Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 03-22-2002, 09:32 PM

randman,

The funny thing about the Scopes Trial was that the entire thing was a hoax created to stir up publicity for the decaying town. It worked. There was so much press about the trial that tourists streamed into the city. Have you ever wondered how Scopes got away on a technicality?

Check out the introduction on this web page about the trial.

<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm</a>

-RvFvS

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

randman · 03-22-2002, 10:04 PM

Well, I can beleive the trial was a hoax too, one that worked oddly.

Let me say that I may have been wrong on the Nebraska man being read into the trial. I have looked at some contradictory sources to doublecheck on it, and as far as the trial itself, I am not sure it was used, and could be wrong there.

It was defintely depicted on the front page of the London Illustrated Times, which undoubtedly had an impact on the public. In general, I think the use of pictures has clouded the issue in the evolution debate, and as anyone that reads my posts knows, that is putting it very mildly.

Sorry about the trial mix-up. I do think though that there has been a lot of disinformation concerning potential missing links like Neandethals, etc,..historically, and that the public was left with misconceptions. If it is true that some have streched the truth in lambasting these hoaxes and errors, and it looks that way, that too should be corrected.

scigirl · 03-22-2002, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The impact of the Scopes Monkey trial was the media campaign associated with it, and that was fairly obvious.

Well maybe you should stop looking to the media for science, and actually read science books.

scigirl

scigirl · 03-22-2002, 10:11 PM

Randman,

BTW, make sure you check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000505" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000505</a>

since I had to retype it once, and it took a lot of time and effort on my part and it was written with you in mind.

scigirl

randman · 03-22-2002, 10:27 PM

Would "Ramapithecus" have been listed in those science books before 1982.
I hadn't even realized "Ramapithecus" was no longer considered valid. It's worse than I thought. A whole lot of what was taught as evidence back in the 70s was wrong. It makes me wonder how much that is being taught now will be considered wrong 20 years from now. Keep in mind that we are talking about major pieces of evidence for evolution, not simply peripheal issues.

<a href="http://www.ummah.net/bicnews/BICNews/Yahya/yahya2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ummah.net/bicnews/BICNews/Yahya/yahya2.htm</a>

scigirl · 03-22-2002, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
A whole lot of what was taught as evidence back in the 70s was wrong. It makes me wonder how much that is being taught now will be considered wrong 20 years from now.

The answer is: Plenty, I hope.

that is, science should keep progressing. It should keep testing things, keep asking questions, keep refining its theories. And as you have witnessed, science does just that.

Now religion on the other hand. . . the Bible has remained the same for hundreds of years. And you believe THAT over a science book that is constantly being changed, updated, and evaluated by people who spend their lives studying the subject matter?

And you think WE are silly? Hmm. . .

scigirl

x-member · 03-22-2002, 10:36 PM

Randman:

Dinousaurs never became extinct. They evolved. We don't see them now because they've become what are known as Reptoids. They primarly live in a subterainian complex in Antarctica.

<a href="http://www.reptoids.com" target="_blank">www.reptoids.com</a>

Phear the Reptoids

scigirl · 03-22-2002, 10:39 PM

Randman,

A lot of people are surprised at the way knowledge is taught in elementary and high school, and then the way it is taught in college.

Then they go to grad school and realize that even their undergrad was simplified, or "dumbed down." I learned how to do physics on "frictionless spherical cows." But then again, I don't need to know physics at the level that a NASA engineer does.

You yourself stated this happens in other fields as well, like in history. So obviously the fact that you were "lied to" about evolution isn't so much a function of evolutionists, but more a function of the difficulty of teaching a changing set of facts to a group of kids usually more interested in the prom than in school. Do we at least agree on that point?

So now that you have identified the problem of learning and knowledge - how do you propose we teach kids, and what do we teach them?

What I think you are suggesting - to throw out the science, and to replace it with a myth that most religions recognized ages ago as being an allegory and not the literal truth - well I just don't understand it.

scigirl

randman · 03-22-2002, 11:06 PM

The difference is we are talking about the basic facts given to prove evolution. There is a difference in evidence changing, and the evidence being thrown out. Scenarios were, and maybe are still, continually depicted in order to prove evolution as fact basically, and usually even in the statements that it is of course theory, you see things like "nearly all scientists agree with it", "only religious people disagree", etc,..
Well, when you find out that it isn't a matter of oversimplification but false evidence, the right thing to do is say, hey, maybe it is wrong if the evidence given was wrong, and that is what I have done.

randman · 03-22-2002, 11:16 PM

"BASIS OF "FAMILY TREE," ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance....can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.123"

"THEORY DOMINATED DATA, DAVID PILBEAM, Yale, "I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, ‘theory’ - heavily influenced by implicit ideas - almost always dominates ‘data.’ ...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.127"

"UNRELIABLE "TREES," J. LOWENSTEIN & ADRIENE ZIHLMAN, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.783"

"PROVEN? R. C. LEWONTIN, Harvard , "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982] that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harper's, 2/84"

"MARY LEAKEY’S CONCLUSION, According To Associated Press, "Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." 12/9/1996 "

"APES", Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn.S.U., "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They them-selves nevertheless seem to have been apes -morphologically, ecologically, and behaviourally." Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101"

"RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8-million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, 6/1973, p.819"

"Human Brain, Dean Falk, S.U.of N.Y. at Albany, "...KNM-ER 1805 [Homo habilis] should not be attributed to Homo... the shape of the endocast from KNM-ER (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, where as the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human." Science, 221, (9/9/83) p.1073"

"Henry M. McHenry, U. of C., Davis, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens...." Science, Vol.190, p.428"

Audio is found linked to from this site:

<a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-man.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-man.htm</a>

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2002, 09:32 PM	#121
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	randman, The funny thing about the Scopes Trial was that the entire thing was a hoax created to stir up publicity for the decaying town. It worked. There was so much press about the trial that tourists streamed into the city. Have you ever wondered how Scopes got away on a technicality? Check out the introduction on this web page about the trial. <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm</a> -RvFvS [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

03-22-2002, 10:04 PM	#122
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Well, I can beleive the trial was a hoax too, one that worked oddly. Let me say that I may have been wrong on the Nebraska man being read into the trial. I have looked at some contradictory sources to doublecheck on it, and as far as the trial itself, I am not sure it was used, and could be wrong there. It was defintely depicted on the front page of the London Illustrated Times, which undoubtedly had an impact on the public. In general, I think the use of pictures has clouded the issue in the evolution debate, and as anyone that reads my posts knows, that is putting it very mildly. Sorry about the trial mix-up. I do think though that there has been a lot of disinformation concerning potential missing links like Neandethals, etc,..historically, and that the public was left with misconceptions. If it is true that some have streched the truth in lambasting these hoaxes and errors, and it looks that way, that too should be corrected.

03-22-2002, 10:11 PM	#124
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Randman, BTW, make sure you check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000505" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000505</a> since I had to retype it once, and it took a lot of time and effort on my part and it was written with you in mind. scigirl

03-22-2002, 10:27 PM	#125
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Would "Ramapithecus" have been listed in those science books before 1982. I hadn't even realized "Ramapithecus" was no longer considered valid. It's worse than I thought. A whole lot of what was taught as evidence back in the 70s was wrong. It makes me wonder how much that is being taught now will be considered wrong 20 years from now. Keep in mind that we are talking about major pieces of evidence for evolution, not simply peripheal issues. <a href="http://www.ummah.net/bicnews/BICNews/Yahya/yahya2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ummah.net/bicnews/BICNews/Yahya/yahya2.htm</a>

03-22-2002, 10:36 PM	#127
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	Randman: Dinousaurs never became extinct. They evolved. We don't see them now because they've become what are known as Reptoids. They primarly live in a subterainian complex in Antarctica. <a href="http://www.reptoids.com" target="_blank">www.reptoids.com</a> Phear the Reptoids

03-22-2002, 10:39 PM	#128
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Randman, A lot of people are surprised at the way knowledge is taught in elementary and high school, and then the way it is taught in college. Then they go to grad school and realize that even their undergrad was simplified, or "dumbed down." I learned how to do physics on "frictionless spherical cows." But then again, I don't need to know physics at the level that a NASA engineer does. You yourself stated this happens in other fields as well, like in history. So obviously the fact that you were "lied to" about evolution isn't so much a function of evolutionists, but more a function of the difficulty of teaching a changing set of facts to a group of kids usually more interested in the prom than in school. Do we at least agree on that point? So now that you have identified the problem of learning and knowledge - how do you propose we teach kids, and what do we teach them? What I think you are suggesting - to throw out the science, and to replace it with a myth that most religions recognized ages ago as being an allegory and not the literal truth - well I just don't understand it. scigirl

03-22-2002, 11:06 PM	#129
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	The difference is we are talking about the basic facts given to prove evolution. There is a difference in evidence changing, and the evidence being thrown out. Scenarios were, and maybe are still, continually depicted in order to prove evolution as fact basically, and usually even in the statements that it is of course theory, you see things like "nearly all scientists agree with it", "only religious people disagree", etc,.. Well, when you find out that it isn't a matter of oversimplification but false evidence, the right thing to do is say, hey, maybe it is wrong if the evidence given was wrong, and that is what I have done.

03-22-2002, 11:16 PM	#130
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"BASIS OF "FAMILY TREE," ROGER LEWIN, Ed., Research News, Science, "The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance....can be deceptive, partly because similarity of structure does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..." Bones of Contention, 1987, p.123" "THEORY DOMINATED DATA, DAVID PILBEAM, Yale, "I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, ‘theory’ - heavily influenced by implicit ideas - almost always dominates ‘data.’ ...Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.127" "UNRELIABLE "TREES," J. LOWENSTEIN & ADRIENE ZIHLMAN, "But anatomy and the fossil record cannot be relied on for defining evolutionary lineages. Yet, paleontologist persist in doing just this. ...the subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologist advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: there is no single family tree on which they agree." Nature, 1992, Vol.355, p.783" "PROVEN? R. C. LEWONTIN, Harvard , "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982] that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors - we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ...All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there...it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harper's, 2/84" "MARY LEAKEY’S CONCLUSION, According To Associated Press, "Since scientists can never prove a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." 12/9/1996 " "APES", Robert B. Eckhardt, Penn.S.U., "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils... (Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They them-selves nevertheless seem to have been apes -morphologically, ecologically, and behaviourally." Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101" "RUINED FAMILY TREE, "Either we toss out this skull [1470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8-million-year-old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S. B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.", National Geographic, 6/1973, p.819" "Human Brain, Dean Falk, S.U.of N.Y. at Albany, "...KNM-ER 1805 [Homo habilis] should not be attributed to Homo... the shape of the endocast from KNM-ER (basal view) is similar to that from an African pongid, where as the endocast of KNM-ER 1470 is shaped like that of a modern human." Science, 221, (9/9/83) p.1073" "Henry M. McHenry, U. of C., Davis, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens...." Science, Vol.190, p.428" Audio is found linked to from this site: <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-man.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-man.htm</a> [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ] [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ] [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.