Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

First I want to say thanks to the admins for allowing my topic for discussion. I am new to this forum and honestly, I am surprised at the amount of responses this thread has gotten. I have not had time to read and research everyone’s posts yet. I also want to say thank you for the respect I am getting form all of you (most of you) with an opposing view point. Usually people resort to mud flinging and name-calling. I am a tad overwhelmed over the sheer numbers of you that are responding. I am also feeling a little “alone” because with the exception of one, on this tread, you are all opposed to my view. Its cool, I like the challenge, however I want to respond intelligently and not just passionately, and with the number of you opposing me, I tend to write from the heart and not the facts sometimes. Again, thanks for this opportunity and allow me to read and study a little bit more and I will respond very soon.PEACE!!

Nebraska ManA single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska in 1922. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus, and modern man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, Professor of Anatomy of Manchester England, fully supported Osborn’s claim.“The Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes.” - Politician W. J. BryanThe Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of Hesperopithecus and his mate, all from the remains of one tooth. Five years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig. Little publicity was given to the error.A discovery is made, prominent scientists interpret the data in relation to current scientific thinking. The popular press or politicains (or National Geographic) bridges the gap between the scientist and the layman. Average people are presented with an image, that will be retained, that man and ape shared a common ancestor, or perhaps even other forms of evolution.I find it interesting that a whole race of ape-man, for a time, with a complete artist rendering, was created by a single tooth.

If a single tooth that belonged to a pig was categorized to be an entire race of intermediary ape-men, I don’t know what else you want as a “forgery”. Really? I thought I listed those in my original post! Then what would a forgery be? Are you telling me that Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, and Grafton Elliot Smith Professor of Anatomy of Manchester England lacked the education to tell the difference between a prehistoric man’s tooth and a pig’s tooth? Come on . .really? The length of time it fooled people is irrelevant, it still fooled people into believing, therefore . ..a hoax, fraud, misrepresentation, or...lie! You only listed one “evolutionist” website. I found the Nebraska man story on the wikipedia website among others and used information to make my point. Do you think that talkorigins would list things contrary to what it teaches and believes? Their goal is to prove evolution and disprove the existance of a God. Your telling me to prove my point, without all available resources. There are many very intelligent people with walls full of degrees that believe in creation or ID. Do I simply dismiss all of them based on the criteria you deem fit?

I am simply saying that this so called “science” is not so sacred. Fame and fortune are true motivators. Why have these hoaxes in the first place? Perhaps to further beliefs, to further funding, to make a name for yourself. Did you read the Ota Benga story I posted? Not a good way to “prove” a theory. Then why did it take over 100 years to correct Ernst and over 40 years to remove Piltdown man? Ah, but we are not discussing Biblical stories on this thread . Testing for the truth?? Scientist rushed out to find the missing link and wanted it so bad, they lied about things. They made pig teeth and entire race of intermediary man, they bought Ota Benga in the slave trade and paraded him around as the missing link until he committed suicide, they forged embryo drawings to look the same so it would be believed we had a common ancestor, and they mixed up fossils of different species to make up an animal that would support their theory. Perhaps they are still doing it. How do I know based on this track record that all the evidence isn’t tainted? Evolution started off on the wrong foot! I think people wanted to believe it so badly, that they lost their objective.

I must admit bluegenes, you do make me laugh!

dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
for·ger·y /frd’ri, for-/[fawr-juh-ree, fohr-]
1. the crime of falsely making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected; simulated signing of another person's name to any such writing whether or not it is also the forger's name.
2. the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like.
3. something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery.
4. an act of producing something forged.Or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation of a drawing of what a fossil looked like to further a belief, or a writing that misrepresents what the fossil is.

You are? My name says DON'T be a Flea....

I added my own opinion obviously apart from the dictionary entry. Did you honestly think I was trying to pass off what I added as part of the definition? Seriously?

Hey Bluegenes, you are changing the subject. Stick to this thread or start your own. One accused fraud or proof of one does not negate another.

This is not a thread about proving creation. This is also not a thread about creation hoaxes. This is a thread entitled “why lie?” and is a thread on lies that have happened in evolution. You cant say becuase some creationist have lied, that it negates or takes away from evolutionist that have lied. If you want to make a new thread on creation lies, then submit it to the admins for approval and please keep with this subject.

If EVOLUTION....I didn't sayIf CREATION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN...

Thanks Ned...I only say that because you are the only one on this thread (with the exeption of one other) that has supported anthing that I have said.I am NOT assuming you agree with everything I said.But thanks for the bone!PEACE!

quote:

---

As mammalian omnivores, pig teeth are fairly good models for studying the development and aging of human teeth. Dental enamel is formed by the epithelial cells of the enamel organ including the ameloblasts, the cells that produce enamel matrix proteins.

​

As with humans, pigs feature molars, premolars (or bicuspids), canines, and incisors and similar to most mammals, pigs and humans are diphyodont or develop and erupt two generations of teeth into their jaws.

---

I think there is a huge difference between pig teeth being similar and good models for study in relation to man, and mistaking one as an “intermediary” or “missing link” in human evolution. Remember, they werent trying to pass it off as human, but as proof of evoltuion or a common ancestor.

I never limited my list to only fossils! Perhaps I should change my OP around to say "mistakes" instead of "forgeries". Perhaps they are not deleberate as you say, but they are still passing off mistakes as facts for a time.Here are current things online that make me wonder. OK, I am totally cool with this statement. This is called a “fact”? I thought they haven’t found a way? Assuming . . . . Here are two quotes from the same website that differ 10,000 years. Please remember, that proven, written, human society and history is arguably between 6,000 and 20,000 years. Didn’t he just say you find the age of the dinosaur by the rock, and the age of the rock by the fossils that we already know the age of? And the accuracy? 100,000 years? I'm glad I'm not late by 100,000 seconds (over a day) or off in my bank acount by 100,000 cents.

Assume1. to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit:~Dictionary.com