Evolutionist Fraud

[JohnR7]

If anything, creationism is junk (I wouldn't even call it science).

There is no unified theory of creation, and in some regards there are as many creation theorys as there are people. There is a GAP, OEC, YEC and others. The fact that so many evos believe that YEC is the only theory of creationism just demonstrated how quick they are to draw conclusions based on their limited amount of understanding.

 

[Adriac]

There is no unified theory of creation, and in some regards there are as many creation theorys as there are people. There is a GAP, OEC, YEC and others. The fact that so many evos believe that YEC is the only theory of creationism just demonstrated how quick they are to draw conclusions based on their limited amount of understanding.

No, it's just YEC is the only one which is demonstrably false.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you mean if I keep talking about how Nebraska Man was not a man, but Nebraska Man was a pig?

You can say that the tooth was not of a human ancestor or ape, but was of an extinct pig. In reality, only Grafton Elliot Smith claimed that it was a human ancestor (In the Londen Illustrated News). In the original paper written on the tooth by Henry Fairfield Osborn, it was identifed as an anthropoid ape, not a human ancestor (I was wrong that no scientific paper was written about it, and I do apologize for that). In fact Osborn had this to say about the illustration creationists love to bring up: "such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

Other scientists were skeptical from the start. In George MacCurdy's book Human Ancestors (1924) the author wrote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

It is when you claim Nebraska Man was somekind of a fraud or conspiracy that you are being dishonest. It was a mistake made by scientists, that was corrected by scientists. It is amazing that Creationists are so hard-up for "evidence" against Human evolution that they dig up an old mistake from 1920 that had no real effect on evolutionary theory, and then claim it is part of a conspiracy of frauds commited by the scientific community to push a dishonsest agenda.

For those who are interested in the truth of Hesperopithecus, see this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

 

[JohnR7]

It is when you claim Nebraska Man was somekind of a fraud or conspiracy that you are being dishonest. It was a mistake made by scientists, that was corrected by scientists.

Ok, maybe we can come up with better adjective. How about stupidity and ignorance? The point is that this is not a isolated example. It happens again and again that science just does not get it right.

 

[JohnR7]

No, it's just YEC is the only one which is demonstrably false.

Bishop Usher theory is not the only theory to be falsifed. There have been lots of theorys come and go that just did not do a adaquate job of explaining what is scientificly known at that point in time. A lot of what science currently believes will come and go and be shown to be inadaquate. Even a lot of what Darwin wrote about the mechanism of evolution is no longer accepted. That is why we have neo darwinism and with the discoverys in DNA even they have gone beyond that. As new information becomes known than old theorys will be discarded and now theorys will replace them. Just because they base their theorys on what is currently know, does not make it accurate. There is just do much that is still unknown.

 

[Caphi]

Ok, maybe we can come up with better adjective. How about stupidity and ignorance? The point is that this is not a isolated example. It happens again and again that science just does not get it right.

So name some others.

 

[BigRed11]

Ok, maybe we can come up with better adjective. How about stupidity and ignorance? The point is that this is not a isolated example. It happens again and again that science just does not get it right.

But the only reason creationism ever seems to get it right is because it relies on its origins, the Bible, as proof. Circular logic doesn't cut it in science.

 

[JohnR7]

So name some others.

Anything that is arrived at using abductive reasoning is questionable. That is why so often they try to use force, they try to abduct peoples thinking. So not only is the theory quetionable, the whole process or reasoning they use to develop their theorys is unacceptable. What they lack is what Thomas Paine would call common sense.

 

[JohnR7]

But the only reason creationism ever seems to get it right is because it relies on its origins, the Bible, as proof. Circular logic doesn't cut it in science.

I am a creationist and I do not see any conflict between what is scientifically known and the Bible. What I have a problem with is some of the reasoning people use and the conclusions they arrive at.

 

[caravelair]

Anything that is arrived at using abductive reasoning is questionable. That is why so often they try to use force, they try to abduct peoples thinking. So not only is the theory quetionable, the whole process or reasoning they use to develop their theorys is unacceptable. What they lack is what Thomas Paine would call common sense.

abductive reasoning?! HA HA HA!

 

[TheBear]

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

This fraud was exposed in 1868, John.

I'll give you 5 blessing points if you answer the following question correctly.

Was the fraud exposed by a scientist or a creationist?

 

[Split Rock]

Ok, maybe we can come up with better adjective. How about stupidity and ignorance? The point is that this is not a isolated example. It happens again and again that science just does not get it right.

Then maybe you should have called this thread "Evolutionist Stupidity and Ignorance".... Scientists do make mistakes, but they are corrected. We are not perfect, John... but neither is your interpretation of scripture.

The tooth in question was oddly worn in a manner that made it look like it had a primate pattern of wear. Are you an expert on mammmalian anatomy so that you can talk about "stupidity and ignorance?"

You claim also that this case, from 1920, is not an isolated example and that this kind of "stupidity and ignorance" happens "again and again." If this is so, why bother with a case from 1920? Lets see some more recent examples of all this incompetence that is rampant in science.

 

[Asimov]

I would not be surprised if they were all faked. I think that evolutionary theory is junk science and it does a very poor job of explaining what is going on. I understand there is some substance there that people try to cling to, but very little as far as I am concerned.

Innocent until proven guilty, John. So far you have provided absolutely nothing except common creationist arguments:

1. Logical fallacy - If one drawing is fakes, then all are faked.
2. Conspiracy - All the drawings are faked.

Hey, did you know if you rearrange drawing and take out the 'g' it spells "darwin"???? *** IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!

 

[Caphi]

Anything that is arrived at using abductive reasoning is questionable. That is why so often they try to use force, they try to abduct peoples thinking. So not only is the theory quetionable, the whole process or reasoning they use to develop their theorys is unacceptable. What they lack is what Thomas Paine would call common sense.

So what you're saying is that you can't think of any other instances, except the two dubious ones you've come up with. Weak.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This fraud was exposed in 1868, John.

In all fairness, I don't think Johnny takes much stock in current events -- this may be the first he's heard of Haeckel.

 

[JohnR7]

So what you're saying is that you can't think of any other instances, except the two dubious ones you've come up with. Weak.

I do not have to think them up. All I have to do is go to a creationist web site that has a list of evolutionist fraud.

"Piltdown Embryo"
Embryonic Recapitulation, The Biogenetic Law, embryology, Earnst Haeckel, biogenetic law

"Piltdown Horse"
The Horse Series.
Fossils, lined up like ducks in a row, give the false impression that one came from the other.

"Piltdown Moth"
Pepper Moths. This is the belief that changes in the population of the peppered moth demonstrates evolution. However, no new species emerge. The numbers change, not the physiology.

"Piltdown bird"
The Dino-Bird: archaeoraptor



Patsy Wanted to do our dirty work! (Daily Times)

"Piltdown Movie"
Inherit the Wind: The Scopes Trial.
If your teacher shows you this fraudulent misrepresentation of the trial in your class, call the police and have him arrested for fraud!

 

[JohnR7]

Was the fraud exposed by a scientist or a creationist?

It was exposed by science. What good would it do to talk about fraud that science does not accept as fraud?

 

[Dannager]

Inherit the Wind: The Scopes Trial.
If your teacher shows you this fraudulent misrepresentation of the trial in your class, call the police and have him arrested for fraud!

This just in: Creationists endorse arresting educators for showing fictional film Inherit the Wind, well-known for its criticism of McCarthyism. Creationist predilection for witch-hunts confirmed!

 

[Caphi]

So much male bovine feces, so little time...

I do not have to think them up. All I have to do is go to a creationist web site that has a list of evolutionist fraud.

Totally not biased, eh John?

"Piltdown Embryo"
Embryonic Recapitulation, The Biogenetic Law, embryology, Earnst Haeckel, biogenetic law

Correct, all animals possess gills for at least some portion of their lives. Whether those gills stay through birth or not is a different matter. What does this have to do with evolution?

"Piltdown Horse"
The Horse Series.
Fossils, lined up like ducks in a row, give the false impression that one came from the other.

One link for another, Johnny. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

"Piltdown Moth"
Pepper Moths. This is the belief that changes in the population of the peppered moth demonstrates evolution. However, no new species emerge. The numbers change, not the physiology.

What do you think evolution is? Hint: you just described it.

"Piltdown bird"
The Dino-Bird: archaeoraptor

There's no such thing as "archaeoraptor" except possibly as a synonym for "very old raptor." The word your typically creationist buddies are looking for is Archaeopteryx, "old wing."

Patsy Wanted to do our dirty work! (Daily Times)
"Piltdown Movie"
Inherit the Wind: The Scopes Trial.
If your teacher shows you this fraudulent misrepresentation of the trial in your class, call the police and have him arrested for fraud!

I suppose you would also arrest people who show "Pearl Harbor" and "Titanic," hmm? This is a legitimate question, John, yes or no. Would you advocate arresting people who showed the films "Pearl Harbor" and/or "Titanic"?

 

[Split Rock]

I do not have to think them up. All I have to do is go to a creationist web site that has a list of evolutionist fraud.

Line 'em up and watch 'em fall!

The Biogenetic Law, embryology, Earnst Haeckel, biogenetic law

Haeckel! Let's go back to the 19th century, John!
Guess what? Humans do have "gill slits" or pharyngeal arches. Guess what? They develop into gills in fish and amphibians. Also guess what? They were called "gill slits" by scientists studying embryos long before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species...why? Because they sure look like gills!

Did Haeckel draw the embryos to emphasis what he wanted to? Yes. Was it a "fraud?" Maybe. We will be generous and give you 1 Fraud Point, even though it is even older than "Nebraska Man."

1 Fraud Point.

The Horse Series[/COLOR][/URL].
Fossils, lined up like ducks in a row, give the false impression that one came from the other.

Is Hyracotherium a transitional fossil? Yes! Older museum exhibits and textbooks may give the impression that there was only one line to modern horses and no other lines in the family. The reasons were either 1. Lack of understanding of the complexity of the fossil record. 2. Over-simplification to make it easy to understand. Modern books and exhibits make it clear that they were other branches. In any case, it does represent the line that led to the modern horse, so what's your beef?
Conclusion? No Fraud Here.

0 Fraud Points.

This is the belief that changes in the population of the peppered moth demonstrates evolution. However, no new species emerge. The numbers change, not the physiology.

Evolution means a change in gene frequency over time. No one Ever claimed it was an example of speciation.

Conclusion? No Fraud.

0 Fraud Points.

"Piltdown bird"
The Dino-Bird: archaeoraptor

Arcaeoraptor was a fraud, in that some poor Chinese farmer glued two real fossils together and sold it. Scientists examining the find quickly determined it was a mosaic and NO scientific paper was published on it as archeoraptor. National Geographic (a non-peer reviewed magazine) wanted a "scoop" and foolishly published an article on it before it was properly studied. They got burned for it, and learned a lesson.

Was there a fraud? Yes. Was it by an "evolutionist" No. Unless you think the Chinese farmer was an "evolutionist?"

0 Fraud Points.

Patsy Wanted to do our dirty work! The Scopes Trial.
If your teacher shows you this fraudulent misrepresentation of the trial in your class, call the police and have him arrested for fraud!

This one is too funny! A fictional account of the Scopes trial by Hollywood is declared an "evolutionist fraud!" LOL! I should take points away from you for this one, John!

0 Fraud Points.


So, the sum total of "Evolutionist Fraud" comes to ONE. If we add Piltdown Man and generously accept that it was a fraud commited by the scientists involved, that gives us a total of 2 frauds, all from either the 19th century, or early 20th century. And that is the best that the Creationists can come up with... really sad John.