EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

quote:

---

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manuntil it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

---

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

quote:

---

Human Ancestral Frauds
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

​

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

​

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

---

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

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.

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?

Archangel,you are a good reasoner and for that reason I really hope you stick around in this forum.But I disagree entirely with what you say here. I don't know why you think evolution is a fraud and evolutionists are not interested in the truth - that's what they are generally interested in most of all.Scientific theories really are tentative, ie held as being the best answer we have but subject to change in future. This is certainly true of quantum mechanics, which underlies all the clever technology in an Apple.That doesn't mean there aren't scientific facts as well - ie the well-confirmed outcomes of repeated observations. But the fundamental theories are undoubtedly held provisionally.

AA, that's an interesting approach and not one I've heard before.But I think it's wrong - the reason being that recent evidence genuinely does support evolution. I think the admiration that people feel for Darwin is that he got so much right. However, if the evidence proved him wrong, that would be that.Your viewpoint is, like Archangel's, based on a fundamental assumption that there is something fishy about scientists supporting evolution. But there isn't. No one has ever managed to present evidence of this - ie that there is a widespread conspiracy to prop up a false doctrine that scientists themselves know to be false.Can you prove it? Can you even present any evidence of it? Why do you believe it?Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Archangel, why are you not addressing your original topic? The contribution of fraud to the acceptance of evolution is the topic of this thread. So far you haven't demonstrated any evidence that fraud has contributed to the acceptance of evolution. It's time to put up or shut up.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yip, this is why debates on here never really seem to get off the ground. They don't even want to admit that they have a worldview which they think is supported by the evidence. This is because when we compare the two worldviews (evolution v YEC) and see which worldview is supported by evidence, the YEC worldview wins.
Ah well, I'm just hoping that one day i will come across someone who wants to discuss, which worldview is supported by the evidence

---

Come again Arphy? (That's a Britishism meaning you can't be serious)Everyone on the evolution side here is interested in evidence above all else. People will give you evidence for hours if you let them. I could do so myself.There is no credible evidence for a young earth. The only people who believe in a young earth believe it for religious reasons and then look for evidence to support it. And the evidence, unfortunately for you, just isn't there.

quote:

---

And here's the link to the evidence in my OP's post in case anyone wants to respond to any of the examples of fraud it documents and actually get back on topic. Take your pick from the many examples of fraud it outlines. Evolution Fraud and Myths

---

Ok I picked one. I picked the Archaeoraptor. And what do I find in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE? I find this :-

quote:

---

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999

---

.So National Geographic is now a journal is it, rather than a popular magazine? This deception by the author. It's utterly typical. I long to see integrity and honest evidence, but yet again there is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. Archangel, just present facts, shorn of manipulation and sleaze.

quote:

---

With that said, here's a reality check which goes against everything you believe, but is true anyway. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL.

---

Well this nails your colours to the mast at least. Unfortunately for you it completely disqualifies you from science. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS. AS WERE ALL OF THE OTHER FRAUDS I HAVE DISCUSSED HERE WERE PEER REVIEWED AND RUBBER STAMPED FROM WITHIN THE EVOLUTION COMMUNITY.

---

Well why not just say it's a respected science magazine and not PRETEND it's a journal?Can you give me links to the original journal articles?

No I mean the peer reviewed articles that Archangel was referring to.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.