Great Hoaxes of Science. Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man

[Seymour Flops]

You have no substance whatsoever clown boy.
WHY does he "make more sense." Because he makes Evo more dubious for Godists like you?
`

He makes more sense because he understands and admits that Darwinian evolution is a theory, not a fact.

But, don't let me interrupt. You two go at each other, I'm making popcorn.

 

[Hollie]

Next: Java Man

Java Man is unique in this collection of outright frauds, because it was not actually an outright fraud. Instead it was a prime exemplar of early human researchers' tendencies to announce new species of early man on the flimsiest of evidence, and to create drawings and reconstructions to push that narrative.

The first "Java Man" discovered consisted of a skullcap and a tooth. Eugene Dubois was a proponent of the theory that humanity originated in Asia, not Africa as Darwin insisted.

In October 1887, Dubois abandoned his academic career and left for the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia) to look for the fossilized ancestor of modern man.[3] Having received no funding from the Dutch government for his eccentric endeavor – since no one at the time had ever found an early human fossil while looking for it – he joined the Dutch East Indies Army as a military surgeon.[4]

Again assisted by convict laborers and two army sergeants, Dubois began searching along the Solo River near Trinil in August 1891.[8] His team soon excavated a molar (Trinil 1) and a skullcap (Trinil 2).

In August 1892, a year later, Dubois's team found a long femur (thighbone) shaped like a human one, suggesting that its owner had stood upright. The femur bone was found 50 feet (approx. 15 meters) from the original find one year earlier. Believing that the three fossils belonged to a single individual, "probably a very aged female", Dubois renamed the specimen Anthropopithecus erectus.[9]

Really? One year later, and the assumption is that it must be the same individual? That seems barely possible, much less likely.

Here is a picture of those three finds on display:

View attachment 595429

They did not fill in the gaps with modelling material for this one, to their credit. Of course I don't know whether these are the actual fossils or themselves models. I'll let Hollie explain again why the bones we see in museums aren't always the real bones.

They did make a "reconstruction" in 1922 (not using facial recognition software, I would imagine), that looked like this:

View attachment 595432

Hopefully, even Hollie will agree that this is primarily modeling material.

Interesting thing is that this is supposedly "Homo Erectus," or "standing man." But how do they know from the skullcap that this species had hair on the top of its head, like a human? How do they know it's head hair was short, in what used to be called a "semi-Beatle haircut?" How do they know the face was not covered with fur, like the overwhelming majority of mammals?

Of course they do not know any of that. But if this "reconstruction" were covered with fur, it would look like an ape, not an "ape-man" or the first standing man. Am I claiming that this species was a now-extinct ape? No!

How could anyone reasonably claim anything from a skullcap and a femur that were found one year apart from each other? It's ludicrous.

After Dubois let a number of scientists examine the fossils in a series of conferences held in Europe in the 1890s, they started to agree that Java Man may be a transitional form after all, but most of them thought of it as "an extinct side branch" of the human tree that had indeed descended from apes, but not evolved into humans.[30] This interpretation eventually imposed itself and remained dominant until the 1940s.[31]

Dubois was bitter about this and locked the fossil up in a trunk until 1923 when he showed it to Ales Hrdlicka from the Smithsonian Institution.[26

Why would Dubois be bitter? Bitter enough to be so childish that he locks his discovery away? I thought evolution researchers were only searching for the truth, not personal aggrandizement.

OK, I'm kidding about that, of course. Every early human researcher wants to be the one to finally discover the long-sought missing link, or at least a convincing fake. It seems that Dubois may have been caught in the fakery to the point that he thought he found a real one.

Adding bolded text to another long cut and paste is lazy and dishonest when you don't attribute the source. But who's surprised?

Apparently the AIG groupies didn't give you links that would have filled in some blanks. Some of the spectacularly incompetent ID'iot creatiiners rattling on sbout human origins; Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden both claimed that the Java Man and Peking Man skulls were apes or monkeys. Not surprisingly, the ID'iot creationer community swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Let's move on to your next cut and paste tirade.

 

[Hollie]

Good who?

Archaeoraptor was widely accepted by the same kind of laypersons who infest boards like this, constantly claiming to know of troves of evidence that they never seem to be able to show.

No. It was not. Let's move on to more cutting and pasting of ID'iot creationer nonsense from AIG.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Adding bolded text to another long cut and paste is lazy and dishonest when you don't attribute the source. But who's surprised?

Apparently the AIG groupies didn't give you links that would have filled in some blanks. Dome of the spectacularly incompetent ID'iot creatiiners rattling on sbout human origins; Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden both claimed that the Java Man and Peking Man skulls were apes or monkeys. Not surprisingly, the ID'iot creationer community swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Let's move on to your next cut and paste tirade.

What do you say that Java Man and Peking Man skulls were?

Why can you never answer any of the points I make?

Are you a bot?

 

[Hollie]

Good who?

Archaeoraptor was widely accepted by the same kind of laypersons who infest boards like this, constantly claiming to know of troves of evidence that they never seem to be able to show.

Except for the evidence that was presented.

You feel threatened by science. That's pretty typical for religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

What do you say that Java Man and Peking Man skulls were?

Why can you never answer any of the points I make?

Are you a bot?

What points did you make? Dumping a long cut and paste you didn't properly attribute is just a wall of text you can't explain and don't understand.

 

[abu afak]

He makes more sense because he understands and admits that Darwinian evolution is a theory, not a fact.

But, don't let me interrupt. You two go at each other, I'm making popcorn.

You make no sense (an show you ignorance) because many Scientific theories ARE facts too.
`

 

[Hollie]

What do you say that Java Man and Peking Man skulls were?

Why can you never answer any of the points I make?

Are you a bot?

Great Hoaxes of Science the hyper-religious cutting and pasting from ID'iot Creationer Ministries . Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man religious extremists who rail against science matters they don't understand .​

• Thread starterSeymour Flops

 

[Dadoalex]

Are you seriously claiming the scientific method legitimately includes outright fakery?

You would need to ask someone who believes that.

The scientific method EXPOSES fakery.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The scientific method EXPOSES fakery.

The scientific method EXPOSES fakery.

Good, because they show no sign of slowing down, nor the willfully gullible any sign of skepticism.

 

[Hollie]

Good, because they show no sign of slowing down, nor the willfully gullible any sign of skepticism.

Exactly. The value of the scientific method is to expose the fraud of ID'iot creationism.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Exactly. The value of the scientific method is to expose the fraud of ID'iot creationism.

Science should search for truth, not serve an agenda.

Richard Dawkins said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Ok . . .

That's fine if it helps atheists who might otherwise doubt their faith in the non-existance of a deity. But supporting one faith or another should never be a purpose of scientific research.

Science should seek the truth. Period, full stop.

Let faithful atheists, faithful deists or whatever faith match their faith to science as they feel led.

 

[Hollie]

Science should search for truth, not serve an agenda.

Richard Dawkins said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Ok . . .

That's fine if it helps atheists who might otherwise doubt their faith in the non-existance of a deity. But supporting one faith or another should never be a purpose of scientific research.

Science should seek the truth. Period, full stop.

Let faithful atheists, faithful deists or whatever faith match their faith to science as they feel led.

You have a profound misunderstanding of science. There is no requirement for faith when facts are known. The success that science has enjoyed in understandng and predicting the natural world are not in question. Part of that success dreived from removing the shackles of fear and superstition imposed by religious dogma.

The scientific method is basically a rigorous application of theories, examinations and decisions that we make every day in navigating through our rational, physical world. The fact that scientists from every possible background and bias generally come to the same consensus conclusions about the majority of scientific matters is not surprising. Peer review is the mechanism that weeds out claims to magic and supernaturslism.

The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

Pass that on to the folks at the Jiimmy Swaggert madrassah.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You have a profound misunderstanding of science. There is no requirement for faith when facts are known. The success that science has enjoyed in understandng and predicting the natural world are not in question. Part of that success dreived from removing the shackles of fear and superstition imposed by religious dogma.

The scientific method is basically a rigorous application of theories, examinations and decisions that we make every day in navigating through our rational, physical world. The fact that scientists from every possible background and bias generally come to the same consensus conclusions about the majority of scientific matters is not surprising. Peer review is the mechanism that weeds out claims to magic and supernaturslism.

The hyper-religious tend to revile science and knowledge because there are irreconcilable differences separating religious literalism, faith, and the rational, natural world.

It's quite a contradiction for the hyper-religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a platonic one.

Pass that on to the folks at the Jiimmy Swaggert madrassah.

Yes you describe science well.

You must then oppose Dawkins' attempt to use a quasi-scientific idea like Darwinism to justify the a faith of atheism.

 

[Hollie]

Yes you describe science well.

You must then oppose Dawkins' attempt to use a quasi-scientific idea like Darwinism to justify the a faith of atheism.

Atheism is not a faith. This is a common tactic of the (angry) religioners to associate non-belief in their various gods with religionism. What are the holy books of Atheism? What day of the week are the faithful Atheists gathered to pray to the gods of Atheism? What livestock do Atheists ritually slaughter?

Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Atheism is not a faith. This is a common tactic of the (angry) religioners to associate non-belief in their various gods with religionism. What are the holy books of Atheism? What day of the week are the faithful Atheists gathered to pray to the gods of Atheism? What livestock do Atheists ritually slaughter?

Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

Atheism has a firm belief in the non existence of a deity. The existence or non existence of a deity is unknowable.

Firm belief in the unknowable is faith.

Rejection of theistic models without a firm belief that no deity exists is agnosticism.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism has a firm belief in the non existence of a deity. The existence or non existence of a deity is unknowable.

Firm belief in the unknowable is faith.

Rejection of theistic models without a firm belief that no deity exists is agnosticism.

Not true at all. Atheism is a conclusion. For all the thousands of gods invented by superstitious humans, the vast majority have been discarded as mankind has grown and learned about the natural world. Religionism has ceded to knowledge.

What you “personally believe” here is all fine and good, as long as you do not portray it to be anything more than mere “personal belief.” But it is still demonstrably a surrender to ignorance. It is an explicit assertion that the subject is not amenable to reason or evidence; that it is entirely outside the capacity of humans to understand so we should not even try. Of course that would require us to draw all our conclusions not as humans but as sheep, and blindly follow the traditions and tales of those who came before us. That in turn would automatically subject the vast majority of humanity to forever live in error and superstition. You may be happy with such a circumstance. Others of us are not.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not true at all. Atheism is a conclusion. For all the thousands of gods invented by superstitious humans, the vast majority have been discarded as mankind has grown and learned about the natural world. Religionism has ceded to knowledge.

What you “personally believe” here is all fine and good, as long as you do not portray it to be anything more than mere “personal belief.” But it is still demonstrably a surrender to ignorance. It is an explicit assertion that the subject is not amenable to reason or evidence; that it is entirely outside the capacity of humans to understand so we should not even try. Of course that would require us to draw all our conclusions not as humans but as sheep, and blindly follow the traditions and tales of those who came before us. That in turn would automatically subject the vast majority of humanity to forever live in error and superstition. You may be happy with such a circumstance. Others of us are not.

LoL!

You don't change faith to non faith by calling it "a conclusion." A Pastafarian could easily say he has "concluded" that the flying spaghetti monster is real.

 

[Dadoalex]

Good, because they show no sign of slowing down, nor the willfully gullible any sign of skepticism.

If only you would.

Asked before an asking again...

What is your competing theory or theories.

 

[Hollie]

LoL!

You don't change faith to non faith by calling it "a conclusion." A Pastafarian could easily say he has "concluded" that the flying spaghetti monster is real.

You don't change terms and definitions because you want to denigrate science or denigrate people who don't share your religionism.

There is no faith requirement when a conclusion is based on facts and evidence. The facts surrounding our corporeal existence in no way points to your gods or anyone else's gods. We can reach that conclusion because no evidence, at any time in human existence has ever pointed to gods for an explanation resolving any event or circumstance that wasn't explained by entirely natural forces.