Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

That pic alone shows what a hoax everything creationistic is. There is no way or reason in sugar-coating: creationism breeds on ignorance andlies and can only be upheld by keeping the followers ignorant.I have always thought of myself as a benign person but towards the creationists I feel nothing but loathing.

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. Edited by dcurtis00745, : No reason given.Edited by dcurtis00745, : Misspelling

A fraud is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent for personal gain. It has happened in science, but it's rare and the fraud is always outed by other scientists. It usually ends their career and sometimes - as tragically, happened just lately - their lives. 'Evolutionary statements' are not fraudulent, they're normally hypotheses presented with evidence which develop our understanding of the natural world. If they are later shown to be wrong or, more likely, incomplete, they are adapted to suit the new evidence. That's the scientific process.But if you give us an example we can discuss it less theoretically.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Hi dcurtis00745 and welcome to the fray 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 has already been noted, fraud involves the intent to deceive. And while fraud has been known to exist in both science and "creation science", the two endeavors' goals and methods react differently with very different outcomes.The goal of science is to discover and learn and figure out all we can about the universe. Since that is too much for any one scientist to do, scientists doing their own research rely on the research done by other scientists. Because your research depends on everybody else's, you want to assured that their research was done properly. As a result, other scientists' research is tested and verified; indeed, science students' laboratory assignments frequently consist of reproducing experiments. When news of "cold fusion" was first announced, physists around the world were waiting late into the night for compatriots to FAX the paper to them the instant it was released so that they could verify its results. And it failed, so cold fusion is no more except in Hollywood movies (eg, "The Saint").In such an environment and with such prevailing attitudes and practices, scientific fraud cannot survive for long as it is actively being sought out.In "creation science", the goal is to convince. They want to convince the courts that they are actually science so that they can be admitted into the public schools. They want to convince themselves and fellow creationists that their ideas are true and that science is wrong; their attacks on science will even target topics that have absolutely nothing to do with creationist claims, such as ozone layer depletion. And they want to be able to convince non-creationists and non-Christians to convert.In that environment, the only valuable property of a claim is that it sounds convincing. It doesn't even matter whether it is true, just that it sounds convincing. It doesn't matter that it has been soundly refuted a thousand times; if it sounds very convincing then it will continue to be used -- eg the "leap second" claim. Only if a convincing-sounding claim gains too much bad publicity for being false (eg, ICR's moondust claim) will creationists withdraw it -- well some of them will --, but then after enough time has passed they brush the dust off of it and start using it yet again (or, as in the case of the ICR's moondust claim, continue to present it in books that are not updated and in footnotes).In that environment, fraud not only survives, but it actually thrives as it is rewarded by the system.Two very different systems with very different goals and very different results. I discuss it more fully on a page that's still under construction: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists

Insofar as this means anything, it is obviously false.I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the English language before you post again, so as to avoid posting more things that aren't true. hoax (hks)
n.

It seems we are preaching exclusively to the choir, the entire ecclesiastical support service and the bishopric of EVC.Does that mean we win? In all forii?

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

As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.
Nebraska man and piltdown man weren't a hoax??? How long were they taught in schools to be "science"?? How long were they still being taught after they were proven to be false?This is where you blame the publishing companies. Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts? How many were demanding that these hoaxes/lies/frauds were no longer taught??

Why don't you tell us, with dates. Then tell us who discovered the fraud and exposed it. Then explain why you consider this to be a valid argument for anything other than the scientific method.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : Connectivity issues

That is a peculiar thing to post in reply to RAZD's post, which read, in full: Could you begin by pointing out which bit of his post you consider to be bashing creationism?

If you knew anything about Nebraska Man, you would realize how far off you are. Try this link:Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManAs for Piltdown, that was a hoax perpetrated on British anthropologists by someone intimately familiar with them and their theories. Piltdown was widely ignored by almost all but a small bunch of British researchers--the hoax had been designed to catch them. Some researchers working in other areas recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (they were correct). In fact, Piltdown was largely ignored from the mid-1920s, when the South African finds started coming because it simply did not fit.Now, compare this with the nonsense that creationists peddle year after year, after having it debunked time and time again. Look at this link:An Index to Creationist ClaimsThis is an index to creationist claims which have been debunked. It is so extensive that the claims have been coded by type.Given this track record, creationists are in no position to criticize science.

Nebraska man:
Was Nebraska Man a fraud? - Now closed because it went WAY off topic.
Related topic?:
Evolutionist FraudsPiltdown man:
Java Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man???
History of the Piltdown Man Hoax - Link to massive information on the Piltdown man.Adminnemooseus

If you read Message 1 you will see that both of these were listed: Almost immediately.How many creationists call for revision of creationist literature that is shown to be false and full of misinformation and lies?None, as far as I can tell. Can you tell me why that is? Why do so many creationists seem to be so totally uninterested in the "truth" that the ignore evidence and republish known falsehoods?And so I would go further and say that every Creationist website that portrays these items as examples of science hoaxes are themselves perpetuating a hoax, because that is known to be false information: science did not create these hoaxes, and it exposed the false information.And I would list any creationist site that continues to post any one of the PRATT's posted on
Talk Origins PRATT list - An Index to Creationist Claims is perpetuating a hoax by reprinting false information, information that a little bit of research on google would show to be ludicrous falsehoods designed to fool the gullible into believing untruths ... And how many creationists clamored then or now for the "truth" to be taught in science texts? Or do you even know what the "truth" is? ... I'll give you a starting hint: the earth is old, very very very old ... Care to make a list of any others? That is the purpose of this thread -- you list the scientific frauds and hoaxes and we list the creationist ones ... so far there have been way more creationist frauds and hoaxes listed ... probably because there are way more creationist frauds and hoaxes ... if not, then you need to set the record straight. Good luck with that. Curiously I am happy to list any scientific hoaxes and frauds -- all you have to do is provide the information here. It is a simple task ... but don't whine to me that the evidence to date shows that creationist frauds and hoaxes out number scientific ones by over 100 to 1 ... you should go clean your own house first of mud and muck before complaining about a little dust ....EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Also curious to know. Could you enlighten us on the school books, with exact references (including the dates), where Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man "were taught in schools as "science""? It would be interesting to know.I ask this, because in the country I live in, the theory of evolution was not even allowed to be taught till 1994. For religious reasons. The text books only mentioned fossils very vaguely in a sentence or two under the heading: What do Palaeontologists do?. That was in career education/ social sciences classes.Please provide those references. I think that you are not telling the truth here. You tell us. Exact references, please. Without that I think that you were not telling the truth.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.