Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: It's all a fraud

  1. #1 It's all a fraud 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    by claiming that those who claim it to be fraud are uneducated, and then proceeding to demonstrate that they are uneducated.


    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    by claiming that those who claim it to be fraud are uneducated, and then proceeding to demonstrate that they are uneducated.
    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” -Albert Einstein

    I don't think showing people to be uneducated, and thus having less authority, will work. Mainly because it's self-contradictory, Einstein made that so just by making that statement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: It's all a fraud 
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?

    What is fraudulent? The fossils themselves? The dating methods employed? The scientists all over the world who must partake in some vast conspiracy? Are there ANY legitimate fossils of anything to be found anywhere in the world? And what about the DNA evidence (see THEIST and biologist Ken Miller's video on chromosome 2), which corroborates the fossil evidence? Of course, even these observations won't carry much weight with the hard core believers, but it might be a worthy approach.

    Anyway, the creationist's dismissal of the fossil evidence (even if they turn out to be right) does not then legitimize their claim of an invisible magic man in the sky. They would still have to provide evidence for their claim.

    Ron
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    By providing facts to the contrary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: It's all a fraud 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?
    It would be more meaningful for a discussion here if you were to actually cite this list. As it is, we have no idea what these "intermediate fossils" or "frauds" are supposed to be.

    There are, of course, many intermediate fossils between modern humans and the points at which modern non-human primates diverged from the line that ultimately became the genus Homo. And these are hardly "frauds."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    When faced with that kind of claim, you shake your head and walk away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Heres the quote:

    Previous nominees all proved to have to have been hoaxes or otherwise unsuited to the role, include Australophithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) and other Homina fossils, ranging to the embarassing mythical Nebraska Man, a "pre-human" concocted on the basis of a single fossilized tooth, later found to be that of a boar.
    Just to clarify, the new nominee he speaks of is Darwinius masillae, apparently this intermediate between lemurs and other primates was supposed to be an intermediate between apes and humans(even though it had a tail ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Homo erectus, Australopithecus africanus, and others are hardly frauds. I'm not familiar with "Nebraska man," but I do seem to recall a hoax by that name along with "Piltdown." The cool thing about these hoaxes is this: they were perpetrated at a time when sensationalism was high regarding hominid species and scientific techniques ranging from amino acid racemization and even radiocarbon analyses were not in use. Ultimately, it was the science of dating and the physics of the "artifacts" that revealed the hoaxes, demonstrating the solidity of evolutionary theory.

    Au. africanus is very much an intermediary between modern humans and the point at which the chimp/gorilla clade split with the human. The even older Ardipithecus ramidus, recently revealed in Science closes that gap even further. Most modern geneticists and paleoanthropologists agree that the clades mentioned above split at around 6-10 mya (with most leaning closer to the 6 million year range). Au. africanus roamed South Africa at around 2.8 - 3.3 mya; Au. afarensis also at about 3.3 mya; and Ar. ramidus walked the African Savannah at around 5.5 mya.

    Does the source of the quote above go into detail about why they erroneously believe Au. africanus, H. erectus, et al are *not* intermediary? Their inclusion of them with scientifically demonstrable hoaxes are not justified or shown and appear to be wholly fallacious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Homo erectus, Australopithecus africanus, and others are hardly frauds. I'm not familiar with "Nebraska man," but I do seem to recall a hoax by that name along with "Piltdown." The cool thing about these hoaxes is this: they were perpetrated at a time when sensationalism was high regarding hominid species and scientific techniques ranging from amino acid racemization and even radiocarbon analyses were not in use. Ultimately, it was the science of dating and the physics of the "artifacts" that revealed the hoaxes, demonstrating the solidity of evolutionary theory.

    Au. africanus is very much an intermediary between modern humans and the point at which the chimp/gorilla clade split with the human. The even older Ardipithecus ramidus, recently revealed in Science closes that gap even further. Most modern geneticists and paleoanthropologists agree that the clades mentioned above split at around 6-10 mya (with most leaning closer to the 6 million year range). Au. africanus roamed South Africa at around 2.8 - 3.3 mya; Au. afarensis also at about 3.3 mya; and Ar. ramidus walked the African Savannah at around 5.5 mya.

    Does the source of the quote above go into detail about why they erroneously believe Au. africanus, H. erectus, et al are *not* intermediary? Their inclusion of them with scientifically demonstrable hoaxes are not justified or shown and appear to be wholly fallacious.
    thats pretty interesting!
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Homo erectus, Australopithecus africanus, and others are hardly frauds. I'm not familiar with "Nebraska man," but I do seem to recall a hoax by that name along with "Piltdown." The cool thing about these hoaxes is this: they were perpetrated at a time when sensationalism was high regarding hominid species and scientific techniques ranging from amino acid racemization and even radiocarbon analyses were not in use. Ultimately, it was the science of dating and the physics of the "artifacts" that revealed the hoaxes, demonstrating the solidity of evolutionary theory.

    Au. africanus is very much an intermediary between modern humans and the point at which the chimp/gorilla clade split with the human. The even older Ardipithecus ramidus, recently revealed in Science closes that gap even further. Most modern geneticists and paleoanthropologists agree that the clades mentioned above split at around 6-10 mya (with most leaning closer to the 6 million year range). Au. africanus roamed South Africa at around 2.8 - 3.3 mya; Au. afarensis also at about 3.3 mya; and Ar. ramidus walked the African Savannah at around 5.5 mya.

    Does the source of the quote above go into detail about why they erroneously believe Au. africanus, H. erectus, et al are *not* intermediary? Their inclusion of them with scientifically demonstrable hoaxes are not justified or shown and appear to be wholly fallacious.
    That's just the thing though. I have seen a lot of creationist "debunking" video's and posts about Nebraska man and Piltdown man. They usually claim that "science regarded these as true, and when they later discovered they were frauds, tried to play it off." They try to claim that, since these couple were frauds, then all of the humanoid remains found are frauds. So they theorize, and I use the term lightly here, that either all of science is in on these hoaxes now being discovered, to try to disprove the need for God, or they are simply all hoaxes that have yet to be discovered as hoaxes.

    As for Nebraska Man, a man found a tooth in a field, I can't recall if he found a jaw bone too, I think it was just a tooth though, and claimed it was from an extinct hominid. They recreated an entire theoretical figure from this single tooth, which upon examination, they later discovered was from a wild pig. I think that's how it went.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    That's just the thing though. I have seen a lot of creationist "debunking" video's and posts about Nebraska man and Piltdown man. They usually claim that "science regarded these as true, and when they later discovered they were frauds, tried to play it off." They try to claim that, since these couple were frauds, then all of the humanoid remains found are frauds. So they theorize, and I use the term lightly here, that either all of science is in on these hoaxes now being discovered, to try to disprove the need for God, or they are simply all hoaxes that have yet to be discovered as hoaxes.
    I agree, various creationist sources *do* take this position. But they do so fallaciously and at the expense of intellectual discourse and integrity since their arguments are fallacious in many ways at once. Simply substituting the argument on religious claims shows this to be the case: since one pastor is shown to be a fraud (i.e. a pedophile), all must be; since one "miracle" is a fraud (i.e. weeping statues, shroud of Turin, etc), they all must be; and so on.

    But its more telling that the hoaxes mentioned (Nebraska man & Piltdown) weren't revealed by creationists or other superstitious believers, rather they were revealed by scientists following rigorous scientific methods.

    If there were any credence to the claims of creationists, they would provide more than logical fallacy for their arguments, they would demonstrate where Au. africanus and H. erectus hoaxes. What evidence supports it?

    The answer, of course, is none. It could potentially exist, but hasn't been shown to.

    As for Nebraska Man, a man found a tooth in a field, I can't recall if he found a jaw bone too, I think it was just a tooth though, and claimed it was from an extinct hominid. They recreated an entire theoretical figure from this single tooth, which upon examination, they later discovered was from a wild pig. I think that's how it went.
    I think you are correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: It's all a fraud 
    Forum Freshman Jake Boyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?
    I wouldn't want to have to do it myself, but, suppose you asked the creationist for a way to show that something is or is not a fraud. I suppose some kind of use of comparative evidence would be necessary and the nature of the actual real evidence of whether something is true or not could be worked out.

    It seems like insisting on a completely undetectable being of infinite power that cares about you and is constantly unloading infinite Love on you....might not even make it to the level of fraud. A fraud is more truthful than an undetectable infinite being etc. etc....

    So frauds teach us a lot and stuff that is not coherent enought to be fraudulent is not at all helpful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: It's all a fraud 
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?
    You could tell them that organized religion (the Catholic church in particular) is the biggest scam in history, and that "give us money and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" has conned people out of billions of dollars and made the Catholic church very rich.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: It's all a fraud 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    You could tell them that organized religion (the Catholic church in particular) is the biggest scam in history, and that "give us money and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" has conned people out of billions of dollars and made the Catholic church very rich.
    As an aside you really have to take your hat off to L.Ron Hubbard for initiating a similar scam in the supposedly enlightened 20th century and making it stick. (Once you've taken your hat off, just pass it around and see if it comes back with money in it.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Does the source of the quote above go into detail about why they erroneously believe Au. africanus, H. erectus, et al are *not* intermediary? Their inclusion of them with scientifically demonstrable hoaxes are not justified or shown and appear to be wholly fallacious.
    Not really, it's not a book just a brief article though, but still...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: It's all a fraud 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    I've seen creationists list all the intermediate fossils between apes and humans and then proclaim this proved creationism. How? Because they were all frauds of course. How do we deal with the idea that every piece of evidence for evolution is just fraud?
    You could tell them that organized religion (the Catholic church in particular) is the biggest scam in history, and that "give us money and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" has conned people out of billions of dollars and made the Catholic church very rich.
    It's from a protestant periodical sometimes known for bashing other denominations. Problem is they'd probably agree with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •