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

[Seymour Flops]

If only you would.

Asked before an asking again...

What is your competing theory or theories

I don't need a competing theory to know that Darwinian evolution is unlikely.

If a guy is accused of killing his wife, does he have to offer a "competing suspect" or is it enough to point out that the accuser has zero evidence and the accusation is based only on speculation and lack of other suspects?

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

I love science.

There is no evidence for Darwinism.

 

[Hollie]

I love science.

There is no evidence for Darwinism.

Those in religionism typically screech as you do,

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is one of many reasons why religious extremists tend to get angry and emotive when the evidence is presented. They feel their gods are threatened with obsolescence so they hurl slogans that are typical for religion'istas.

As well as evolutionary theory being falsifiable, predictions can be made using evolutionary theory. You will be shocked to learn that predictions are based on observations of the evidence, as are the predictions of any scientific theory. In the realm of science, observations are collected, then a theory is proposed to explain them. The theory is then tested by comparing the predictions with further observations.

How does religionism make predictions about the supernatural what magic tricks its partisan gods will perform? How does religionism test for supernatural events? Show us the magic. Provide an observation of a godly performed supernatural event. A magic trick by any of the Gods will do. Pick one of your choosing. Then, make a prediction as to what magic those gods will do next. Post your data.

Thanks.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts that closely related biological organisms will share a large amount of the same genetic material. The theory predicts that biological organisms, even those of the same species, will develop physical traits that enable survival of that species due to the unique geography and environment in which those organisms live. This was a part of the work Origins of Species clearly demonstrated. Need more?Evolutionary theory predicts an ordering of the fossil record, in which mammals, for instance, never appear before the first reptiles. Anything you want to cut and paste from AIG to counter the above?

So, I'm anxious to see what religionism can offer as comparable theory and observations.

Show us the magic. Demand a consortium of the gods pull a rabbit out of a hat. That should be easy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Those in religionism typically screech as you do,

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is one of many reasons why religious extremists tend to get angry and emotive when the evidence is presented. They feel their gods are threatened with obsolescence so they hurl slogans that are typical for religion'istas.

As well as evolutionary theory being falsifiable, predictions can be made using evolutionary theory. You will be shocked to learn that predictions are based on observations of the evidence, as are the predictions of any scientific theory. In the realm of science, observations are collected, then a theory is proposed to explain them. The theory is then tested by comparing the predictions with further observations.

How does religionism make predictions about the supernatural what magic tricks its partisan gods will perform? How does religionism test for supernatural events? Show us the magic. Provide an observation of a godly performed supernatural event. A magic trick by any of the Gods will do. Pick one of your choosing. Then, make a prediction as to what magic those gods will do next. Post your data.

Thanks.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts that closely related biological organisms will share a large amount of the same genetic material. The theory predicts that biological organisms, even those of the same species, will develop physical traits that enable survival of that species due to the unique geography and environment in which those organisms live. This was a part of the work Origins of Species clearly demonstrated. Need more?Evolutionary theory predicts an ordering of the fossil record, in which mammals, for instance, never appear before the first reptiles. Anything you want to cut and paste from AIG to counter the above?

So, I'm anxious to see what religionism can offer as comparable theory and observations.

Show us the magic. Demand a consortium of the gods pull a rabbit out of a hat. That should be easy.

Wow, that's weird. In reply to nine words you posted five long paragraphs

But none of it said what the supposed evidence for Darwinism you speak of is, nor what predictions Darwinian theory makes that could not also be made by Pastafarianism.

For example Pastafarianism predicts that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will bless the creatures it creates with traits needed for survival and will change them when conditions change.

And. . . . without adherents of Pastafarianism gluing moths to trees! (See the thread on hoaxes later)

 

[Dadoalex]

I don't need a competing theory to know that Darwinian evolution is unlikely.

If a guy is accused of killing his wife, does he have to offer a "competing suspect" or is it enough to point out that the accuser has zero evidence and the accusation is based only on speculation and lack of other suspects?

If you have only one theory then that is the MOST LIKELY unless, of course, you have another theory.

To say "Darwinian evolution is unlikely" is to state clearly SOMETHING ELSE IS MORE LIKELY.

Why are you afraid to state what you believe?

 

[Hollie]

Wow, that's weird. In reply to nine words you posted five long paragraphs

But none of it said what the supposed evidence for Darwinism you speak of is, nor what predictions Darwinian theory makes that could not also be made by Pastafarianism.

For example Pastafarianism predicts that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will bless the creatures it creates with traits needed for survival and will change them when conditions change.

And. . . . without adherents of Pastafarianism gluing moths to trees! (See the thread on hoaxes later)

Even weirder, well, not really, you failed to refute a single example I provided showing the evidence for evolution. That's actually pretty typical for religionists. They're presented with evidence for science related matters and they retreat to silly slogans.

One of the great hoaxes of religionism involves the inability of the religioners to support the acts of magic and supernaturalism they attach to their gods.

On the other hand, in the world of rationality and reason, biological evolution is observed and makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record. Elements like genetic sequences, comparative anatomy and geographical distribution of species are predicted and observed. These predictions have been verified many times over.

But here we are with the religioner flailing about as his inability to offer a coherent comment overtakes him.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you have only one theory then that is the MOST LIKELY unless, of course, you have another theory.

To say "Darwinian evolution is unlikely" is to state clearly SOMETHING ELSE IS MORE LIKELY.

Why are you afraid to state what you believe?

No, not at all.

Darwinian evolution is unlikely. That's what I believe.

If an unlikely theory is the only one, it is still unlikely.

I guess you could say that IF (big if) Darwinian theory is the only theory, then it is the most likely. But it is also the least likely, since it is the only theory (IF it is the only theory).

So, all that remains is for you to prove that Darwinism is the only theory. Or at least state as a fact that Darwinism is the only theory. Then I can pick that statement apart.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, that's weird. In reply to nine words you posted five long paragraphs

But none of it said what the supposed evidence for Darwinism you speak of is, nor what predictions Darwinian theory makes that could not also be made by Pastafarianism.

For example Pastafarianism predicts that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will bless the creatures it creates with traits needed for survival and will change them when conditions change.

And. . . . without adherents of Pastafarianism gluing moths to trees! (See the thread on hoaxes later)

So, I'm curious about something. When Noah docked his Chris-Craft, the dinosaurs and all living creatures disembarked, he and his immediate family were tasked by the gods with repopulating the planet. Now, that would have required incestuous and familial relations. The biology classes I take show some really negative consequences for those relations.

What magic did the gods use to address that?

 

[Hollie]

No, not at all.

Darwinian evolution is unlikely. That's what I believe.

If an unlikely theory is the only one, it is still unlikely.

I guess you could say that IF (big if) Darwinian theory is the only theory, then it is the most likely. But it is also the least likely, since it is the only theory (IF it is the only theory).

So, all that remains is for you to prove that Darwinism is the only theory. Or at least state as a fact that Darwinism is the only theory. Then I can pick that statement apart.

Did Michael Behe require you to recruit for the Disco'tute?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Even weirder, well, not really, you failed to refute a single example I provided showing the evidence for evolution. That's actually pretty typical for religionists. They're presented with evidence for science related matters and they retreat to silly slogans.

One of the great hoaxes of religionism involves the inability of the religioners to support the acts of magic and supernaturalism they attach to their gods.

On the other hand, in the world of rationality and reason, biological evolution is observed and makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record. Elements like genetic sequences, comparative anatomy and geographical distribution of species are predicted and observed. These predictions have been verified many times over.

But here we are with the religioner flailing about as his inability to offer a coherent comment overtakes him.

Ok, I'll dissect the two rather lame items you claim are evidence for Darwinism, to the exclusion of any other theory:

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts that closely related biological organisms will share a large amount of the same genetic material.

LoL! What are closely related biological organisms, if not organisms that share a large amount of the same genetic material? So that is no "prediction," it is a definition.

The theory predicts that biological organisms, even those of the same species, will develop physical traits that enable survival of that species due to the unique geography and environment in which those organisms live.

They haven't "developed" those physical traits. Not in human observation and certainly never "as predicted." Or, if I'm wrong give documented examples of species that developed new physical traits after Evolutionary theorists predicted they would.

What happens - very rarely - is that the environment changes, such as a darkening of colors, and then an existing trait, such as a a darker color than most members of the species, allows darker individuals to survive and reproduce more efficiently than their lighter cousins, thus increasing the numbers of darker individuals.

That's not evolution, because that is not a new species. If the environment lightens up in color, the lighter color individuals will once again thrive.

You can't claim "survival of the fittest," if your evidence that they are the fittest is that they survived. Pure circular reasoning.

Even trying to prove that circular reasoning actually happened, Darwinists resorted to fakery, as I will talk about in the Scientific Hoaxes thread.

If it is the same species, that is not Darwinism. Darwinism is "Origin of Species via Natural Selection." To prove or even weakly support Darwinism, you would need to show a new species arising from an existing species via natural selection. Darwin claimed that happened hundreds of millions of times. Show some recent documented examples.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So, I'm curious about something. When Noah docked his Chris-Craft, the dinosaurs and all living creatures disembarked, he and his immediate family were tasked by the gods with repopulating the planet. Now, that would have required incestuous and familial relations. The biology classes I take show some really negative consequences for those relations.

What magic did the gods use to address that?

Never thought of any of that. I'm not a believer in Noah's Ark, and none of my cousins were very cute.

 

[Hollie]

Ok, I'll dissect the two rather lame items you claim are evidence for Darwinism, to the exclusion of any other theory:

On the other hand, evolutionary theory predicts that closely related biological organisms will share a large amount of the same genetic material.

LoL! What are closely related biological organisms, if not organisms that share a large amount of the same genetic material? So that is no "prediction," it is a definition.

The theory predicts that biological organisms, even those of the same species, will develop physical traits that enable survival of that species due to the unique geography and environment in which those organisms live.

They haven't "developed" those physical traits. Not in human observation and certainly never "as predicted." Or, if I'm wrong give documented examples of species that developed new physical traits after Evolutionary theorists predicted they would.

What happens - very rarely - is that the environment changes, such as a darkening of colors, and then an existing trait, such as a a darker color than most members of the species, allows darker individuals to survive and reproduce more efficiently than their lighter cousins, thus increasing the numbers of darker individuals.

That's not evolution, because that is not a new species. If the environment lightens up in color, the lighter color individuals will once again thrive.

You can't claim "survival of the fittest," if your evidence that they are the fittest is that they survived. Pure circular reasoning.

Even trying to prove that circular reasoning actually happened, Darwinists resorted to fakery, as I will talk about in the Scientific Hoaxes thread.

If it is the same species, that is not Darwinism. Darwinism is "Origin of Species via Natural Selection." To prove or even weakly support Darwinism, you would need to show a new species arising from an existing species via natural selection. Darwin claimed that happened hundreds of millions of times. Show some recent documented examples.

LOL that was lame.

You never showed the magic. Evolutionary biology makes predictions. Why can't your gods?

A History of Religious Hoaxes

When fraud mixes with religious fervor, as happens in religious hoaxes, the results can range from the comical to the deadly.

www.livescience.com

The Shroud of Turin and Other Holy Relics

Though many believe that Italy's Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus, there's compelling evidence the shroud is in fact a hoax, including a 1389 letter from French Bishop Pierre d'Arcisto Pope Clement stating that a painter confessed to creating it. Indeed, the Bishop's evidence was so convincing that even Pope Clement acknowledged it as a forgery — one of countless faked religious relics circulating at the time. Carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin revealed it does not date back to the time of Christ but instead 14 centuries later — exactly when the forger confessed to making it. Even more damning for its authenticity, there is no record of its existence before then; if it really is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, it seems suspicious that no one knew anything about it for 1,300 years. Though many remain convinced of its authenticity, the historical and scientific evidence suggest the Shroud of Turin is probably a religious hoax. As researcher Joe Nickell noted in his book "Relics of the Christ" (The University Press of Kentucky, 2007),the shroud on display in Turin is only one of over 40 such Jesus shrouds — all claimed to be the real one. [Who Was Jesus, the Man?]

 

[Hollie]

Never thought of any of that.

Not something they teach at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah?

 

[Seymour Flops]

LOL that was lame.

You never showed the magic. Evolutionary biology makes predictions.

Ok.

Make one.

Please tell us when it will come true, so we can check.

 

[Hollie]

Ok.

Make one.

Please tell us when it will come true, so we can check.

Don't know how you missed the many examples I gave you.

Denial on your part is pretty typical.

 

[Hollie]

A History of Religious Hoaxes

When fraud mixes with religious fervor, as happens in religious hoaxes, the results can range from the comical to the deadly.

www.livescience.com

The Discovery of Noah's Ark

Those seeking to find archaeological and historical proof of events in the Bible have often looked for — and, some claim, even found — Noah's Ark. Though many claims of finding the ark are honest mistakes, in 1993 a man hoaxed CBS television into running atwo-hour primetime special titled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." It featured a man named George Jammal, who claimed to have found the ark on a mountain in Turkey. As proof of his incredible claim, he proudly displayed a piece of wood from the ark; it was in fact scrap pine marinated in soy sauce, and Jammal was an actor who had never even been to Turkey.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Don't know how you missed the many examples I gave you.

Denial on your part is pretty typical.

You gave me examples of things that already happened. That's not a prediction.

Make a prediction for the future.

Until you do, we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Hollie]

You gave me examples of things that already happened. That's not a prediction.

Make a prediction for the future.

Until you do, we have nothing to talk about.

A tactic I've seen before. Quit before you're fired.

Aside from the many examples I gave you, you were told to provide some examples of magic tricks by your gods.

Where are the examples of those tricks?

 

[Hollie]

I love science.

There is no evidence for Darwinism.

"... because that's what they tell me at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah''

That is quite a compelling argument.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The London Peppered Moth Hoax​

This one is the unique in the history of evolution hoaxes in that it was (and still is in some textbooks) touted as not just an example of evolution, but as downright proof of Darwinianism.

My source is not the Creationist Institute, nor the Flat Earth Society, nor the Association of American TeeVee preachers. No, my source is the New York Times.

The Times was late to the story of the London Peppered Moth Hoax. I read about it being a hoax when I was a kid, soon after I read about it being factual in my 6th grade science book (I was such a little skeptic). But NYT ran it like breaking news so at least the Dems on here will believe it:

A leading example of evolution given in biology textbooks has come unglued, evoking jeers and jubilation in the camp of creationists, who have been trying for years to expel Darwin from the classroom.

The case is that of the peppered moth, which over the course of a few decades has changed its wing color from pale-peppered to black and back to peppered again in parallel with the rise and fall of industrial pollution.

Textbook writers have long held that the dark form of the moth grew much more common when soot from industrial activity blackened the trees and killed the lichens, making the pale form more conspicuous to birds. But with the passage of clean air laws, the lichens returned, the pale form regained its camouflage, and the black form reverted to rarity.

This account of events became an instant hit with Darwinian advocates. The story caught evolution in unusually speedy action, and flagged bird predation as the mechanism of natural selection that drove it. The moths made a striking illustration because in a typical pair of photographs, one with lichen covering a tree trunk and the other with soot, the reader could hardly spot the pale moth in the first or the dark form in the second, and it was easy to imagine a bird being similarly deceived.

Example provided by OP:

For generations of biologists reared on the peppered moth story as perfect proof of Darwin's theory, it came as a shock to learn of certain problems the textbooks ignored and which a new book is interpreting in sinister light.

For one thing, the moths in the famous photos were not alive. Like the parrot in the Monty Python skit, they were ex-moths, winged members of the choir invisible, firmly glued or pinned to their perches.

And they were glued in place for good reason: the peppered moth almost never rests on tree trunks, its preferred hideaway probably being under twigs in the high canopy of trees.

''My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve,'' wrote Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, in a 1998 review of a book, ''Melanism: Evolution in Action,'' which noted the moth photos were staged.

Oh noooooes! There's no Santa Claus, and no proof of Darwinism either?

How sad for them . . .

Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case (Published 2002)

Article on theory of moth evolution, put forward from mid 1950's onward by Oxford University researcher Dr Bernard Kettlewell, that has been debunked; textbook writers, apparently with no intent to deceive, failed to mention that famous photographs of peppered moths that changed wing color to...

www.nytimes.com