Dr. Carl Werner speaks of 150 cases of fraud in Evolution "science" - interview

[tdidymas]

The Grand Experiment - Fraud Exposed - Creation Today

Widespread Fraud Discovered in Museums LONDONWASHINGTON DCPARISKENYABUENOS AIRESNEW YORKPRETORIA 27 Years of Investigative Journalism Never Before Seen Interviews Experts reveal 150 of their deepest secrets

creationtoday.org

 

[SelfSim]

The Grand Experiment - Fraud Exposed - Creation Today

Widespread Fraud Discovered in Museums LONDONWASHINGTON DCPARISKENYABUENOS AIRESNEW YORKPRETORIA 27 Years of Investigative Journalism Never Before Seen Interviews Experts reveal 150 of their deepest secrets

creationtoday.org

This guy either:
- has no understanding of scientific inference and the role it plays in modelling or;
- deliberately has no understanding of scientific inference and the role it plays in modelling.
(I'm about 18 minutes into the video).

ETA: .. and also, he uses irrelevant terms like: 'ape-man' and 'animals' that leads the viewer towards ignoring the timescales over which the fossils span ..

 

[Shemjaza]

Heh.

A long running expose of fraud and crime presented by a Hovind is rich.

I'll watch the video until they get to the point, but Eric and Kent's past of dishonesty and literal criminal convictions do not give them the benefit of the doubt.

If OP want to discuss any specifics about fraud in paleontology I'm interested... but a link to a page trying to get my money for a series of videos and book of preaching isn't a convincing start.

 

[Shemjaza]

Okay I watched it until he made a point at 7:44 and it was nonsense.

1 - Where did matter come from?

2 - How did life Begin?

3 - Why does the fosil record not match evolution?

(The capitalisation of begin and the misspelling of fossil are in the original.)

1 isn't evolution.
2 isn't evolution.
3 isn't true.

He goes on to assert that the number of fossils imply there wouldn't be any gaps in the fossil record.

I'm always very dubious of Creationists who claim to have been educated in and convinced of evolution before some new evidence was presented to them... and failing something pretty interesting presented by the OP I'm not inclined to watch an hour of Eric Hovind and Carl Werner dishonestly represent science in an attempt to preach and make some money.

 

[AV1611VET]

2 isn't evolution.

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

View attachment 362126

Context means nothing to you at all, does it?

 

[River Jordan]

The Grand Experiment - Fraud Exposed - Creation Today

Widespread Fraud Discovered in Museums LONDONWASHINGTON DCPARISKENYABUENOS AIRESNEW YORKPRETORIA 27 Years of Investigative Journalism Never Before Seen Interviews Experts reveal 150 of their deepest secrets

creationtoday.org

I thought we are generally discouraged from starting threads just by posting videos with no other comments or content.

So rather than sending everyone to a creationist website to watch a long video, can you summarize these alleged cases of fraud?

 

[Shemjaza]

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

View attachment 362126

It's an impractically unclear term spanning many fields of science and thought.

As a comparison it would be inappropriate to discuss the flaws in Intelligent Design Creationism by talking about the Flat Earth simply because both form parts of some Creationist explanations.

And seriously? More Hovind?

 

[AV1611VET]

Context means nothing to you at all, does it?

Well when someone asks, "How did life begin?"

And the reply is, "It isn't evolution."

I feel compelled to chime in and say they're wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's an impractically unclear term spanning many fields of science and thought.

It spans evolution from the time that primeval atom began expanding, right up to today.

And somewhere along that timeline of 14 billion years, abiogenesis occurred.

So anyone telling me the beginning of life isn't covered by evolution, I'll tell them they're wrong.

And seriously? More Hovind?

This one's from Harvard, not Hovind:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well when someone asks, "How did life begin?"

And the reply is, "It isn't evolution."

I feel compelled to chime in and say they're wrong.

But it's not the type of evolution being discussed. Hence my comment of "Context means nothing to you at all, does it?"

 

[SelfSim]

It spans evolution from the time that primeval atom began expanding, right up to today.

And somewhere along that timeline of 14 billion years, abiogenesis occurred.

So anyone telling me the beginning of life isn't covered by evolution, I'll tell them they're wrong.

Biological Evolution is a scientific theory.
Abiogenesis, (or Prebiotic research), is a plethora of scientific hypotheses.

The distinction there lies in the vast differences of uncertainty between the two.
The claim of 'wrong' implies no uncertainties .. and is thus clearly, a false claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biological Evolution is a scientific theory.

As are the other six stages.

Abiogenesis, (or Prebiotic research), is a plethora of scientific hypotheses.

If you say so.

The distinction there lies in the vast differences of uncertainty between the two.

If you say so.

The claim of 'wrong' implies no uncertainties .. and is thus clearly, a false claim.

How about the claim, "It isn't evolution"?

 

[SelfSim]

How about the claim, "It isn't evolution"?

Use the other terms I gave you to be more specific in your enquiries leading up to that claim, eg: Abiogenesis, Prebiotics, Origin of Life or Prebiotic Theoretical Biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Use the other terms I gave you to be more specific in your enquiries leading up to that claim, eg: Abiogenesis, Prebiotics, Origin of Life or Prebiotic Theoretical Biology.

All of which fall under the umbrella of "cosmic evolution."

You may not know what stage of evolution to put it in.

But technically academia has abiogenesis within the confines of evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

All of which fall under the umbrella of "cosmic evolution."

You may not know what stage of evolution to put it in.

But technically academia has abiogenesis within the confines of evolution.

Only if you are speaking in a non specific sense.

Abiogenesis is an area of research primarily in chemistry and biochemistry... as opposed to the Theory of Evolution which is a part of Biology.


The word heaven can apply to the home of God, angels and saved dead people... but it can also refer to the literal sky. This doesn't mean it's reasonable to imply that Christians believe people in heaven have to dodge airplanes and weather balloons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if you are speaking in a non specific sense.

It's non specific because science can't explain it.

They have no idea how life started, but they have given it a name -- abiogenesis -- and are content.

And because they can't explain it, they don't know what stage of cosmic evolution to put it in.

Does it belong in biological evolution? or does it belong in chemical evolution?

Abiogenesis is an area of research primarily in chemistry and biochemistry... as opposed to the Theory of Evolution which is a part of Biology.

Fair enough.

It looks to me like abiogenesis then belongs in the chemical evolution stage.

But I fear the Antichrist is going to take it out of that stage and put it into the biological evolution stage; and do it so effectively as to get academia to line up to take his mark.

Then it will be open war on the saints of God.

The word heaven can apply to the home of God, angels and saved dead people... but it can also refer to the literal sky. This doesn't mean it's reasonable to imply that Christians believe people in heaven have to dodge airplanes and weather balloons.

This is correct.

As we're fond of saying: "context, context, context".

 

[Shemjaza]

It's non specific because science can't explain it.

They have no idea how life started, but they have given it a name -- abiogenesis -- and are content.

Not in the least.

Scientists are working on the principles and the evidences to learn more about the chemistry of life and non life.

And because they can't explain it, they don't know what stage of cosmic evolution to put it in.

The don't care, because that's not an important distinction to the research.

Does it belong in biological evolution? or does it belong in chemical evolution?

Much like actual transitional life forms. the problem is that there doesn't appear to be a hard line between life and non life.

Fair enough.

It looks to me like abiogenesis then belongs in the chemical evolution stage.

But I fear the Antichrist is going to take it out of that stage and put it into the biological evolution stage; and do it so effectively as to get academia to line up to take his mark.

I'm curious how you envision this playing out?

Is it a sleight of hand using miraculous (demonic) power to trick people into thinking that materialistic transition from life from non life is possible, is it a demonstration of life actually coming from non life in a materialist sense?

If it makes you feel better being an atheist doesn't make me any more interested becoming a slave to a dictator, no matter how clever a chemist or biologist he might be.

Then it will be open war on the saints of God.

The narrative misses how many "scientists", "academics" and "atheists" would be against the slaughter and oppression of their religious countrymen, no matter how much they might disagree with them.

This is correct.

As we're fond of saying: "context, context, context".

So you understand how the extra broad use of "evolution" muddies the waters of discussion.

 

[Larniavc]

I thought we are generally discouraged from starting threads just by posting videos with no other comments or content.

It’s a ‘drive by’ posting. The OP will make little if any responses.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious how you envision this playing out?

Is it a sleight of hand using miraculous (demonic) power to trick people into thinking that materialistic transition from life from non life is possible, is it a demonstration of life actually coming from non life in a materialist sense?

Bingo!

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.