Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
They refuse any evidence that doesn’t agree with Creation
"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?
As a matter of fact, I'd be interested in seeing ANY solitary fossil find which spawned "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers.
"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?
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??
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.
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.
Piltdown was indeed thought to be authentic for some time.
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.
. 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 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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?