|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
misleading Flea writes: I did it GF! Welcome to the fray! The trouble with taking your mistakes out of the O.P. is that you can distort the entire thread, as people were replying to the original. But while you're at it, there's plenty more that's wrong with it. For example, you've still got this in there:
misleading Flea writes: I was at the Museum of Natural History just last year and they still have the banner of Archaeoraptor hanging outside. WHY? And this:
misleading Flea writes: With so many frauds, the evolutionary family tree is thinning of the fossil evidence necessary to give credence to their theories. When more than 99.99% of the fossil evidence remains. And this:
Mis.Flea writes: There are many more. Where the word "more" refers to the word "frauds" in the quote above, and you're so shy about listing these many frauds (not mistakes, frauds). Why not just be honest, and admit that it was a pretty silly mistake-ridden O.P., full of misleading claims, and that your "why lie?" phrase might have been better applied to the creationist sites where you got all these ideas in the first place? (We know you did 'cos we've seen all your claims before, except the N.Y. museum one). Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Also, what missing link? “The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus.” - me (or a bastardization of some website) This would be considered a missing link or “to bridge the gap”.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Oh hey Bluegenes!
Im so sorry, I have no photographs, or proof of any banners hanging in the Museum. I only have a memory. So Im sorry, but you can call me a "fraud" or a "rampant overstated speculationist" if you like. I can't prove it, so disregard. PEACE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
http://www.talkorigins.org/...mdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg
D and E are homo habilis. G is a homo erectus. I don't really see much of a "missing link" here. Do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Well you have done a good job of "overly speculating" and "fraud" by twisting the following scenarios into frauds by scientists:
1) 80 years ago, a scientist finds a tooth and speculates it belongs to a hominid. This is debunked by the scientific community 3 years later. 2) An hobbyist archaeologist comes into possession of a fake fossil. He refuses to show it to the scientific community, except for drawings. It is later debunked by the scientific community. 3) Two scientists argue over the details of hominid's recent evolutionary development. Where is the fraud? The closest I'm seeing is you being the fraud in twisting these scenarios so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Without rehashing all the details of the peppered-moth saga, keep in mind it's not really evidence for evolution as it's just variation within a species. I could get into the flaws and there is a thread here somewhere on it, but the biggest flaw is the idea that merely showing natural selection and adaption is significant evidence for ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
no, it was DbaFlea's claim that the fossils HE listed WERE, and ARE STILL, being used as SPECIFIC evidence for evolution. Really? The comment was actually:
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. This was in response to a discussion on Leakey's discoveries and dating. I don't think then you are correct, and yes, he did make a point to comment on fossils in general as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Without rehashing all the details of the peppered-moth saga, keep in mind it's not really evidence for evolution as it's just variation within a species. I could get into the flaws and there is a thread here somewhere on it, but the biggest flaw is the idea that merely showing natural selection and adaption is significant evidence for ToE.
And can you specify the mechanism that prevents that variation from growing through time until the subsequent species is different from the parent species? If there is such a mechanism I have yet to have a creationist specify it in detail -- they just claim that such variation has a limit and hope nobody will call them on it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Flea writes: Oh hey Bluegenes! Im so sorry, I have no photographs, or proof of any banners hanging in the Museum. I only have a memory. So Im sorry, but you can call me a "fraud" or a "rampant overstated speculationist" if you like. I can't prove it, so disregard. Not even quite the latter. Mistaken, I suspect.
PEACE! Peace, indeed. But don't you realise that your O.P. was a lot of noise about trivia. Scientists making mistakes is a problem 1000 times bigger than any deliberate forgeries or frauds. Because there's no evidence for creationism of any kind, the creationists need to make mountains out of molehills in order to give the impression that there's some kind of Satanic conspiracy to drag people away from the great "truths" of Jewish mythology. In fact, biologists think evolution is the story of life on earth because that's the way the evidence looks to them. If you disagree, fine, but if you're getting your information from sources based on superstition and desire, then you might be getting a distorted picture. One way of avoiding this is to read actual research papers that are nothing directly to do with the evolution/creation debate. Use google scholar, search for things you're interested in, read the peer reviewed literature, and learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grandfather raven Junior Member (Idle past 5476 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: |
Really? The comment was actually:
you do understand that this is a very different statement than "fossils are not presented as evidence for evolution", right?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
1) 80 years ago, a scientist finds a tooth and speculates it belongs to a hominid. This is debunked by the scientific community 3 years later. It was discovered in 1922, and used at the Scopes trial in 1925. A nice rendering was done of a one million year old entire race of humanoid by Amedee Forestier who was especially interested in prehistoric man and loved to bring him to life, not by fictitious imaginings but by the most careful reconstructions based on scientific research, and who also drew of all things, Piltdown man. The same “authorities” who “debunked” the discovery at one time, (even a short time) endorsed an entire race of humanity out of one pig’s tooth. Surely, there is a lesson here for us concerning the reliability of so-called "expert testimony," which is so often used to manipulate and intimidate the layman.
2) An hobbyist archaeologist comes into possession of a fake fossil. He refuses to show it to the scientific community, except for drawings. It is later debunked by the scientific community. What are you referring to here? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis?
3) Two scientists argue over the details of hominid's recent evolutionary development. And what is this? Is this KNM-ER 1470? You have to be a little more specific, unfortunatly, we have not "evolved" telepathic powers yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Hiya,
quote: The issue isn't your emotional state.It's your dishonest and biased behaviour. You complained about frauds in science, then present fraudulent creationist information to try and back it up ! The question you were asked is clear : 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? You presented false information, which you got from a creationist site - while (wrongly) arguing evolution is based on false information. How dishonest is that! Why can't you answer the question? How do you explain the falsehoods of creationist websites that gave you information about Nebraska man misrepresenting the scientific community's opinions on the incident, and its significance? Furthermore -you claimed there were many frauds etc., but have failed to add ANY to our tiny and well-known list. You were challenged to come up with five - why can't you? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Your kidding right? So evolution does not need the fossil record to prove anything....OK...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dont Be a Flea Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
KNM-ER 1470? Anyone? Bueller?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
It was discovered in 1922, and used at the Scopes trial in 1925. A nice rendering was done of a one million year old entire race of humanoid by Amedee Forestier who was especially interested in prehistoric man and loved to bring him to life, not by fictitious imaginings but by the most careful reconstructions based on scientific research, and who also drew of all things, Piltdown man. The same “authorities” who “debunked” the discovery at one time, (even a short time) endorsed an entire race of humanity out of one pig’s tooth. Surely, there is a lesson here for us concerning the reliability of so-called "expert testimony," which is so often used to manipulate and intimidate the layman. Present your resources that show that Nebraska Man was used at the Scopes Trial. Present your resources that the scientific community endorsed an entire race of humans out of the single tooth. Present your resources that the illustration of the Nebraska "man" ever had relevance outside of a picture in a science magazine. We've been over this. I have shown how this is all wrong. Now you are not ignorant. You are lying. Prove me wrong and present resources for each of the above points.
What are you referring to here? Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis? Piltdown man.
And what is this? Is this KNM-ER 1470? Yes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024