|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5763 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
You realise, as has been pointed out to you, that the construction of a hominid from the tooth was not done by a scientist, but by an illustrator upon seeing the tooth?
Upon discovering the tooth, Osborn had this to say. "I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..." "Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922) In your quotation, "affords" doesn't mean "is" - he means "could possibly be". Oh, and it was completely debunked as not belonging to a hominid in 1925 3 years later. This isn't 40 years at all. But you knew that, right? Why lie? edit: I'm failing to see how Nebraska man is an issue at all. This is a summary of what happened: 1917: A rancher finds a tooth on his property.1922: Scientists speculate it could be a hominid tooth. A popular science magazine picks it up and runs with it, their illustrator draws a fanciful picture based off the tooth. This is done with zero scientific input, and is published in zero scientific journals. 1925: Scientists conclude that it is a pig's tooth, and not a hominid's. I'm failing to see how this is a deliberate conspiracy to hide the failings of evolution. Scientists speculated on the origins of a tooth, then scientists (not creationists) concluded they were wrong 3 years later. That's all that went on there. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Personally I think it's amusing that a mistake made by an illustrator 80 years ago that was corrected 3 years later is something to harp on about, but flat out lies and obvious dishonesty from leading creationists on science is a dime a dozen, and could easily fill another thread. I know flea has stated he wants to avoid ID/Creationist lies, but it bears bringing up based on the subject and the stock he seems to place in frauds.
e: I'm trying my hardest not to come across as too insulting, but seeing as flea finds the subject of lying very important, maybe there should be some comparison of the amount of lies perpetuated by creationists vs the amount of lies perpetuated by scientists. It's only fair for both sides, right? Whichever has most is the most unreliable. Does that sound fair? Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
So, you are saying that scientist are always objective? They would never falsify data or misrepresent it? They are pure at heart and always want the truth, never financial gain, or self-promotion? WOW! I should become a scientist (however you get that title) so I can be 100% truth. Nobody has a monopoly on honesty, it is true. However, science is self correcting, as has been pointed out to you. It is futile to lie, falsify, and misrepresent data in science - you will be found out and you will lose your job and all credibility. You have falsified and misrepresented Nebraska man, so what is with this tangent?
It’s the media’s fault isn’t it? Scientist would never commission an artist to render an image based on miniscule findings. It’s all the bohemians of the world that take science and bend it to suit their needs. (Why would that be?) Now you're completely misrepresenting. A science illustrator drew a fanciful illustration of the species that owned the tooth. That's okay, because it was a popular science magazine. They're not expected to be 100% accurate. You would have a point if the illustration was published in a science journal or a textbook.
See, a creationist doesn’t need science. We agree on this.
Science needs science and in a pure form, science is a great tool. However, we introduce the human factor. Just like politics and religion, science is just as corrupt. I see how the scientific community will laugh at any idea that doesn’t fit their mold. It prevents other discoveries from happening. You really have no idea about the scientific method, do you? It prevents discoveries with no evidence or not following the scientific method from happening. It's self correcting. When a paper is published, it has to go through a stage called peer review - the scientists peers take it on themselves to be as brutal as possible to the paper and try their best to prove it wrong. This weeds out most weak or wrong science. Scientists get reputation and credibility from exposing frauds and proving science wrong. This is why you never see these "frauds" exposed by diligent Creationists - they are exposed by SCIENTISTS working to self correct the body of human knowledge.
Scientist love to hop over that boundary between fact and faith. They take small amounts of data to build a big picture and call it proven. Faith is the ability to believe without seeing, and there are a lot of “scientific” theories and ideas that leap over fact and into faith. Because most evolutionist rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, they would never even consider the possibility of a “creator” or “designer” so any evidence, regardless of how lucrative or miniscule would automatically be dismissed as “not science” but faith. It amazes me just how faithful science is. I'd like to see an example of a scientific theory that you think does this. I'd also like to hear what you think would be an example of evidence for a creator. Problem is that in science, all claims must be testable - this means that there must be something that you can do to prove it wrong. You can't prove God wrong. This means that God has no place in science. Believe in Him if you want, it's not going against science to do so, but it is definitely not scientific, and He has no place in science. In this big tangent you've gone off on, you still have failed to bring up 5 examples of fraud, and explained why you have twisted and manipulated Nebraska man so much.
They used mega-tools to try to recreate the origin of life and could not do it. They used controlled environment and complex machinery and still could not do it. And they expect me to just “believe” in good “faith” that it was some kind of freak accident? What is this mysterious force of evolution and what fuels it? It seems to have no consciousness, but, out of nothing, create everything including human thought and emotion. Interesting . . Maybe you should discuss this in a thread dealing with biological evolution - you don't seem to be very well read on the subject. What is the extent of your science education?
I don’t trust what the latest greatest scientific discovery is any more that a politician promising to lower the gas prices or a priest saying its wrong to drink. There are always more things to question, not just taking the word of a person full of flaws. Yes, I agree. Fortunately in science you're not just taking the word of a single person - you're listening to an entire community of people all dedicated to weeding out the false and weak science. If somebody falsifies, misrepresents, or outright lies about data, they will be found out and they will lose all credibility and research grants. Lying is serious business in science. In your little tangent, you keep on ranting and raving about how science and scientists can still be wrong and fraudulent - you still haven't provided any solid examples. All you have to harp on about is a single case of a science illustrator for a popular science magazine drawing a picture of a prehistoric hominid based on a tooth, that scientists decided was a pig's tooth 3 years later. This isn't exactly scandalous, and it isn't exactly a history of lies and fraud and deceit that you seem to be implying. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
How does this relate to "lies and fraud" in evolution?
If you want to question evolutionary theory, that is fine - go and do your research and submit it to science journals. You can't just go ahead straight to the classrooms. What if a history teacher handed out holocaust denial forms? Science teachers are there to teach science, not religion. He should have been disciplined. Why have you dropped nebraska man? Do you accept it is a non-issue?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Flea, seeing as you've quietly dropped Nebraska man, do you agree that it is a non issue?
Why are you not angry at the creationist websites that gave you information about Nebraska man for misrepresenting the scientific community's opinions on the incident, and its significance? Why aren't you upset at the creationist lie to you? Why lie? You appear to be biased by now, instead of admitting your error and getting angry at the creationist lies, you now go off on rants about how science doesn't have a monopoly on truth (it never claimed to do so). What's the dealio?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Don't be an idiot. Schools are state run institutions, and by forcing the Bible upon students, you are establishing religion - violating the first amendment.
Something tells me you'd be mad if you learned kids were being taught that there is no God but Thor the Viking God of thunder. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
We are not talking about creationist lies on this thread I don’t see how finding lies in one thing takes them away from another. Sort of like . .I killed a man, but the guy in the cell next to me killed 2 men, therefore I’m innocent. ??????? Way to completely miss the point. There was no fraud about Nebraska man. there was no lying about Nebraska man. The only lie or fraud here was the creationist website who misrepresented the incident. Why isn't that being questioned? Do you have any more "evolutionist frauds" to share with us?
Of course I’m questioning evolution and the holes therein. If you are an evolutionist or Darwinist, then you are biased against a creationist. You're completely ignoring a website that completely lied to you after going after evolutionists for "lying" (which it turns out they didn't.) This is true bias. You're not just questioning. You are clearly biased against the theory of evolution. If you aren't, prove it. you are the OP of this thread - share with us more evolutionist frauds and lies than Nebraska man. You said there are a lot, right? Do you accept that Nebraska man is a non issue now that you know the facts? These two questions have yet to be answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
You are a dishonest, dishonest person.
All that happened with Nebraska man is that a scientist found a tooth. He hypothesized that it could have belonged to a hominid. A popular science magazine illustrated this. This was not published in a scientific journal. He did not herald it as proof of evolution. 3 years later, scientists deduced that it was a pig's tooth, and that settled the question of if it was a hominid tooth. A scientist made a hypothesis, the hypothesis was then falsified. That is all there is to it. This is the scientific method. To call this fraud or a hoax is an extremely dishonest thing to do. I hope you are just a troll. Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
I think evolutionists are so eager to prove what they believe, and they need notoriety and funding, that they will rush to a conclusion with insufficient data. Yes, so eager that they rush ahead to a conclusion with insufficient data... Sort of like how you present Nebraska man as a fraud without reading into what actually happened, right? You're aware that "rushing into conclusions", falsifying data, misrepresenting facts, etc WILL be found out in science and you'll lose your reputation and research grants, right? It's not something that science system encourages, but is actively discouraged. Especially since many scientists have made their names by overturning long standing theories/hypotheses. I don't know why I'm replying, I'm pretty sure you are a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
No, a troll is somebody who pretends to be deliberately dense or deceitful in order to provoke flames on the internet for their own amusement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Address my points then instead of ignoring them. How is a scientist proposing a hypothesis, then discarding it 3 years later a hoax rather than the scientific method in action?
What is the extent of your science education, anyway? I'm curious how you managed to miss something I learned in 6th grade science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Randman, I have found nothing showing that it was used in the Scopes monkey trial - maybe you would like to show that it was?
"Hoax" is completely false. The speculation on the origins of the tooth were never presented as anything more than speculation. The scientist who discovered it thought it could have been a human. The popular science magazine went with this based on the speculations. 3 years later, the final conclusion was that it was a pig tooth. Piltdown man was completely a hoax, yes. The "discovery" was by Charles Dawson - an aristocrat whose hobby was archeology - not a real scientist. He didn't allow scientists to properly examine the skull, providing only drawings. The scientific community eventually reckoned something was up, and debunked the hoax. That's right, evolutionary scientists discovered that it was a hoax and discarded/debunked it. So, somebody (not a scientist) produced a hoax, the scientific community debunked it. I'm failing to see how this is science making things up. I'm not sure what you're talking about by Rampithicus, you will have to find me more information on the scenario. With Pakicetus, why does it matter if a popular science magazine's staff illustrator drew an illustration built on the speculations of scientists? This doesn't mean that the scientific community thought that it was the truth or the only conclusion. Again, it's a popular science magazine's interpretation of scientist's speculations. Why is this a problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
That isn't a forged fossil though. How is scientists arguing over the age of the skull a hoax, a fraud, or dishonest?
Why do you think the skull was reconstructed improperly? Where does the dishonesty/fraud come into play here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
The problem is, DbaF, these fossil findings had nothing to do with "proving" evolution, and were never presented as such.
The vast majority of evolutionary theory's evidence has nothing to do with fossils. It is not dishonest to take the theory of evolution and what we know when interpreting the fossils that we find. When something doesn't fit, you need to investigate further - and they did, leading to the scientists having an argument. That's just using the body of scientific knowledge to help you interpret the evidence presented. Also, what missing link? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpgExplained at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5749 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
DbaF, you misinterpreted what the scientists were arguing about.
The original dates do not in any way, shape, or form not match up with the theory of evolution. What they didn't match up with was the exact details of man's recent evolutionary history. None of the findings fail to match evolutionary theory as a whole. What you have found are scientists arguing about the details of evolutionary theory, not whether or not it occurred.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024