Jump to content
Science Forums

Evolution Lie


TINNY
 Share

Recommended Posts

You've all heard about the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man right? So what was the motive behind all of this? Why did it receive so much coverage when it was discovered and though as true; and receive almost zilch attention when it was proven a hoax? Why were certain scientists so desperate to show man's link towards apes? And of course, to be fair, some are also desperate to refute evolution with naivety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

YOu will find in both of these cases it was a matter of personal recognition. That the ones that invented these frauds were looking for personal recognition rather than trying to promote Evolution. Theey wanted to be famous. Expecting a less than completely critical evaulation of the "finds". But Science does not cut any slack regardless of whether the "proofs" are for or against things held by Science.

 

IOW Science is self correcting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta do better than that to convince me.

Corrections/refutations are also scientific discoveries you know.

 

Convince you about what, Tinny? It seems you are implying that when a scientific hoax is revealed, some sort of conspiracy sets in.

 

Often what happens when a hoax is revealed is that a) the people behond it lose all credibility, :wink: the institutes/organisations they represent kick them out or go throug some sort of internal procedure to find out "how this could happen" and - most importantly - c) media lose interest.

 

Look at the cold fusion hoax. It is an example of the exact opposite: a lot of noise was created and the two people behind it had to step back and lost all their credibility. Yet the case is still used as an example of what can happen if you don't study your results well enough.

 

The two examples you have used are discussed in detail in books and papers, and are mostly out of the public eye because people don't bother about them anymore (they were hoaxes!). It was not science that went wrong, but the "scientists" who tried to fake their way into the limelight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Convince you about what, Tinny?

Convince me of this:

It is always the intial findings that get the exposure. Corrections and refutations are usually ignored or at best covered at a very minimal level. It just doesn't make the headlines as exciting.

 

How come media lose interest? I just can't throw out the notion that there might be a sort of conspiracy when the media selectively chooses what they want people to know and not know.

What about UFO hoaxes. They sure get a lot of attention from the media and consequently the public. There are even TV shows and CDs about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come media lose interest? I just can't throw out the notion that there might be a sort of conspiracy when the media selectively chooses what they want people to know and not know.

 

What about UFO hoaxes. They sure get a lot of attention from the media and consequently the public. There are even TV shows and CDs about them.

 

For there to be a conspiracy, we must assume that all media are conspiring together to stop bringing you news. I wouldn't bet on it - they are in a very competitive market and will only bring you what they think you are willing to pay for.

 

That's why there are TV shows about UFOs. These are hoaxes of a different kind - it is a completely different discussion. It's not like someone found a UFO through scientific method. It is pure superstition, it is stunning to a lot of people, and especially when they think there is a government cover-up - it will sell like candy.

 

Note that no serious scientific magazine or science reporter would cover a UFO story except if someone published a scientific study to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For there to be a conspiracy, we must assume that all media are conspiring together to stop bringing you news. I wouldn't bet on it - they are in a very competitive market and will only bring you what they think you are willing to pay for.
The media companies also have to protect their image and reputation. If they publish stories that don't support evolution, then evolutionists will say that that company is unreliable or anti-evolutionist, thus will likely not accept any other news from that media in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainstream massmedia are more eager to report things that makes sensational headlines. A while back they reported a suspicious radio signal that was not explained and therefor it could be a message from an alien civilization. It turned out to be nothing too exciting, and massmedia didn't report that quite as enthusiastically. They are in general very bad at reporting scientific findings, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back they reported a suspicious radio signal that was not explained and therefor it could be a message from an alien civilization. It turned out to be nothing too exciting, and massmedia didn't report that quite as enthusiastically
Do you mean the mass media was ecstatic about the suspicion and didn't bother about it when it was found to be false? I'm sure it didn't grab the headlines as much as Piltdown Man.
They are in general very bad at reporting scientific findings, btw.
Couldn't agree more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got a thing about piltdown man!

 

I doubt that piltdown man received anywhere near the coverage of things like the radio signal from aliens if for no other reason than the media was not what it is today. Distribution of news was far less efficient. No AP newswire. And definately no bloggers! :-)

 

And the couple of false claims made by people trying to get a name in actual science is nothing compared to the continual stream of lies from the Creationists. And when the few false claims like piltdown man are promoted they are disproven by the same process, science. While Creationists never stop using the same lies no matter how often the lie is exposed.

 

Scientists just are not as dedicated to lying as Creationists are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the couple of false claims made by people trying to get a name in actual science is nothing compared to the continual stream of lies from the Creationists

Yeah, they lie too. But they don't make their way into mass media that well compared to evolutionist speculations. Agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media companies also have to protect their image and reputation. If they publish stories that don't support evolution, then evolutionists will say that that company is unreliable or anti-evolutionist, thus will likely not accept any other news from that media in the future.

In the US more people accept Creationism right now than accept true Evolution. So it is absurd to suggest the media is intentionally promoting Evolution over Creationism for Capitalistic/ financial gain/ reasons.

 

e.g. when the stories hit about some Fundy succesfully infiltrating a school board and getting Evolution removed from Science education, the mdeia does not point out how factually supportable Evolution is, esp when compared to Creationism. Nope, they just publish the headlines about how the little David is attacking the Goliath of Evolution.

 

You want an example of the intentionally headline bias?

 

Remember the research a few years ago (perhaps you were too young?) which first claimed to prove that intercessory prayer helped heart patients? When the first press releases hit, they captured the front pages of almost every newspaper and mag, including Time mag. When the press release was shown to be a fraud. That the report ignorned the details which showed no actual statistical correlation, the media was almost totally silent. A few back page mentions. But not a single froint page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they lie too. But they don't make their way into mass media that well compared to evolutionist speculations. Agree?

WRONG!

 

Which got more press, in fact which is STILL getting more press? Yapping about some "God Gene" (which is always in the news and has been for some time now) or the discovery of Homo floresiensis

 

 

In a Googlebattle

 

Homo floresiensis VS. god gene

Homo floresiensis 59,400 (view)

god gene 2,060,000 (view)

Total Pages Searched: 2,119,400

GoogleBattle winner is god gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...