Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion- Fossils

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.

pitabread said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

pitabread said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

pitabread said:

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

Click to expand...

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

pitabread said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

pitabread said:

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

Click to expand...

Never said the end of the world was here.

Gene2memE said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DogmaHunter said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DogmaHunter said:

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.

Click to expand...

“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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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