Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

[46AND2]

and yet it had hundreds of peer reviewed papers on it and museum displays assuring us it proved evolution. I agree it was a fake.

As a matter of fact, I'd be interested in seeing ANY solitary fossil find which spawned "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

They refuse any evidence that doesn’t agree with Creation

I understood your claim, I said where did they say this? and since you cannot support that, what does AIG statement have to do with my threads op?

 

[Brightmoon]

You’ve refused any evidence for common descent going to a known pseudoscience website for their erroneous information.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

"Never formally described by scientists," as Moon said, means it was in ZERO peer reviewed papers.

I think maybe you should fact check your sources before you post them. Otherwise, you just end up repeating the lies you've been told.

If it was in hundreds of peer reviewed papers, it shouldn't be too difficult to cite a couple of them to support your case, right?

"Several hundred research reports and papers worldwide."
-Walsh, J,E Unraveling Piltdown the science fraud of the century Random House NY 1996


wiki, no friend of creation

"with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic"
Washburn, S.L. (1953). "The Piltdown Hoax". American Anthropologist. 55 (5): 759–62. doi:10.1525/aa.1953.55.5.02a00340 – via Wiley Online Library.




And yes it was in museums and textbooks for decades. If you read moons posts they are full of claims, never suported.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

As a matter of fact, I'd be interested in seeing ANY solitary fossil find which spawned "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers.

how about piltdown man?

 

[46AND2]

"Several hundred research reports and papers worldwide."
-Walsh, J,E Unraveling Piltdown the science fraud of the century Random House NY 1996


wiki, no friend of creation

"with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic"
Washburn, S.L. (1953). "The Piltdown Hoax". American Anthropologist. 55 (5): 759–62. doi:10.1525/aa.1953.55.5.02a00340 – via Wiley Online Library.




And yes it was in museums and textbooks for decades. If you read moons posts they are full of claims, never suported.

That's a bunch of papers about the HOAX. Not about any find. Care to try again?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

That's a bunch of papers about the HOAX. Not about any find. Care to try again?

Due support the claim. That is not the context of the fuller quote.

 

[46AND2]

how about piltdown man?

In the pure sense of my challenge, I suppose it fits...but clearly the vast majority of the papers discuss the hoax...not any kind of support for Piltdown Man.

Did you know this already? That the papers mostly are about the hoax? If so, why did you use the claim of hundreds of peer reviewed papers as evidence that scientists lie about evolution. That would be kind of a disingenuous claim, would it not??

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

In the pure sense of my challenge, I suppose it fits...but clearly the vast majority of the papers discuss the hoax...not any kind of support for Piltdown Man.

Did you know this already? That the papers mostly are about the hoax? If so, why did you use the claim of hundreds of peer reviewed papers as evidence that scientists lie about evolution. That would be kind of a disingenuous claim, would it not??

Due support the claim. That is not the context of the fuller quote.

 

[46AND2]

My apologies...I was confusing Piltdown and Nebraska.

Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time. But that is the beauty of peer review...liars get caught.

How is this a bad thing?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

My apologies...I was confusing Piltdown and Nebraska.

Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time. But that is the beauty of peer review...liars get caught.

How is this a bad thing?

I love when science proves evolutionist wrong in their attempts to mislead the public, nothing to object to at all from me.

 

[46AND2]

I love when science proves evolutionist wrong in their attempts to mislead the public, nothing to object to at all from me.

Are you equally enamored when science proves creationist's wrong in their attempts to mislead the public? Cause I am grateful of the outing of liars, regardless of which side of the coin.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Are you equally enamored when science proves creationist's wrong in their attempts to mislead the public? Cause I am grateful of the outing of liars, regardless of which side of the coin.

I of course enjoy evolutionist more especially since they force kids to have to be lied to in the classrooms. But as a christian, yes truth wins out. Creationist if they deliberate mislead deserve truth to be told.

 

[46AND2]

I of course enjoy evolutionist more especially since they force kids to have to be lied to in the classrooms. But as a christian, yes truth wins out. Creationist if they deliberate mislead deserve truth to be told.

As a former Christian, it pained me greatly when I found such deliberate misleading among apologists. Indeed, it was so rampant, I went from trusting creationist sources implicitly to becoming highly skeptical of every one.

I've seen sources cited by apologists which don't even mention the SUBJECT of the claim, much less the actual claim itself.

I've seen arguments by apologists describing something silly that scientists believe, yet when you read what the scientists claim on the subject, they CLEARLY don't believe what the apologist says they do.

I've seen apologists use arguments that directly contradict other arguments they use.

I've seen them lie about the level of education they possess (many times over).

I've seen them make formal claims without proper citation.

I've seen them called out on their egregious misinformation, and refuse to retract.

I've seen them take quotes out of context to make it look like scientists are saying something they are not; sometimes even the exact opposite of what the scientist is saying in the full text. IOW, quote mining.

 

[pitabread]

Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time.

It's worth noting there was actually skepticism about Piltdown when it was first discovered. And it wasn't until the purported second find that it became more accepted. But since the Piltdown finds contradicted subsequent hominid fossil finds, there remained skepticism about it. You can even find old publications that suggest it may have been a mistake (mixing of different fossils).

Nobody thought it was a deliberate fraud though; that caught everyone off guard.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

As a former Christian, it pained me greatly when I found such deliberate misleading among apologists. Indeed, it was so rampant, I went from trusting creationist sources implicitly to becoming highly skeptical of every one.

I think i am the reverse of you. When I found everything that caused me to believe in evolution a lie, or at least distorted, i became angry and than turned a skeptic on every claim by evolution. I do wonder what creation sources you were given that were full of such lies. Perhaps in a pm?

I've seen sources cited by apologists which don't even mention the SUBJECT of the claim, much less the actual claim itself.

I have also found this common usually among the talk origins crowd and other pro evolution sources. Pretty much any time you see an evolutionist talk about creation in a book, newspaper, documentary, media interview etc.

I've seen arguments by apologists describing something silly that scientists believe, yet when you read what the scientists claim on the subject, they CLEARLY don't believe what the apologist says they do.

I've seen apologists use arguments that directly contradict other arguments they use.

Agreed, I see evolutionist do this all the time. Moon has been kind enough to do it multiple times today alone. If you need good creation sources i would be glad to provide you with them.

I've seen them lie about the level of education they possess (many times over).

I've seen them make formal claims without proper citation.

I've seen them called out on their egregious misinformation, and refuse to retract.

I've seen them take quotes out of context to make it look like scientists are saying something they are not; sometimes even the exact opposite of what the scientist is saying in the full text. IOW, quote mining.

Agreed and agreed. So my question is if evolutionist do all this, do you reject evolution?

 

[Brightmoon]

That’s only because you read the silly PRATTs on creationists websites and you believe that they’re plausible because you don’t understand science

 

[pitabread]

. When I found everything that caused me to believe in evolution a lie, or at least distorted, i became angry and than turned a skeptic on every claim by evolution.

Think about your sources and the motivations therein though. The only reason creationists argue against evolution is because of a perceived conflict-of-belief. If it weren't for that, there would be no issue.

Meanwhile, why would scientists lie about evolution? What would be the point?

 

[46AND2]

I think i am the reverse of you. When I found everything that caused me to believe in evolution a lie, or at least distorted, i became angry and than turned a skeptic on every claim by evolution. I do wonder what creation sources you were given that were full of such lies. Perhaps in a pm?






I have also found this common usually among the talk origins crowd and other pro evolution sources. Pretty much any time you see an evolutionist talk about creation in a book, newspaper, documentary, media interview etc.





Agreed, I see evolutionist do this all the time. Moon has been kind enough to do it multiple times today alone. If you need good creation sources i would be glad to provide you with them.





Agreed and agreed. So my question is if evolutionist do all this, do you reject evolution?

By all means name me some "good" creationist apologists, and I'll be happy to point out the deception.

Every item I listed referred to specific examples I remember encountering.

Oh, and feel free to give some examples of published "evolutionists" who have quote mined to support evolution. Or an evolutionary scientist in good standing who lies about his education.

You say that you have seen all these same things, but I'm sorry, I simply don't believe you.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Think about your sources and the motivations therein though. The only reason creationists argue against evolution is because of a perceived conflict-of-belief. If it weren't for that, there would be no issue.

Meanwhile, why would scientists lie about evolution? What would be the point?

I would say very clearly the evolutionist are the motivated party.

“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university


“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It inset just that I dont believe in god and naturally, hope there is no god, I dont want there to be a god, I dont wont the universe to be like that.
-Philosopher Thomas nagel the last word,oxford university press new york 1997 p 30



But thank God for creationist. Otherwise evolutionist would be able to lie and distort to indoctrinate students into their faith. Oh wait a second.



Why do they lie to support evolution. Mostly political. This will be another thread. Why would evolutionist get angry at creationist or those that dont believe their faith if it is just science? it is more than science. It is religion. Future thread.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
-Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada