Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

[46AND2]

And it is a great example of religious discrimination is it not? The university made many false claims about him. See here

https://www.rae.org/essay-links/bergmantenure/
https://www.rae.org/essay-links/Walinski1/

A court of law disagrees with you.

Now if you think he is lying about his credentials, witch ones.

I already told you where his deception was.

<wiki snip>...





CS Lewis

Yes this was brought up in the journal of creation [creationist peer

reviewed] https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_58-60.pdf

Here was Bergmans response in that journal

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_61-63.pdf

I have read his book and he spends a good deal of time defining evolution in the various ways Lewis used it and his changing opinions over time.


a sort relevant section

Lewis adds that we must sharply distinguish between “Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth”. From the context it is apparent that by Evolutionism or Development he means common ancestry, or what some would term macroevolution. By evolution, as I made clear, I mean Developmentalism (that which causes improvements), not evolution which causes small observable changes, as Lewis defined the term. As to “What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders”, I do not find the differences he notes “significantly more tentative”, but trivial. In my original paper I included the words Jay Wile italicized, but space constraints, as also apply to this response, required cutting the original paper wherever I could. Also, assuming Wile has a point in no way negates my conclusion...

The fact is Lewis wrote, “It may be shown, by later biologists, to be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago”, which is not what Wile claimed: instead he claimed Lewis said, “He conjectured that perhaps some biologists in the future might conclude” that it may be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago. This point is nit picking and goes against much of what Lewis wrote. I cut it back in an effort to meet CMI’s word limit. The fact is Lewis wrote much about the ‘myth’ of Darwinism in his later writings, showing that his thinking developed well beyond his early speculations about evolution....

Lewis was toward the end of his life a ‘creationist and anti-evolutionist’ as I have defined the terms in my forthcoming book.....

In his Funeral essay, Lewis makes it clear that he accepted microevolution, but not macroevolution. This is clear in his statement: “… it [evolution] tries to explain, say, how a species that once had wings came to lose them. It explains this by the negative effect of environment operating on small variations. It does not in itself explain the origin of organic life, nor of the variations, nor does it discuss the origin and validity of reason.”

It is completely irrelevant what Lewis' stance was. The end does not justify the means. He manipulated a quote to make it appear to support his claim about how Lewis felt. When in reality, the ACTUAL quote said nothing of the sort.

If Lewis had made later statements which supported Bergman's claim, WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE THOSE? Instead of taking one out of context by excising words that changed the meaning of the quote.

His excuse is deplorable. If you are going to cut words to meet a word limit, you don't cut quotes. You cut your own words.

It's laughable that you think his explanation is in any way ethical.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

If you want me to say creationist have taken quotes out of context on accident and perhaps even on purpose, or have lied or any such thing i can agree. They are human not Christ himself. But their is not a constant theme of lying and manipulating and forcing students to accept their faith by them such as the case with evolutionist.

A court of law disagrees with you.

did you not read about the judge?

I already told you where his deception was.

based on a false claim. Can you show from his bio and his claimed degrees where any falsehood is found as you said their was?

It is completely irrelevant what Lewis' stance was. The end does not justify the means. He manipulated a quote to make it appear to support his claim about how Lewis felt. When in reality, the ACTUAL quote said nothing of the sort.

If Lewis had made later statements which supported Bergman's claim, WHY DIDN'T HE JUST USE THOSE? Instead of taking one out of context by excising words that changed the meaning of the quote.

He did, and he does.

https://store.icr.org/dr-jerry-bergman-cs-lewis-anti-darwinist.html

as mentioned parts were left out do to space and unless we take Bergmans definitions and distinctions as he makes them in his book. We could come to the wrong conclusion. That is why it is vital to read his book in full as lewis and Bergman use the term evolution in 3 separate ways. Bergman never said Lewis was creationist his whole life. But went through stages that he was first atheist/evolutionist but questioned some aspects. Than theistic evolutionist but still skeptical. Than a form of ID/creationist and anti darwinsit late in life.

His excuse is deplorable. If you are going to cut words to meet a word limit, you don't cut quotes. You cut your own words.

It's laughable that you think his explanation is in any way ethical.

i cut quotes even a few words. Often because I am lazy to copy it all down. If you dont cut a quote than you must copy the whole book or paper. The standard practice used in every book and journal of .... to quote only relevant aspects, i have no issue with. If you do i can live with that. agree to disagree. If it is to hide something, than i agree that is lying.

 

[Brightmoon]

Support your claims about NG and the retraction. They were harassed and finally put in a small retraction if i remember on the back or under the corrections like it was a small deal. And if they did that before mailing, why send the false hood out at all?





creationist are wrong as well and correct their stuff. Read their stuff and you will see that. Read the journals and magazines. Read the argument creationist should not use etc.

Support it? I don’t know how you expect me to support eyewitness testimony online . I had that issue . I read the retraction in the following issue . I read the retraction on the website before the magazine arrived in my house. It was too late to reprint the cover . Magazines need three months to do that . You’re making a big deal over essentially nothing like most creationist complaints when scientists make minor mistakes . Tempest in a teapot stuff. Like piltdown and ‘Nebraska man’ . This stuff was nevrr evidence against evolution. Some were silly mistakes that just taught Scientists to be more careful what they told the mostly scientifically illiterate public. Another paleontologist would never have blown up ‘Nebraska man’ into a major story . SJ Gould does a nice overview of both piltdown and Nebraska man stories and the hype around them . Including how they both got blown out of proportion.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Support it? I don’t know how you expect me to support eyewitness testimony online . I had that issue . I read the retraction in the following issue . I read the retraction on the website before the magazine arrived in my house. It was too late to reprint the cover . Magazines need three months to do that . You’re making a big deal over essentially nothing like most creationist complaints when scientists make minor mistakes . Tempest in a teapot stuff. Like piltdown and ‘Nebraska man’ . This stuff was nevrr evidence against evolution. Some were silly mistakes that just taught Scientists to be more careful what they told the mostly scientifically illiterate public. Another paleontologist would never have blown up ‘Nebraska man’ into a major story . SJ Gould does a nice overview of both piltdown and Nebraska man stories and the hype around them . Including how they both got blown out of proportion.

so all we have is your word. escuse me for being skeptical.

 

[Brightmoon]

Is either piltdown or Nebraska man actual evidence for evolution? Archeoraptor was a clumsy amalgam of at least 3 species. It wasn’t fake it was put together by a layman . You’re making a big deal out of nothing . Creationists will continue to do this tempest in a teapot nonsense and scientists will continue to do real research and ignore creationist blathering unless it interferes with teaching real science to children

 

[Brightmoon]

so all we have is your word. escuse me for being skeptical.

well I have had articles published in magazines . It takes 3 months so I’m not blaming Nat Geo for not changing the cover at the last minute.. The only reason I even remember this silly episode is because creationists made a big deal out of it . Tempest in a teapot

The bigger point which you continue to gloss over is that Nat Geo made a mistake and tried to minimize any misinformation it would have caused . I’ve never seen creationist publications ever do that . One Creationist website does have a list of arguments they think creationists shouldn’t use, but if someone does use these arguments, they’re not corrected . They all use the same PRATTs including the same grammatical errors , misquotes and quote mines. Which is why I don’t bother to read your PRATTs and haven’t read any creationist publications for at least 12 years

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Is either piltdown or Nebraska man actual evidence for evolution? Archeoraptor was a clumsy amalgam of at least 3 species. It wasn’t fake it was put together by a layman . You’re making a big deal out of nothing . Creationists will continue to do this tempest in a teapot nonsense and scientists will continue to do real research and ignore creationist blathering unless it interferes with teaching real science to children

They were presented as evidence for evolution and the evolutionist lied to get people to believe in their faith. In textbooks, museums, media etc i think it is a big deal to lie to indoctrinate.

NG lied to promote falsehood to believe in evolution. I see these as a big deal yes as any real scientist should. If you dont think evolutionist lying is a big deal why do you care to post on this thread?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

well I have had articles published in magazines . It takes 3 months so I’m not blaming Nat Geo for not changing the cover at the last minute.. The only reason I even remember this silly episode is because creationists made a big deal out of it . Tempest in a teapot

The bigger point which you continue to gloss over is that Nat Geo made a mistake and tried to minimize any misinformation it would have caused . I’ve never seen creationist publications ever do that . One Creationist website does have a list of arguments they think creationists shouldn’t use, but if someone does use these arguments, they’re not corrected . They all use the same PRATTs including the same grammatical errors , misquotes and quote mines. Which is why I don’t bother to read your PRATTs and haven’t read any creationist publications for at least 12 years

Not for NG that puts out magazines more often and was forced to retract. But yes lying for their religion is a big deal in my opinion.


You would have to show support for your claims. As a creationist who is familiar with those organizations and their publications i can just say you are incorrect from my readings that includes over a decade.

 

[pitabread]

They were presented as evidence for evolution and the evolutionist lied to get people to believe in their faith.

Nebraska Man was never a "lie" by scientists. It was a misidentification which was blown out of proportion by a publication and subsequently corrected.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but as was previously pointed out, it wasn't universally accepted. Because it contradicted other findings there was skepticism about the legitimacy of the find; you can even find publications questioning its legitimacy before it was uncovered as a fraud.

Nobody really thought anyone would deliberately forge a fossil though. In all likelihood the hoax was perpetuated for personal fame and nothing to do with trying to support evolution.

Archaeoraptor was forged for the purpose of making money. Again, nothing to do with supporting evolution.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Nebraska Man was never a "lie" by scientists. It was a misidentification which was blown out of proportion by a publication and subsequently corrected.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but as was previously pointed out, it wasn't universally accepted. Because it contradicted other findings there was skepticism about the legitimacy of the find; you can even find publications questioning its legitimacy before it was uncovered as a fraud.

Nobody really thought anyone would deliberately forge a fossil though. In all likelihood the hoax was perpetuated for personal fame and nothing to do with trying to support evolution.

Archaeoraptor was forged for the purpose of making money. Again, nothing to do with supporting evolution.

You are missing it. I am not so much blaming those who commit the crimes as those who sell the crimes as actual evidence. So when you have one tooth of a pig and experts around the world claim its a missing link. And you create museum displays, pictures in textbooks and newspapers manipulating the public for your faith, I see that as a lie. I dont care if someone who first found it thought it human or missing link.

“Many scientist were so elated by the discovery that they uncritically accepted the sloppy forgery”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, Frauds, and forgeries

Yes some from the beginning [creationist mostly] thought piltdown was fishy. That did not stop evolutionist from writing hundreds of papers and using it as evidence for 40 years in textbooks and museums as proof of evolution. information was factually given about how they died, their language and parenting. Tax money was used to build a monument and national sanctuary at the site of the find for this “most important evidence for evolution.”



“Self deception....scientist may exhibit irrational bias or give allegiance to their lies with only the most tenuous basis in fact...because it fell with preconceived wishes.”
-Eiseley L Fossil and Human evolution 1966


I never had fault with the forger, but the promoters like national geographic.

“How easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for.”
-biology philosopher Jane Maienschein Maienschein, J. 1997. The One and the Many: Epistemological Reflections on the Modern Human Origins Debates. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. Clark, G. A. and C. M. Willermet, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 413.

 

[pitabread]

You are missing it. I am not so much blaming those who commit the crimes as those who sell the crimes as actual evidence. So when you have one tooth of a pig and experts around the world claim its a missing link. And you create museum displays, pictures in textbooks and newspapers manipulating the public for your faith, I see that as a lie. I dont care if someone who first found it thought it human or missing link.

And the only instance where that arguably was the case would be Piltdown Man. But even then as already pointed out, there were still skepticism and you can find publications from the time attesting to that.

Yes some from the beginning [creationist mostly] thought piltdown was fishy.

Creationists, haha, no. It was mainly American scientists that were initially skeptical. There was a bit of British nationalistic pride associated with the find originally which probably one reason British scientists seemed more ready to accept it. A lot of the credibility of the find was attributed to the credibility of its discoverer.

And it was ultimately scientists that uncovered the forgery. Creationists had nothing to do with it.

The only contribution from creationists to the Piltdown legacy is the beating of a dead horse by constantly referencing it over and over again. Considering the find was over 100 years ago and the forgery uncovered over 50 years ago, it's time to let it go. Science has moved on.

I never had fault with the forger, but the promoters like national geographic.

Sure, that was an embarrassing publication regarding Archaeoraptor. But they admitted the error and retracted the story. Life has moved on.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As a previous thread showed evolutionist often will lie, manipulate data, and commit outright fraud in textbooks to indoctrinate students in their beliefs.
...

An OP that starts with a lie, fantasy and an insult.
No previous thread showed that. The outragous insult of accusing scientists and textbook authors of fraud with "manipulate data", "outright fraud". An "indoctrinate students in their beliefs" fantasy.

16 items of unthinking parroting of creationist ignorance and lies about evolution (3-9 August 2018)

A Gish Gallop follows so it will take some time to document your parroting of ignorance and delusions and lies.
There is citation of valid criticism of the popular cartoon of ape to man from Scientific American.

3 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots creationist delusions about artistic images of Lucy.
ETA for the benefit of Tolkien R.R.J since he seems to not understand standard English:
This is science. This is art. They are not same. Scientists do not base science on artistic images. Artistic license is not scientific evidence.

3 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots many creationist Nebraska man lies.
The big lie is this is not modern textbook evolution - the tooth was wrongly identified in 1922 and "The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927" !
Nebraska man was wrongly identified as the "first anthropoid primate found in North America", not a missing link.

1. A "Nebraska man was used to support evolution as a missing link" lie.
2. A "It was presented in the museums and textbooks" lie.
3. A possible "shown in pictures in newspapers" lie (there was 1 newspaper artist who made up 1 picture).
4. A "wife and kids looked like" lie - again it was a newspaper artist's imagination.
5. A "examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US" lie.
6. A "classified as a missing link".
7. A possible "around 10 million years old" lie.
8. A "Later it was found out the only actual evidence found was 1 tooth" lie

3 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots creationist Piltdown man lies.
Piltdown man was questioned as early as 1913, shown to be a fraud in 1953, and is reported as such in modern textbooks.
A "Tax money was used to build a monument" lie when a memorial to Charles Dawson was erected at the site of his fraud. Memorials are usually paid for by friends and family.

 

[Brightmoon]

Tempest in a teapot stuff isn’t a big deal . Honestly this creationist attitude reminds me of a hypercritical narcissistic father I once met. He kept on his son like white on rice. This mans behavior was abusive about every minor error his son made. The son was in his 40s and it made me cry watching him try to get that man off his back. You seem to think your constant repeating of PRATTs is explaining something. It’s simply annoying. ( and reminds me continually that I do have to watch school board elections to make sure this pseudoscience nonsense isn’t taught in public schools )

 

[Strathos]

I often like to contrast Piltdown Man with the Shroud of Turin.

The former:

- Was a deliberate hoax
- Was viewed with skepticism by scientists
- Was proven to be a hoax by scientists
- Is no longer advanced as genuine by anyone
- In no way disproves evolution

Whereas the latter:

- Was a deliberate hoax
- Was credulously accepted by Christians who wanted to use it to push an agenda
- Was proven to be a hoax by scientists
- Is still claimed to be genuine by many dishonest and misinformed Christians despite the evidence otherwise
- In no way disproves Christianity

 

[Gene2memE]

Support your claims about NG and the retraction. They were harassed and finally put in a small retraction if i remember on the back or under the corrections like it was a small deal.

Here's quite a recent (2014) Scientific American article covering the whole sad debacle.

Here's a more contemporaneous Nature article which shows what a tremendous disservice the forger(s) did, to themselves AND the scientific community. The Archaeoraptor forgery contained pieces of two previously unknown species - so the forger could have got twice the money they did.

Here's a similarly contemporary Guardian article, pointing out that Nat Geo admitted within a matter of months that it had been taken in by a forgery, and that a retraction was made.

Here's a link to the full investigation into the event that National Geographic published in their October 2000 edition, just 12 months after the initial publication. Can't link to the Nat Geo itself, as you need a subscription.

All in all, it stands as a testament to making sure that claims are tested, thoroughly and independently, before they can be considered verified.

 

[DogmaHunter]

and yet it had hundreds of peer reviewed papers on it

Then you should have no problem linking to a few of them in the science journals they were published in.

I challenge you to do that.
Don't forget to admit your mistake when it turns out that you can't.

and museum displays assuring us it proved evolution

Which museums would that be?
Please link to something that proves it was actually on exhibit there. Merely saying the name of a museum, will just be another unsupported claim.

Post evidence for your claims here.

in fact also in museums and textbooks and It was examined by leading authorities from 26 institutions across Europe and the US and classified as a missing link. It shows how evolutionist will lie to indoctrinate and see what they want to see out of fossils. How is that not relevant to the thread?

It currently isn't relevant because it's just another claim to pile on on the already huge pile of unsupported claims here.

So same challenge for this one: provide evidence that proves that it was examined an accepted as such.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am sorry where does it say what you claim? I saw it had a statement on being christian and accepting creation. But i agree scientist should let the evidence lead to their beliefs, that is why many of those AIG and creationist, were evolutionist and know are creationist like i did. But what does this have to do with evolutionist lying about fossils to get people to agree with their faith?

The text literally states that they START by assuming the bible is fact and that NOTHING would, or could, ever change their minds about that.

It means that if the evidence of reality disagrees with their particular religious beliefs, then they will assume that the evidence of reality is incorrect.


It is the epitome of intellectual dishonest and the exact opposite of a science mentality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"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.

Still more piling on of claims.
Linking to websites that repeat the claims, is not going to help you.

Link straight to the papers instead. From appropriate science journals.
That is the only thing that will support your claims. Repeating claims, is not the same as supporting them. You get that, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I think it's funny how you like it if they expose a single fraudulent fossil.
But apparantly, you don't share that same sentiment when they agree on the authenticity of millions of other fossils.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Indeed, wait a second..............

Because the fact of the matter is that every time an actual scientist lied (for 10 minutes of fame or whatnot), those lies have been exposed by other scientists in the same field - never creationists. Creationists don't do science. They do fundamentalist theology.

Why would evolutionist get angry at creationist or those that dont believe their faith if it is just science?

Ow, i dunno,..... perhaps because creationists falsely accuse them of being involved in some satanic conspiracy and what not? Because fundamentalist creationists tell theists who have no problem with biology, that they aren't "real" christians?

Perhaps you don't really realise it, because you are on the wrong side of the fence, but I can tell you that the stuff creationists tend to say and accuse people off, is quite infuriating.

And in the case of scientists, oftenly creationists are basically attacking and making a mockery out of their life's work. Accusing them of all kind of nasty things without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Creationists are out to destroy actual science.