• 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.

Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

Jamin4422

Member
Jul 5, 2012
2,957
17
✟3,349.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
In Relationship
"My contention is that evolution is so completely hatstand that the only way it can be defended is by deliberate and repeated dishonesty." Here is a thread to list all of the frauds and deceptions evolutionists use to try and get people to buy into their theory.


Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)



Evolution Fraud
 

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Since we are doing copy/paste:

Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world," and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Although it was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake.

It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth that rancher and geologist Harold Cook found in Nebraska in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."
Restoration of what Prosthennops may have looked like in life

Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct genus of peccary called Prosthennops, and its identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.[1]

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community,[2] and the purported species was retracted half a decade after it was proposed by Cook, creationists have promoted the episode as an example of the scientific errors that can undermine the credibility of paleontology and hominid evolution theories, and how such information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.[3]

Sources provided:


  1. ^ Gregory, W.K. (1927). "Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man". Science 66 (1720): 579–81. doi:10.1126/science.66.1720.579. PMID 17810385.
  2. ^ Wolf, J.; Mellett, J.S. (1985). "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate". Creation/Evolution (National Center for Science Education) 16: 31–43. Retrieved 10 October 2009.
  3. ^ Jeffrey, Grant R (2003). Creation: Remarkable Evidence of God's Design (Waterbrook Press). ISBN 0-921714-78-5
 
Upvote 0

loktai

Newbie
Jun 26, 2012
237
7
✟423.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
And who was it that exposed the piltdown man as a hoax? Was it creationists, or was it evolutionists?

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner

Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark
(5 June 1895–28 June 1971)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Le_Gros_Clark#cite_note-Spencer1-0 was a british anatomist surgeon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primatologistprimatologist and palaeoanthropologist, today best remembered for his contribution to the study of human evolution.

Yeah thats right, I forgot, evolutionists deliberately set out to distribute mis-information. Perhaps you might like to consider that Charles Dawson was the culprit, and not evolutionists. Don't tar all evolutionists with the same brush as one man, who just wanted to be famous.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,997
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is a thread to list all of the frauds and deceptions evolutionists use to try and get people to buy into their theory.



I don't want to lower my standards to calling everything I don't believe in a lie, fraud or deception; but for the record, here are some mistakes I think evolutionists hold to:
  1. Deep time.
  2. We are Homo sapiens.
  3. Life started with abiogenesis.
  4. Genesis 1 should not be taken literally.
  5. There are no missing links between A and B.
  6. Macroevolution is microevolution over deep time.
  7. Missing links are nothing more than transitional fossils.
 
Reactions: Assyrian
Upvote 0

Promethean

Junior Member
Jan 17, 2008
131
9
✟22,821.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
None of those are lies, rather they expose creationist ignorance regarding the universe.

Genesis was never taken literally and your insistence that it is a new phenomenon of a zealot faction.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour

Nor do I. That's why my thread specifically states that it's to collect examples of deliberate lies, not mistakes or disagreements.

Like the ones in Jamin's link - they totally misrepresent what actually happened; and I'm sure Jamin knows this, because they're very well known lies as ten seconds googling would demonstrate. He prefers to stick to his discredited copypasta. What does that say about his honesty and his respect for actual truth?

Put it another way, a thread started to collect "evolutionist" lies has already collected several creationist ones. The irony is contributing to my current "amused" status.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

Let's see if you can correct your mistakes about what are lies. If not, then that will make you a liar, will it not?

1. Piltdown Man. This was a deliberate hoax, but no one know for certain who perpetrated it or why. It is, however, the ONLY example on your list that was a deliberate hoax. Time desperate creationists have to go back to to find? 1912.

2. Nebraska Man. This was an honest error that was quickly corrected and made no impact on the theory of evolution. Time desperate creationists have to go back to to find? 1922.

3. Jave Man. Authentic Homo erectus fossil. There are plenty of other fossils of this species found since then. Professional creationists today cannot form a consensus on whether it was "just" an ape or "just" a man. A perfect example of a transitional species.

4. Orce man. There is still no clear identification of this fossil fragment. No one even talks about it other than desperate creationists.

5. Neanderthal. Again, as with Java Man, an authentic species. One of the early fossils did (specimen La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1) did have arthritis (not rickets). Our understanding of Neanderthal and its place in human evolution has improved over time. There is no fraud or lie here either.
 
Upvote 0

cricket0206

Newbie
Aug 6, 2012
137
7
Chicago
✟22,824.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

We ARE homo sapiens. That's the scientific name for a human. Why do you have a problem with that? How does that conflict with your religious beliefs? What do you think we are?

Macro evolution is micro evolution.

The other things you listed are pretty much wrong too, but these two stood out to me. Please go back to biology class before you start criticizing a concept that you know NOTHING about.
 
Upvote 0
R

rikerjoe

Guest

1. Is true for all science and most others. Only YEC disagrees with this.
2. Nothing wrong there. It's a classification and a name. Got a problem with it?
3. Not relevant for evolutionists.
4. Not even Christians says it should be.
5. Huh? Of course there is. Unless A is the parent of B...
6. There is no "macro" or "micro" for evolutionists, that is a creationist view. And yes, if you insist to use those, Macro is micro over longer time.
7. A bit simplistic, but essentially, yes.

You may wish all those were evolutionists mistakes, but they seem to be more your mistakes.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,997
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

1. Jesus must be a YEC then, eh?

2. Yes ... I refuse to be called a Homo sapiens, just as Moses refused to be called by the ancestry the world (Egypt) gave him.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

3. Abiogenesis says how life didn't start ... not how life started; and it's wrong to boot, since life was started by [the] Life.

4. Then perhaps you need to get around more? Why is YEC one of the choices when we set up our profile?

5. Any missing links between Homo sapiens and Homo ergaster? or Homo erectus? or whatever Homo sapiens is next-of-kin to?

6. Micro and macro are terms that scientists use today; they do make a distinction ... and one that we literal creationists are not obligated to accept.
 
Upvote 0
R

rikerjoe

Guest

1. As most people were in those days, I'd suspect he was. OTH, if he was God, he would know better.

2. Ok, if you don't want to be considered human, no sweat off my back...

3. Huh? Abiogenasis does NOT say how life started? Then why do you complain it contradict your belief about how life started? Either way, still not relevant to evolution.

4. Beats me. However, not even all YEC consider Gen 1 to be literal. Are you saying all YEC say Gen 1 is to be taken literal?

5. If they are missing, how would I know?

6. Yes, when questioned so much by creationists about it, of course it will be explained. You are not obligated to accept it, nor to like it, but unless you can explain it better, it will remain.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
So what have they collected after a few days? A list that turns out to be a list of creationist lies about supposed frauds, and a nonsensical (as if there were any other type) argument with AV which I'm surprised hasn't mentioned unicorns yet.

And one from Cricket0206 which also appears to be a creationist lie.

The pattern is indeed emerging. Which reminds me, I've got another crop to report on the Other Thread.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,997
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1. I hope you're not implying Jesus wasn't God. Luther would be turning over in his grave.

2. I didn't say that, did I?

3. Abiogenesis is a way of saying how life didn't start. Abiogenesis = not from life. It's like I asking, "Who parked this car in my spot?" and someone answering, "Not Joe." Abiogenesis says: life, not from life; the Bible says: life, from [the] Life.
 
Upvote 0

Karl - Liberal Backslider

Senior Veteran
Jul 16, 2003
4,157
297
57
Chesterfield
Visit site
✟28,447.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour

Haven't you been corrected about your misunderstanding of the term "abiogenesis" before?

The "not" belongs with "life", not with "from". It's "from non-life", not "not from life".
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,997
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,327.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0