Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 11:47 PM
104 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss (4 members, 100 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,536 Year: 3,573/19,786 Month: 568/1,087 Week: 158/212 Day: 25/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Archangel
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 1 of 323 (524619)
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


What is overwhelming evidence of major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved is exposed in this link which outlines many of them. But here's where the true damage has been accomplished, and that is that by the time the frauds were discovered, and the retractions were quietly placed on back pages of scientific journals, compared to the fraudulent discoveries press releases which were widely disseminated, the damage was done since millions upon millions of people saw and heard about the fraudulent evidence on the evening news everywhere; where as around 12 layman saw the retractions on the back page of the scientific journal that common layman never read. Challenge me on this point and I will give details if you like of one "fraud" which established evolution as a valid science in the national psyche.

Here's an initial excerpt of the human ancestral frauds as just an example of what this link documents.

Human Ancestral Frauds

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 man—until 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!

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.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

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)


http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2009 10:12 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 09-17-2009 10:39 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 7 by jacortina, posted 09-17-2009 10:49 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2009 11:33 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 25 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-18-2009 1:31 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 28 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 5:33 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 30 by Peepul, posted 09-18-2009 6:56 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 11:52 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 12:10 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 378 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 323 (524624)
09-17-2009 9:55 PM


I know that Ned has been talking to you about this topic proposal but you may want to head here Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes and see if this thread fits the bill.
    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 323 (524626)
09-17-2009 9:57 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2266 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 4 of 323 (524629)
09-17-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


from your link writes:

Human Ancestor Fraud - Creationist Links

* A Human Ancestor Fraud
* Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists from the Muslim online book Evolution Deceit
* Features of Piltdown Skull "Deliberate Fakes"
* Human Evolution - Frauds and Mistakes
* Lucy's Fraudulent Fame
* Orce man hominid fraud
* Piltdown man fraud
* The Ape-men fallacy by Malcolm Bowden (Review of book - Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy?)
* The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution The following is a transcript of The Apemen Frauds portion of the audio tape.
* The Piltdown Man Fraud by Monty White
* The Story of the Piltdown Man by the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia
* The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal - A UC Berkely professor reports on the intentional alteration of hybridization data which was used to support the theory that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees.

What do you expect from creo sites. More gibberish.

For example Piltdown man was a fraud, yes, but it was science that discovered the fraud not your creo buddies. Nebraska man was an honest mistake, again, corrected by science. The point is fraud exists in all fields including your creos. Several mistakes and fraudulent points does not make evolution any less robust.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 323 (524630)
09-17-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Typical creationist nonsense
Your list of "frauds" is itself a fraud.

You presume to demonstrate massive fraud in evolution, and all you can find is the standard few examples always used by creationists.

Lets take a closer look:

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 man—until 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!

Piltdown was a hoax. It was designed to fool the British paleontologists! It wasn't something they perpetrated to fool the public or anyone else.

And it didn't fit! Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit with the rest of the evidence. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. Piltdown was increasingly ignored until it was finally disproved in the early 1950s.

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.

A pig tooth fools one guy and an illustrator, and is quickly figured out, and that's a major fraud? Surely you creationists can do better than that if there are thousands of frauds, eh?

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Don't even bother citing creationist nonsense. They have made fools of themselves for years over Java Man.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

As science has figured out the details of these finds, creationists have continued to stick to their early disbelief. They continue to let belief overrule evidence (creation science as usual).

"Knowledgable creationists" may not claim that Java Man is an ape any more, but there still seem to be quite a few non-knowledgable creationists out there, such as Duane Gish (1995). Old lies die hard, however. An article published in 1991 in Creation, the popular magazine of Weiland's organization Answers in Genesis, suggested that the Java Man skullcap was probably that of an ape. That article is still on the AIG website as of 2005...

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)

More creationist nonsense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

From this source:

Two French scientists had suggested the fragment "may have come" from a donkey. Another scientist quoted in the news report admitted there was some doubt as to the bone's identity, but thought it was still quite likely human. A third scientist quoted in another news report from Associated Press claimed it was definitely humanoid. Instead of it being a "fact" that the fragment is "most likely" a donkey, a fairer assessment would be that it was still unidentified, but possibly an equid (not necessarily a donkey).

By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.

It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.

So it looks like it is creationists that have egg on face rather than paleontologists. Some specimens are genuinely difficult to figure out. (Often those are transitionals, with characteristics of earlier and later populations.) But creationists take any tiny thing they think supports their beliefs--whether it does or not--and run with it. And, once formed, they are very reluctant to ever change those beliefs.

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)

Still more creationist nonsense, coupled with major errors.

The first Neanderthal remains were found in the Neander Valley of Germany in 1856. (Duh!). At that time there were virtually no hominid fossils known, and folks didn't know quite what to make of them.

So that is a fraud?

Is that the best that creationists can do? There are thousands of evolutionist frauds and that's all you can come up with? What a joke.

I guess that's creation "science" for you, eh?

Edited by Coyote, : Additional details on bare links


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2009 10:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 6 of 323 (524633)
09-17-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Orce Man
Hi Archangel,

major frauds which have contributed to the acceptance of this false science and even gave it legitimacy where none was deserved

Wow. Sounds heavy. Are you really sure that the following is an example of that though?

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.

For starters, the comment "Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago" implies a scientific consensus which never existed. That was the overblown claim of the discoverers. It has always been disputed. This fossil has never enjoyed any sort of consensus on its origin and still doesn't. Can you show conclusively that it came from a donkey? No. Neither can any one else conclusively prove it to be human.

Also, I'm not sure where the fraud is supposed to come in. Fraud, afetr all, is deliberate deception, a con trick. I don't see that here. All I see is a rather over-excited discoverer, who presumably believes that he has found a human fossil (the area is known for human artefacts after all). Others believe he is mistaken and that the fossil is equine. So where's the fraud? Who has deliberately decieved anyone and what is your evidence of this?

What really surprises me though is the idea that this fossil is some sort of poster-fossil for evolution. It's not. Hardly anyone has heard of this fossil. Beyond the creationist community (and those of us who debate you),palaeontologists and Orce locals and I doubt one person in a hundred thousand has heard of this. There are only 130 000 results on Google for Orce Man; that's pitifully few. Most of the results are creo/evo sites.

Do you seriously believe that anyone has chosen to believe in evolution because of this fossil? Can you point to a single person anywhere citing Orce Man as primary evidence for evolution? I doubt it very much.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 7 of 323 (524636)
09-17-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


You DO realize that your own post contradicts your claim.

First you say that the retractions bet buried where nobody sees them.

Then you include references to a newspaper and Time magazine pointing out supposed problems.

The page you reference shows similar mass market and high profile sources pointing them out.

So, why did you mischaracterize this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 323 (524638)
09-17-2009 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
09-17-2009 10:24 PM


talkorigins bare links!
Forum rule 5:

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Or at least quote a bit of pertinent information. How about some "added by edits" in your message?

NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. NONE AT ALL. PERIOD.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 9 of 323 (524643)
09-17-2009 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM


Could you explain how, for example, Nebraska Man has contributed to the public acceptance of evolution?

Have you ever, ever, ever, in your entire life, heard anyone putting forward Nebraska Man as evidence for evolution? Of course you haven't. The only time we hear about Nebraska Man is when creationists dishonestly claim it as an example of evolutionary fraud like the contemptible liars that they are.

The only fraud going in in that case is that creationists are lying, and their intent in doing so is to contribute to public rejection of evolution.

Similarly with "Orce man". No fraud was ever perpetrated except by creationists lying about it in order to contribute to public rejection of evolution.

We have no way of knowing who was behind the "Piltdown Man" fraud, but certainly the only fraud going on today is, once again, creationists whining on about it in order contribute to public rejection of evolution.

Java Man and Neanderthals are of course perfectly genuine, and by screaming and raving about imaginary "fraud" the creationist liars show up the profound weakness of their case. Is it really impossible to argue for creationism and tell the truth? Apparently so.

Finally, let me add that if making a mistake about hominid fossils was the same as committing fraud, you'd be in jail right now. At least scientists try to be right. You, on the other hand, spewed out this dishonest crap without taking five seconds to think about, or research, the question of whether you were telling the truth.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 10 of 323 (524645)
09-17-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
09-17-2009 10:24 PM


EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
Coyote writes:

You presume to demonstrate massive fraud in evolution, and all you can find is the standard few examples always used by creationists.

Lets take a closer look:

LINK: writes:

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 man—until 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!


Piltdown was a hoax. It was designed to fool the British paleontologists! It wasn't something they perpetrated to fool the public or anyone else.

And it didn't fit! Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit with the rest of the evidence. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. Piltdown was increasingly ignored until it was finally disproved in the early 1950s.

Note the title of this thread Coyote. More damaging than any given single example of the numerous frauds that link documents is the perceived legitimacy which these frauds and hoaxes contributed to the lie of evolution and it gained before they were discovered as frauds and hoaxes. I submit to you that by the time frauds are exposed, the damage from the positive press has already been done which the very quiet retractions never reverse or truly correct. And in the case of Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man which were both used as evidence in the Scopes Trial, the evidence lasted in the public domain for decades before being exposed for what it was. Specifically, through the world wide press which the Scopes Trial received and validated evolution by actually using this evidence as justification that evolution was in fact a valid and undeniably relevant science. So the lie extended well beyond the trial itself as it gained legitimacy since the evidence was considered sound enough to be used in what was referred to as the trial of the century, at that time.

Remember, the public didn't have the internet or access to the minuted of the trial or the actual testimony. What they received were daily recaps from the media which explained the evidence in layman terms so simple and uneducated americans could understand what was being offered as evidence.

Here is the background of this conspiracy to first challenge the anti-evolution laws of the period, but also to use the opportunity to inject evolution as a valid science into the american psyche. It proves an agenda and YES, a conspiracy to validate an alleged science which especially at that time, hadn't been proven in any way, shape or form in anyones mind or scientific lab.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch30.htm

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2009 10:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:42 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2009 12:21 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 11 of 323 (524646)
09-17-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Archangel
09-17-2009 11:39 PM


Topic
Here is the background of this conspiracy to first challenge the anti-evolution laws of the period,

The scopes trial belongs in a separate topic. You may open that and we'll get it going. You will have to summarize the issues yourself though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:39 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:47 PM AdminNosy has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2716 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 12 of 323 (524648)
09-17-2009 11:45 PM


Should've taken a recent example of what I found was very deceptive, which was the recently rediscovered ''Ida'', which pretty much was a media hype to boost the publicity of an upcoming documentary.

Not saying it is a fraud, but I found it deceptive. Especially since the many experts who denounced it as a missing link weren't given nearly as much attention as those who claimed it was.


  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 13 of 323 (524649)
09-17-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
09-17-2009 11:42 PM


Re: Topic
AdminNosy writes:

The scopes trial belongs in a separate topic. You may open that and we'll get it going. You will have to summarize the issues yourself though.

I'm not submitting the Scopes Trial as an issue for debate, but as evidence of one way a public event was used to promote false and fraudulent evidence for evolution.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:42 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:50 PM Archangel has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 14 of 323 (524650)
09-17-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Archangel
09-17-2009 11:47 PM


Debating
If you don't want to debate it you can edit your post and remove it. It does not stand if you can't support it.

We often hide off topic posts (but don't delete them). We can do that so as not to clutter up this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 11:47 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 12:01 AM AdminNosy has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 847 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 15 of 323 (524656)
09-18-2009 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by AdminNosy
09-17-2009 11:50 PM


Re: Debating
If you don't want to debate it you can edit your post and remove it. It does not stand if you can't support it.
We often hide off topic posts (but don't delete them). We can do that so as not to clutter up this thread.

I have no problem defending it, but are you saying it has to be in another separate thread? Because that is just taking the teeth out of the argument I'm building on this thread of how frauds work to inject themselves in social issues in ways that falsely validate evolution. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you, and we don't have an issue here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2009 11:50 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminNosy, posted 09-18-2009 1:09 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019