Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

[DogmaHunter]

If you are looking for creation sources i recommend the following organizations.

https://creationresearch.org/
http://www.icr.org/homepage/
https://creation.com/
https://answersingenesis.org/

All 4 have been exposed as a bunch of lies, misrepresentation and intellectually dishonest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It actually speaks to how solid a theory Evolution really is...
It's SO solid that whenever such finds seem to have been made, you can actually be skeptical of the claimed find and turn out to be fully justified in that skepticism.

Creationists on the other hand would JUMP UP IN JOY about such a find, because it wouldn't fit the evolutionary framework. They'ld run with that and hold it up as being THE find that finally disproves evolution. You all know that would be case... I'ld put money it.

So idd... evolution is so solid that if tomorrow a scientist claims to have found a rabbit in pre-cambrian layers, his peers can just answer "no you didn't........" without ever even seeing the fossil, and they'll turn out to be correct.

 

[RealityCheck01]

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots creationist "Pithecanthropus Erectus Java Man" lies.
This is Java Man, fossils found in Java that were added to human lineage as Homo erectus in 1950.
The Scopes trial is irrelevant to modern evolution

1. A "an example for decades as proof of evolution and a missing link" lie.
   Evolution was already "proved" (had strong evidence supporting it). Few people looked as the fossil as a missing link until 1950 when it was identified as Homo erectus.
2. Insanity of a "for most scientist it was inadequate as confirmation of Darwin's view of human evolution" quote making the above lie blatant.

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots creationist "Pithecanthropus Alaus" lies.
This is Pithecanthropus: "The terms Anthropopithecus (Blainville, 1839) and Pithecanthropus (Haeckel, 1868) are obsolete taxa describing either chimpanzees or archaic humans."
Stupidity about the beliefs of Ernst Haekel.
A probable "half man half monkey fossils" delusion about a 1962 biology textbook which would not have an obsolete taxa (might be a comment on Haekel's obsolete taxa using his description).

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots creationist "Archaeoraptor" lies.
Archaeoraptor

"Archaeoraptor" is the informal generic name for a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine in 1999. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. Further scientific study showed it to be a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species

Stupid "In fact frauds are common" and "Frauds are common in museums" lies. This is part of the creationist lie and delusion that some fake fossils means that there are enough fakes that the entire fossil record evidence is debunked.

There is no formal count of the number of fossils that have been found but it is certainly millions and maybe billions. Most of these will be micro-fossils.

Altering the Past: China's Faked Fossils Problem is that Chinese museums have displayed specimens of marine reptiles maybe 80% of which have been altered. These are not research specimens. The creationist lie gets worse: "Scholars, too, pay a price: They waste time sifting authentic specimens from counterfeit chaff.". Scientists know that there is a market in fake fossils and can tell the difference.

 

[RealityCheck01]

These are just a few of the lies on the fossil record. Another thread will deal with the fossil record as a whole. Some great sources on more of the common lies they use are below....

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Some probable lies from creationists, e.g the rather deluded Kent Hovind.
Also see: Kent Hovind
Articles from creation . com article so presumably lies given their track record.
Entire books e.g. ID creationism/pseudoscience.

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Idiocy of a list of debates.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Was it a creationist that faked piltdown man?

Was it a creationist that faked Nebraska man?

Was it a creationist that drew flippers, flukes and blow holes where none existed?

No, it was creationists that objected and so were accused of lying, even if in the end it was the evolutionists that were found to be the liars......

4 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A post with some lies about fossils.
A "faked Nebraska man" lie.
A probable "drew flippers, flukes and blow holes where none existed" lie.
A "creationists that objected and so were accused of lying" delusion - they objected and still object to all science, valid or invalid. They were and are still accused of lying because they write obvious lies, e.g. "faked Nebraska man".
A partial "evolutionists that were found to be the liars" lie (only 1 fraud in his list).

The only faked fossil in his post is Piltdown man. It was scientists who always doubted it and finally showed that it was a fake. That is 1 liar out of maybe millions of scientists who have worked on fields related to evolution over the last ~150 years. There are a handful of other frauds that have been exposed by scientists.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I of course enjoy evolutionist more especially since they force kids to have to be lied to in the classrooms.

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "since they force kids to have to be lied to in the classrooms" lie.
Biology textbooks do not contain lies. They contain the currently valid and accepted science like all science textbooks.

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

4 September 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "...the evolutionist lied to get people to believe in their faith" lie.
Nebraska man was never evidence for evolution or a lie. It was always an inclusive find. It was found to be wrongly identified after 5 years.
Piltdown Man was a fraud maybe by the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson. It was always controversial and not generally used as evidence for evolution.
Sceince is not religion - there is no faith, there is evidence.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Reality check01

I would love to debate with you but I need you to clean up your posts as i cannot understand what you are saying. Please read the forum rules on how to properly quote other posters.

Lets take this one by one. Due to time i am only responding to comments related to the fossil record for this thread. Lets start with Nebraska man and go one at a time. Could you please type out what issues you have with my op about Nebraska man And we will go from their.

Thanks.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

That and well the other ones in my op of course.

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 some of them were.......creationist. Evolutionist had a strong desire for it to be true and thus believed it to be true. Creationist offer the only skeptic of their claims thus they tended to not think forgeries were proof of evolution.

“Researchers shaped reality to their hearts desire.”
-Blinderman The Piltdown Inquest

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

“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.

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

I can agree so long as we ignore the creation scientist of course.

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.

Not when it demonstrates how evolutionist will lie for decades to indoctrinate people into their faith. You just want it to go away so people dont question all the lies they are told today.

"if freedom of speech is taken away than dumb and silent may be led, like sheep to the slaughter"
-George Washington

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

Never said the end of the world was here.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

Supporting what I said. But of course NG makes sure claims are tested well, unless its a forgery and supports evolution of course. Amazing that this example leads you to think the way you do. Up is down down is up i guess.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

I already posted 2 sources that studied the issue and gave those amounts, in fact 3. Go back a few pages i dont care to did it up.

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.

You can deny truth all you want, i dont care to find stuff that you can easily find yourself.

"The bones of the most famous man who never really existed went on display again yesterday, after half a century in disgrace.Piltdown Man, cricket bat and all, is back exactly 50 years after the Natural History Museum discovered their star exhibit was not the 500,000-year-old "missing link" between ape and man, but an outrageous hoax in which some of their own senior staff may have been complicit.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/21/education.arts

Post evidence for your claims here.



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.

I am sorry are we talking Nebraska man here? if so

Wolf, J and Mellett J.S the role of Nebraska man in the creation evolution debate Creation evolution 5 [2] 31-43 1985

also see

Gregory W.K and Hellman M further notes on the molars of Hesperopithecus and of Pithecanthropus bulletin of american museum of natural history 48 509-530 1923

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

I dont disagree but nobody is able to show where that is said. Also are you saying if one assumes they sigh a paper they can no longer think? you are ignoring also the effects of worldview. Every evolutionist has these same starting must beliefs.

Worldviews


Definition of Science- is knowledge gained by testing study and observation. Science cannot be wrong and is things we can know for sure and is repeatable and testable. [Though our conclusions may be wrong]

Definition of Religion- beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.


Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man, complex structures evolving, the big bang, the origin of life or fish turning into amphibians. Nor can we test Noah flood or the creation week. These are both religious worldviews competing for how to understand the world around us in our time. One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe and normal processes. The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, catastrophe both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.



Our worldview is our basic beliefs about the universe and drives how we interpret the evidence. When I observe a magician cut a person in half, I conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what I thought I saw. I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my worldview prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion. If your neighbor says he saw a UFO last night your worldview will immediately kick in and help you process and interpret the evidence, as your neighbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothesis based on your worldview. Maybe she saw a top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking again, maybe it was just Venus or a weird light from the sky. However if ones worldview already does believe in ufos and aliens, than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.




This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion. For example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact that is observable. Based on the belief system of the researcher one says look, it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformitarnism, slowly over millions of years. One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood, than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years. Than another researcher says wow, look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need the bible is true. The evidence is the same the conclusion is different based on their worldview. So what everyone needs to decide [and please think for yourself dont just believe what you are told] Is who makes better sense of the evidence? Were does the evidence as a whole fit better? Who has to make adjustments more and invoke more miracles to save there religion?

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias



Both sides have problems still unanswered as we are working to explain the unobservable past, but there is so much we do know that everyone should be able to make a educated decision.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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?

Yes so it is a book by an evolutionist, not a website.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

And why not? why do you assume that? read my other thread post 6 and 7 where i quote leading evolutionist and what they admit about the fossils.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

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.

That would be theologians, not creation scientist who are always exposing lies of the evolutionist. But your level of indoctrination scares me. The evolutionist dogma has a hold on your thinking and it is scary.

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017

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.

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
H. L. Menck

 

[Speedwell]

That would be theologians, not creation scientist who are always exposing lies of the evolutionist. But your level of indoctrination scares me. The evolutionist dogma has a hold on your thinking and it is scary.

It's only scary to those who are trying to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of us have no problem with it.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

It's only scary to those who are trying to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of us have no problem with it.

I disagree, many dont like people believing falsehood and being controlled. Many Christians should even if they are evolutionist.

"if freedom of speech is taken away than dumb and silent may be led, like sheep to the slaughter"
-George Washington

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein


“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
― Mark Twain

“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”
— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders”
-Lynn Margulis


“powerful human erge to belong inside the group to think like the majority...and to win the groups approval by trashing dissenters conformity and group think are attitudes of particular danger in science. Because progression depends on overturning established wisdom”
-new york times 23 july 2009

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree, many dont like people believing falsehood and being controlled. Many Christians should even if they are evolutionist.

Nobody is controlling me. The theory of of evolution is a plausible scientific theory which I accept on the same provisional basis as I accept any other scientific theory. I see no evidence whatever that it is a conspiracy to promote a falsehood, and I see no reason whatever that would motivate such a falsehood. The theory of evolution does not threaten my faith in any way and the only people who seem to feel threatened or controlled by it are those defending a reading of Genesis which appears to me to be shallow and theologically inadequate and which I would not subscribe to even if there were no theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

and some of them were.......creationist. Evolutionist had a strong desire for it to be true and thus believed it to be true. Creationist offer the only skeptic of their claims thus they tended to not think forgeries were proof of evolution.

No, it was more about American vs British scientists than anything else. Creationists had nothing to do with it.

I can agree so long as we ignore the creation scientist of course.

Creationists didn't uncover the forgery.

Not when it demonstrates how evolutionist will lie for decades to indoctrinate people into their faith.

This is completely false. The lie wasn't for the purpose of promoting evolution. As mentioned, the motivation behind Piltdown was arguably for personal fame.

On top of that, nobody knew it was a deliberate forgery until decades later. Thus, it wasn't a lie so much as a mistake insofar as everyone else goes.

 

[Speedwell]

I can agree so long as we ignore the creation scientist of course.

The Piltdown hoax has been exhaustively reported. You ought to be able to name the creation scientist who you allege was instrumental in its exposure.