Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

If there is any lying it is from the creationist websites from which you cribbed your material.Most of your "fakes and frauds" center around fossils, so lets concentrate on those.I challenge you to name five forgeries in the fossil literature. And I'll even spot you the first two: Piltdown Man (a hoax) and Archaeoraptor (a forgery).So, since there are so many it should be easy for you to come up with just three more forged fossils.(Hint: avoid the creationist websites -- when it comes to science they lie.)

Fossils, remember? Forgeries, remember?Stop trying to change the subject. It won't work.I was waiting for five examples of fossil forgeries, and I spotted you the first two.If there were so many fossil forgeries, as you claimed, you would have come up with some; at least one. Instead you changed the subject.You lost this round.

Only after I posted.

Maybe, but we never had to give up playing in the dirt!Also there are those fringe benefits: Think Dirty -- Shower with an Archaeologist

Two of my favorite bumperstickers:

(That last one gets some odd looks.)

First, I asked you to provide, as you originally accused, examples of forgeries in the fossil record. You claimed some huge percentage of the fossil record was forged, and so I challenged you on that claim, and asked you to come up with five forgeries. I even gave you a head start with Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.And all you can come up with is Nebraska Man. It was not a forgery, and it fooled a couple of people for a short time.Here is a more accurate version of the Nebraska Man story than the one creationists tell: Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManYou still need to come up with three examples of forgeries in the fossil record. (And I warned you about relying on those creationist websites -- they lie about science. Given what they believe, they have to lie about science or admit that some of their beliefs are just not true.)And by the way, you didn't provide the source for the Nebraska Man quote you posted. But thats OK; it was easy to find on the web.

You have a bad link.

I've been trying to get five forgeries, while spotting Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.Can't even get one additional forgery.(Do you think creationists might be stretching the truth a little bit with some of their claims?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's an easy one. The author is both right and wrong. The upper limit of radiocarbon dating depends on the equipment you are using! Different laboratories use different equipment, and two different methods for radiocarbon dating. The first, using standard counting, tends to have problem after 40,000 years or so distinguishing the beta decay from the background -- again depending on the equipment. The second, accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS) does a direct isotope reading, so it doesn't have this problem. With good equipment it can probably get up to 50,000 or 60,000 years if everything works exactly right. But still, at some point the "signal" just starts to get lost.Using advanced equipment some laboratories are now experimenting with techniques that may be accurate up to about 80,000 years.But those considerations of upper limit have nothing to do with samples that are, say, 12,000 years old--and that's old enough to disprove the beliefs of young earth creationists any day.Now, you didn't know all of this but you still felt qualified to nitpick the radiocarbon dating method because it produces results that disagree with your religious beliefs. There is a name for people who speak with authority on subjects about which they know little.(Do you also practice amateur brain surgery? I hear it can be a profitable hobby.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your definition is fine as far as it goes, but that is not necessarily the way scientists use assumptions.The following definition is more nearly correct:Assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawnSee the difference?Those conclusions are tested, and the accuracy of the assumption is assessed based on the results of those tests.An example: we assume the rate of beta decay is constant. Test a few thousand times and see what results you get. Same answer every time? Test it under wildly varying conditions. Only slight changes under extreme conditions never found in nature? Looks like that assumption is valid. You certainly would be a fool to bet the rent money against it.Compare this with the assumptions made by creationists concerning, say the "global" flood, and note the differences.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, you still don't get it. You are confusing radiocarbon with other forms of radiometric dating. My response to you, above, dealt only with radiocarbon dating. Now you are repeating the same error, and you've totally ignored the lesson you were given concerning radiocarbon dating.Let me try this again, using smaller words:The 10,000 years you are quibbling about is not an error in the results of radiocarbon dating.It represents the upper limit of the method based on the specific equipment that is used. An analogy-- if you have a 12 inch ruler and an 18 inch ruler which is more accurate for measuring something 2 inches in length? They are both the same.Your 10,000 year quibble is the 6 inch difference between the two rulers. One ruler gets poor results after 12 inches, while the other gets poor results after 18 inches. In radiocarbon dating one set of equipment might go to 50,000 years while better equipment might make 60,000 years. But you thought this meant a 10,000 year error.Further, radiocarbon dating, with limits in the 50-60,000 year range has nothing to do with dating the age of the earth or dinosaurs.But your question shows you don't understand this, and your response to my explanation shows you don't really care enough about scientific accuracy to study the subject.What, are you witnessing here or something? Do you get points for the witness, no matter how silly it is scientifically?That's the exact opposite of science; we have no use for wrong answers in science.But on the slight chance that you might be willing to learn, here is a link to my home page on another site. It has a list of several excellent links on radiocarbon and radiometric dating. Warning: science content!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

We've got the fossils and all of the other evidence. It is internally consistent and supports the theory of evolution.For religious reasons some folks can't tolerate the theory of evolution.One way to make that theory go away is to convince yourself that the fossils and other evidence, as well as the dating methods, are flawed, or based on "assumptions." Then the whole house of evolutionary cards comes tumbling down.Once folks delude themselves into believing this, it is necessary to convince others.That is where the lies/frauds/hoaxes come in -- it is necessary to convince others that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is flawed whether it is or not because belief depends upon doing so.

Here is a link to a long and very detailed discussion of the Haeckel issue. It is far too long to duplicate here. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos: A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution by PZ MyersOne quotation from the conclusions: Hmmmmm. Sounds like another example of creationist veracity here as well.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Perhaps you should have read the paper that I linked to.

My point in posting the article was exactly as I stated when I posted it: And my comment: was a snide comment based on PZ Meyers' critique of Wells' chapter on Haeckel. We're allowed to do that aren't we?