. And yet, curiously, I have. Evolution occurs in every known species in each generation. 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.

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.

I think we have been seeing ample evidence of both in his posts.There has been no evidence presented in those posts, although there have been many claims and blanket statements that have long-since been refuted by empirical evidence.I think what we are seeing in those posts is better described as preaching or witnessing than debating. Along with that we see a tendency to ignore posts which provide empirical evidence to the contrary.Clearly the intent is to deceive the readers, to convince them of something that is not supported by empirical evidence but rather is flatly refuted by that evidence.Perhaps "frauds and hoaxes" is not the best way to describe his posts, but given the Dictionary.com definition of "fraud," which includes "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. ...any deception, trickery, or humbug" and of "hoax," which is "something intended to deceive or defraud" -- it's close enough!I think his posts are entirely appropriate here; as examples!

Hi Coyote, 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.

Ota Benga - Ota Benga was a pygmy, who in 1904, was kidnapped from his wife and two children in the Congo. He was exhibited as an apeman at the St Louis World Fair and the Bronx Zoo. Because of being caged, fed and treated like an animal, Benga committed suicide. It was later discovered that Benga was actually a human being.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

It was known by all but the really uneducated that he was human.The real problem was the god fearing racist Christians that thought all blacks were the sons of Ham.But it wasn't a hoax, just a great example of the racism that unfortunately is still a reality in the US.