An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... qiyRo&NR=1

Scientist and Doctor's, discuss the Javaman Hoax, the Piltdown man Hoax, the Lucy Hoax and several others that are still used as evidence that Man evolved from lower forms of life. Even National Geographic admits that fossilized foot prints used as evidence of evolution resembles modern man foot prints exactly. Did Modern man exist millions of years ago? I don't think so.

This is not funny! Evolutionist continue to dupe the public with Hoaxes that they claim is evidence of evolution. Like the horse for example that has been proven a Hoax decades ago. Yet is still used in text books to teach evolution as fact. What is funny is that evolutionist claim that creationist are not being scientific?

What?????? Creationist are not the ones creating Hoaxes to prove their point. If anything creationist are acting more scientific in representing the facts than evolutionary scientist are.

[crispybits]

Can you provide evidence of a current science text book that claims Javaman or Piltdown Man or Lucy is evidence of a missing link between Homo Sapiens and previous evolutionary forms of human being Viceroy? I did science right up to university level, and I don't remember reading anything claiming that we'd identified a missing link in a text book (mostly those stories are media driven, and media reporting on scientific advances tends to be premature and sensationalist a lot of the time)

There may be text books from the mid 20th century that make these sorts of claims but I very much doubt there's anything currently in a text book (say from the last decade as these books get used for around 10 years on average then replaced) claiming any of these hoaxes are scientifically sound evidence of anything beyond humanities ability to hoax.

[SirSebstar]

Can you provide evidence of a current science text book that claims Javaman or Piltdown Man or Lucy is evidence of a missing link between Homo Sapiens and previous evolutionary forms of human being Viceroy? I did science right up to university level, and I don't remember reading anything claiming that we'd identified a missing link in a text book (mostly those stories are media driven, and media reporting on scientific advances tends to be premature and sensationalist a lot of the time)

There may be text books from the mid 20th century that make these sorts of claims but I very much doubt there's anything currently in a text book (say from the last decade as these books get used for around 10 years on average then replaced) claiming any of these hoaxes are scientifically sound evidence of anything beyond humanities ability to hoax.

considering he uses a 1700 year old book (First Council of Nicaea) i guess his print is a bit out of date. Wrong language and translation too, but then you cannot expect american scholing to stay with current events

[AAFitz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... qiyRo&NR=1

Scientist and Doctor's, discuss the Javaman Hoax, the Piltdown man Hoax, the Lucy Hoax and several others that are still used as evidence that Man evolved from lower forms of life. Even National Geographic admits that fossilized foot prints used as evidence of evolution resembles modern man foot prints exactly. Did Modern man exist millions of years ago? I don't think so.

This is not funny! Evolutionist continue to dupe the public with Hoaxes that they claim is evidence of evolution. Like the horse for example that has been proven a Hoax decades ago. Yet is still used in text books to teach evolution as fact. What is funny is that evolutionist claim that creationist are not being scientific?

What?????? Creationist are not the ones creating Hoaxes to prove their point. If anything creationist are acting more scientific in representing the facts than evolutionary scientist are.

You are acting(your word) scientific to create(right word) the facts you mean.

[SirSebstar]

Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.

[oss spy]

I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

[Viceroy63]

I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME! It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

In fact I dare you to post that evidence. I will refute it here one at a time.

All that scientist and biologist have been able to show is MUTATIONS. And most of the times mutations have been harmful to the life organism. When we speak of a virus mutating into another type of virus or adaptations to the original virus or germ, guess what, It is still just a virus or a germ. It did not evolve into a more complex and different animal/life/organism. So what evolution did we actually see in a laboratory? None! Black and white humans are mutations of the same species. So what?

Part of the problem is that evolutionary science can't even determine the definition of it's own words and confuse mutation with Darwinian evolution. Hell, evolutionary science has yet to determine what the word "Species" means? Even among themselves they can't get the meaning right on the words that they use and they call that evidence?

I think that it's all part of the Hoax to confuse people into believing in evolution. I think that you must have more faith to believe in a foundation-less theory of evolution than to believe in a Creator God. At least God has a foundation. The theory of evolution is a foundation-less religion! And it requires much faith and a closed mind to believe in it.

[AndyDufresne]

I always enjoy SciShow's videos.


--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME!

Yes it has.
And even if it hadn't, that wouldn't make it any less true. That's not how science works.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory.

If you're going to criticize something, you should at least be familiar with it.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/lite ... ruit_flies
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121625.htm

I'm sure you'll read and understand those links, but don't worry, I'm not expecting much from you.

[PLAYER57832]

It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

You have already been given links to several thousand transition species.. and when you repeated claims they do not exist, you were asked what you think a transition species means or would be like, but you refuse to even answer.

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

Hmm... well, the words "every time" is pretty much a trap. You wish to claim that every single scientific claim every made about evolution is "just wrong".
Were is your evidence of this?

Simply pretending that information you dislike is not available is not the scientific process. Science requires that you actually address evidence. You have not.

[oss spy]

I think that the only time an argument from ignorance isn't a fallacy is in the case of being skeptical towards an unproven claim. However, I think that these creationists need to realize that there's a staggering amount of material that needs refutation; even if we are to assume that no transitional fossils exist, there is still the matter of evolution being observed in laboratories (i.e. bacteria becoming more resistant to a specific drug, bacteria being able to live off other sources of nutrients, etc.)

Evolution has never been observed in a Laboratory. Evolutionist make these claims of so much overwhelming evidence but actually are confusing one thing with another. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL AT ANY TIME! It is after all the fossil record that is used to prove evolution yet where are the intermediate species between Ape and Man? Or any other species. You just can't show the bones of an ape and the bones of a modern man and say, "See, evolution."

Every time that scientist have showed this in the fossil records, it has been a Hoax or at the very least a very bad misrepresentation of the facts. But the fact that most of the evidence has been a Hoax must leads one to ask, Why? Why do scientist ever need to lie or mislead the public instead of just admitting that there is no evidence to support this claim?

In fact I dare you to post that evidence. I will refute it here one at a time.

All that scientist and biologist have been able to show is MUTATIONS. And most of the times mutations have been harmful to the life organism. When we speak of a virus mutating into another type of virus or adaptations to the original virus or germ, guess what, It is still just a virus or a germ. It did not evolve into a more complex and different animal/life/organism. So what evolution did we actually see in a laboratory? None! Black and white humans are mutations of the same species. So what?

Part of the problem is that evolutionary science can't even determine the definition of it's own words and confuse mutation with Darwinian evolution. Hell, evolutionary science has yet to determine what the word "Species" means? Even among themselves they can't get the meaning right on the words that they use and they call that evidence?

I think that it's all part of the Hoax to confuse people into believing in evolution. I think that you must have more faith to believe in a foundation-less theory of evolution than to believe in a Creator God. At least God has a foundation. The theory of evolution is a foundation-less religion! And it requires much faith and a closed mind to believe in it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 04_03.html
http://www.icr.org/article/14/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/r ... tics.shtml
http://www.discoverymedicine.com/R-Crai ... t-context/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... f_evolving
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/


Good luck.

[Viceroy63]

Once more I provide links and sources to the fact that the theory of evolution is an unfounded and unproven hypothesis. It is not fact. This is not just me saying this but people who actually studied this and have degrees and doctorates from prestigious schools and universities. This one goes out to all you open minded folks who can see the obviousness of the truth. May these articles continue to found and to ground your faith in the truth and not in lies and scientific Hoaxes.

This is a slightly edited version of the article. This article can be read in it's entirety at:
http://unmaskingevolution.com/25-human.htm



This drawing should be very familiar. It is found in many science and evolution textbooks, and is exhibited at museum displays about human evolution. But...... is it really factual?

What are the facts that scientists really know about human evolution? A useful resource to find an answer to this question is Ian Tattersall's book, "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution". The book describes the facts and the fiction surrounding human origins while providing an overview of discoveries since Darwin's time.

These are the general facts that can be gleaned from the book:-

(1) Human-like fossils have been found in rocks, caves, dry lakes, glaciers, and other sites

(2) Some fossils have been found inside caves, while others have been found near building remains

(3) These fossils have been found in different spots around the world

(4) These fossils have been found in a variety of rock types and at varying depths

(5) Most fossils have been found as scattered bits and pieces

(6) Only a tiny number of complete skeletons have been found

(7) There is a great deal of variety in these human-like fossils

(8) Tools that could have been made by humans have been found with many of these fossils

(9) The tools have been constructed of various materials - stone, bone, wood, antler and metal

(10) The age of fossils and materials older than recorded history (about 2,500 years) are not known

(11) Fossils and materials of unknown age have dates estimated using indirect methods

These are the general facts of human evolution. There are many instances of specific facts describing isolated instances, but these do not lend weight to the overall picture.

Everything else that is said to be 'known' about human evolution is based on scientist's interpretation of this archaeological and fossil evidence. It is obvious then, that, most of what is said to be fact is informed speculation.

Much of this speculative interpretation is coloured by the evolutionary biases of the experts. The back cover of Tattersall's book describes the book as revealing "the insidious ways that received wisdom can shape how we interpret fossil findings, and how what we expect to find colours our understanding of what we do find."

Despite knowing this, TV documentaries, journal articles, news media and school textbooks fill out the few facts with scientist's interpretations, and the whole lot is presented as indisputable fact. Small wonder that students think that scientists have proved that humans evolved and that they know everything about how that evolution happened. John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas make this point:-

"Many ordinary people, reading the works of a single popularizer, believe that the riddle of human origins has been solved. In no case is this true, and all the ideas in print today - including our own - are more or less naked speculation."
(1982) "The Monkey Puzzle", Bodley Head: London, p:160

Ian Tattersall's book is revealing because it outlines both the facts and the fiction - a rare event indeed. Unfortunately, Tattersall like all evolutionists, regularly slips into the mistake of describing guesses as fact. Despite this lapse, the book reveals the truth very candidly.

So what should we regard as the real facts of human evolution? Only those things that can be directly observed can be considered to be facts, not the interpretation of those facts.

Remember, human evolution is an historical hypothesis, and history cannot be proven without an observer's or witnesses' input. Human evolution has no observer's or witnesses' record, so it cannot be scientifically proven. Tattersall agrees, and makes this point:-

"It's not actually possible to prove ancestry" Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York p:169

Modern 'proofs' of human evolution using cladograms are not proofs in the true sense of the word - ie the type that comes from an examination of the facts using the scientific method. Instead, they are statistical probability diagrams that lend weight to a theory. They can never prove a theory in the way that applying a universal law to a scenario can produce proof.

It is true to say that the foundation of scientific development is the formulation of hypotheses and theories. This activity must never be stifled as any restrictions on speculation would stifle scientific progress. However, it is the regard of hypotheses and theories as absolute fact that flies in the face of the scientific method and true scientific research.

Hypotheses are OK - so long as they are spoken of, taught as, propagated as, and written about, as hypotheses - not FACT. Human evolution, therefore, remains unproven - the facts just aren't there.

NOTE: As a scientist, formerly involved in research, I know that claims of fact without indisputable proof would not be tolerated in most branches of experimental science. In medicine, health and nutrition, for example, scientists would be deregistered, de-frocked, disbarred and sued for propagating theory as fact. Paleoanthropology (the study of ancient humans) appears to be one field where such rules of factual integrity are deliberately and universally ignored.

SOURCE: Ian Tattersall (1995), "The Fossil Trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution", Oxford University Press: New York

[betiko]

blablabla! no one has time to read your posts viceroy, nor plays your videos.
which monkey from your signature is closest to your humanoid form?

[betiko]

LMAO at the voting instuction. "Lets vote on the facts". F'in creationists.

I vote the earth is flat, and the moon is cheese, swiss cheese...obviously.

it's actually french cheese. I can quote doctor morris, he wrote a book about it.

It's made of parmesan you blasphemers!

absolutely not, do you really want me to quote doctor morris who has a PHD (in something)????