The evolution hoax


#1

The following are a few of the fraudulent “missing links” that the evolutionists have given us.

"Nebraska Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Nebraska Man? 100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Maybe 1/10 of a skeleton? Hold on, Nebraska man was reconstructed from a single tooth! What is even more amazing–the tooth turned out to be a pig’s tooth! How could anyone be so gullible as to believe a man could be reconstructed from a tooth? Yet many people placed their faith in Nebraska man until the hoax was exposed.

**Java Man: **How many skeletons do you think were found of Java Man? 100? 50? 25? 10? How about one complete skeleton? How about half a skeleton? Java Man was reconstructed from a skullcap, thighbone, and 2 molar teeth. Dr. Eugene DuBois found the thighbone 50 feet away from the skullcap, but assumed it was the same individual. After discovering human skulls at the same level near his Java Man discovery, he hid the skulls under the floorboards of his bedroom for 26 years. Before his death DuBois confessed that he had not found the missing link and admitted that Java Man was probably a giant gibbon.

Piltdown Man: In 1912 Charles Dawson reconstructed Piltdown Man out of a jaw, 2 molar teeth, and a piece of skull. In 1953 the hoax was exposed. The jawbone turned out to be that of a modern orangutan, the teeth had been filed down and the bones artificially colored to deceive the public. For over 40 years evolutionists promoted his findings as fact. The British Museum has documented other discoveries by Dawson as being fakes. Imagine if you lived during that time, placing your faith in evolution based upon Dawson’s findings. Wouldn’t you be a little upset when you discovered the truth?

**Orce Man: **Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human, but probably came from a 4-month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (“Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Boule’s Neanderthal Man: Reconstructed in 1915. Marcellin Boule wrongly arranged the foot bones so that the big toe diverged from the other toes to look like an opposing thumb. The knee joint was misplaced to give a bent-knee look. The spine was misshapen so it couldn’t stand upright and the head was placed in an unbalanced position too far forward.

Boule’s model of Neanderthal man was placed on display in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago for 44 years before the mistakes were discovered! After the mistakes were disclosed, they kept it on display for another 20 years until they created a new Neanderthal model. What did they do with the old inaccurate model? Instead of throwing it in the garbage can where it belonged, they moved it to the second floor of the museum and displayed a new sign, “An Alternate View of Neanderthal.”

**Archaeoraptor: **"In the November 1999 issue of National Geographic, we encounter “Archaeoraptor”, the latest in the never ending series of supposed missing links. A fossil was supposedly discovered in Liaoning, China, which had a reptile like head, feathers, wings and body, like a bird, and the tail of a reptile. And, by the way, the find was made by two scientists who just happened to be funded by National Geographic!
Usually it takes quite a few years to debunk one of these frauds, but this one fell apart rather quickly. Upon close examination, it was found that some of the bones, which should be between the tail and the body, were missing.

We know now that two separate rock slabs containing fossils had been joined together. So we don’t have a missing link at all. We have fossils of two different animals cleverly joined together. And, by the way, the feathers weren’t feathers either! It is not suggested here that the National Geographic perpetrated the fraud. It is suggested that, in their zeal to spread the evolution myth, they allowed themselves to be duped by a rather simple fraud.

A Science News writer, describing the situation in January, 2000 as follows:

" Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The ‘feathered dinosaur’ specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird…!"

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. Don’t be fooled by the evolution hoax.


#2

**“Another Evolution Fraud Exposed”

**Whether in the form of deliberate hoaxes or misinterpretations of the facts based on pre-conceived biases, practically every “proof” of evolution supplied by Darwin’s supporters has turned out to be false. A notable example of this was provided by German scientist Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s staunchest supporter in nineteenth-century Europe.

To “prove” the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as “ontology recapitulates phylogeny.” In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary “climb” identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo “evolves” from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom.
The problem with Haeckel’s “proof” of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that

Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44).

Most of the scientific establishment, eager to reject the Book of Genesis and embrace Darwin’s myth, uncritically accepted Haeckel’s artwork. Of the very few who knew them to be fraudulent, the most vocal figure was one of the greatest Creation scientists of all time, Louis Agassiz. A professor of zoology at Harvard and the first scientist to discover that the Earth had once been under a “Great Ice Age,” Agassiz had vigorously opposed the introduction of evolutionary teaching at Harvard. The Swiss-born scientist made no bones about Haeckel’s pro-evolution dishonesty. When he examined the book in which Haeckel’s bogus drawings first appeared, Agassiz wrote in the margins that the drawings were “artistically crafted similarities mixed with inaccuracies,” and that “these figures were not drawn from nature, but rather copied one from the other!” He then wrote the word “Atrocious” (p. 48). In the fight that erupted between the two scientists, Gould admitted that

Agassiz generally sticks to the high road, despite ample provocation, by marshaling the facts of his greatest disciplinary expertise (in geology, paleontology, and zoology) to refute Haeckel’s frequent exaggerations and rhetorical inconsistencies. Agassiz may have been exhausted and discouraged, but he could still put up one whale of a fight, even if only in private (pp. 47-48).

Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as “proof” of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:

Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:

…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks! (p. 45, emphasis added)

He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated, “I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically” (p. 45).

These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty.


#3

All scientist can now stop looking…I have found the “Missing Link”

in my SON’S CLOSET. :eek:

I don’t even want to tell you what “alien life form” is living under his bed. :eek: :smiley:


#4

Things like that give us Christians plenty of ammo to show the lengths that pro-evolution folks will go to to foster their pre-suppostitions.

Remember, if we are to be taken seriously, we can’t stoop down to their level in our academics!

We arent’ told in our schools and universities that evolution is only a theory, that science is having grave problems with providing evidence for it. At least, that’s what I understand from my learning about the topic. They just keep on trucking like it’s taken for granted. Like, what else are they going to teach, the Creationist view? Hopefully they won’t teach Open Theism. they probably will eventually.


#5

Scientific evolution is flawed, Christians have the answer in the Bible; according to creationists Charles Darwin stated that he came up with the theory of evolution to discredit the Bible and strangely enough Charles Darwin graduated in theology (how true, I do not know) :confused:

Yours in the Spirit

Pious


#6

[quote=RSiscoe]“Nebraska Man: How many skeletons do you think were found of Nebraska Man?”
[/quote]

Really, you will have to do better than this. If you are going to regurgipost without giving any attribution at least try changing the text around a little bit. It took me all of thirty seconds on Google to find this site where the text bears an uncanny resemblance to the first part of your posting. Please have a bit of respect for your audience. What passes for scolarship in the creationist area is all too often shown to be insufficient when you are not preaching to the choir.

Anyway, to take the points your source makes in order:

Nebraska Man A mistake, corrected within a few years. See here.

Java Man Just one of many Homo erectus fossils. Your source is incorrect about the Gibbon claim.See here. Even AiG has abandoned this one. If you are going to copy then at least copy from up-to-date creationist sites rather than incompetent ones like the one you have chosen here.

Piltdown Man A forgery. Does one forged relic destroy Christianity? Neither does one forgery destroy evolution. There is ample evidence without Piltdown man. Do you have evidence of any current textbook describing Piltdown as anything other than a forgery? See here.

Orce Man Not conclusively identified as human. See here.

Neanderthal Man I am not sure what your source’s point is here. An early reconstruction was wrong, so what is the problem? Perhaps you ought to ask the site what their point is and let us know.

At this point your original source stops. However, once again Google is my friend. You have once again copied your post without attribution, this time from this site. Do you really have such a low opinion of us that you think we are incapable of detecting regurgiposting when we see it? Remember that you are not preaching to the choir here.

Archaeoraptor Yes it was a mosaic of two separate (and interesting) fossils. It was never published in any peer-reviewed journal. National Geographic got a lot of egg on their faces for jumping the gun. It was the scientists who had doubts and were telling NG not to publish, see here. How is this a problem for science? Science was doing what it is meant to, detecting incorrect data.

I shan’t bother replying in detail to your other regurgipost, it would probably be easier to e-mail the site involved directly if I could be bothered. Your post #2 comes from here. The standard response is here.

[quote=RSiscoe]These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement
[/quote]

I think at this point I am allowed to say “These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the creationist movement”.

I was not at all impressed by your ability to regurgipost. Next time please do us all the courtesy of actually writing down your own arguments in your own words.

rossum


#7

I compliment RSiscoe on presenting post #1. Here is the critical part of it:
“To “prove” the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as “ontology recapitulates phylogeny.” In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary “climb” identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo “evolves” from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom”


The series of drawings of embryonic development which did show individual species differintiation from unicellular to completed embryo are well known to be factual, uncontested and true.

“Ontogeny does Recaitulate Phylogeny” , but the drawings of developing embryos do not in any way give credence to the larger piece of the puzzel - Evolution.

Haeckel’s work was discriminating to say the least, but it hardly qualifies to support the theory of evolution. The work of Haeckel did show that within a Phylum there are developmental similarities, as we would expect. One did expect the ontogeny of a chimpanzee and a monkey to be parallel, that was shown to be true. To stretch Haeckel’s work to the maximun, we have to say it has to be bounded by the Phylum and no farther.

To say Haeckel’s work describes Evolution is like saying that upon finding a few nuts and bolts of an ancient machine we can now make a detailed drawing of that machine & be able to know it’s function. About the turn of the century (1900), not many scientists were interested enough to speak out against evolution because they knew evolution (changes) had occurred in some species over a rather short period of time. By 1965 much more had been learned. And by 1985 DNA started to play a role in the evolutionists. Still no proof was at hand.I ask an old Priest about all of this about 30 years ago. He said he does not question how God made the living things, he just knew that God could use any method that He wanted to use…But God did it! :slight_smile:


#8

[quote=Reformed Rob]Things like that give us Christians plenty of ammo to show the lengths that pro-evolution folks will go to to foster their pre-suppostitions.

We arent’ told in our schools and universities that evolution is only a theory, that science is having grave problems with providing evidence for it.


Evolution and it’s trappings are “Tinker-Toys” and not important!

The Real question should be:“What is the origin of life?” That is the tough nut to crack.
[/quote]


#9

If you notice, I began my first post with quotation marks. I did not pretend to write the arguments, but to show that the so called “missing links” are bogus. If evolution was true, where are all of the missing links? There should be hundreds of them. Where are they?

And if there is evidence to support evolution, why is there the therory of Punctuated Equilibrium? Which is it? Did things evolve gradually over billions of years, as we were told, or did they evolve rapidly - over night? Did fish gradually evolve into reptiles? Or did a fish give birth to a fully devolped reptile? Which is true? Gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium?

I would like to know: What theory do you hold to? And why?


#10

It"s absolutely amazing that forensic anthropologists can solve crimes based upon a single tooth and have it hold up in court and yet the paleoanthropological evidence is held in disdain. Can anyone explain to me why foresnsic anthropology is OK but paleoanthropology is not?


#11

I am not concerned with whether “evolution” is “gradual” or “instantaneous”. Is it not more important to recognize the “signature” of our Creator God?


#12

Isn’t there supposed to be a difference between Evolution and Darwinism?

According to the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia) the Vatican has no problem with evolution since the Bible does not mention what happened to the animals Noah saved after the flood; yet the Vatican takes an understandably dim view towards Darwinism.

I have read: On The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin, and in my opinion the author really placed his hoof squarely in his mouth when he made the absolute statement regarding the non-existance of God.


#13

[quote=brotherhrolf]It"s absolutely amazing that forensic anthropologists can solve crimes based upon a single tooth and have it hold up in court and yet the paleoanthropological evidence is held in disdain. Can anyone explain to me why foresnsic anthropology is OK but paleoanthropology is not?
[/quote]

Please cite a source where a crime was solved on a single tooth.


#14

[quote=brotherhrolf]I am not concerned with whether “evolution” is “gradual” or “instantaneous”. Is it not more important to recognize the “signature” of our Creator God?
[/quote]

My question was directed to rossum, not you. I am interested to know which he holds to: gradual evolution, or punctuated equilibrium. For many years we were told that things gradually evolved. We were even given fraudulent “missing links” to suppor this hoax. Now, some scientists claim that things did not evolve gradually over billions of years, but through “rapid bursts”. The “rapid burst” theory of punctuated equilibrium explains why there are no real missing links. But what happened to all of the so called “missing links” that proved gradual evolution? If the theory of gradual evolution was so strong, why do sceintists now claim evolution occurred in rapid bursts?

If there was really strong evidence to support gradual evolution, scientists would not have begun to teach the new “theory” of punctuated equilibrium. This just proves how little evidence there is for the “theory” (hoax) of evolution".


#15

The Hoax of RSiscoe in the Catechism

  1. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…

The Hoax of RSiscoe in This Rock

“When the Catechism speaks of ‘many scientific studies’ splendidly enriching our knowledge of ‘the development of life-forms and the appearance of man,’ [CCC 283-284] it is thinking of mainstream science. It is not thinking of studies done by the Institute for Creation Research or similar places. If the Catechism did have such groups in mind, it would be pastorally irresponsible to speak in such a manner, for the average reader of the Catechism would be certain to think that mainstream science was being referred to. In fact, one would be certain to regard this as some kind of positive comment regarding the theory of evolution – which it is…Until such time as the magisterium would either reverse its twentieth-century finding that human evolution is not precluded by the deposit of faith or would make a new finding that it is required by the deposit, human evolution as a matter that is free with respect to the sources. It is a matter that must stand or fall on its own scientific merits; it is not a matter of Catholic teaching.” (Jimmy Akin, Evolution and the Magisterium, This Rock, January 2004, emphasis added)

**Mainstream Science = **

Prominent Hominid Species

Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation by PhilVaz, not done but almost

Phil P


#16

Haeckel’s Diagrams by TalkOrigins

Haeckel’s Diagrams by Ken Miller

What else you got? :smiley: We’ve been through this stuff a thousand times already. Get a book, please. :mad:

Phil P


#17

RSis << but to show that the so called “missing links” are bogus >>

(A) Pan troglodytes, modern chimpanzee; (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 My; © Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 My; (D) Homo habilis, 1.9 My; (E) Homo habilis, 1.8 My; (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 My; (G) primitive Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium, 1.75 My; (H) Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), 1.75 My; (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 - 125,000 y; (J) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 70,000 y; (K) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 60,000 y; (L) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, 45,000 y; (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon, 30,000 y; (N) modern Homo sapiens sapiens

Combined with:

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Memorize this article, and then come on back. :rolleyes:

Ambulocetus Natans, combined with:

Evolution of Whales

Memorize this article, and then come on back. :cool:

RSis << And if there is evidence to support evolution, why is there the therory of Punctuated Equilibrium? Which is it? >>

Read all about it here. Memorize this article, and then come on back. :rolleyes:

Listen to this debate and try to tell me the evolutionists weren’t victorious :cool:

Phil P


#18

RSis << The “rapid burst” theory of punctuated equilibrium explains why there are no real missing links. >>

GOULD

“But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.” – Stephen Jay Gould (Natural History, May 1994)

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes)

Get a book please. Any book on evolution. How about this one at your local university library:

“During the past 20 years, our knowledge of fossil vertebrates has increased immensely. Entirely new groups of jawless fish, sharks, amphibians, and dinosaurs have been discovered, and the major transitions between amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and dinosaurs and birds have been thoroughly studied. Evidence from both paleontology and molecular biology provides much new information on the initial radiation of both birds and placental mammals.” (Carroll, page xiii preface).

Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution

Phil P


#19

Kevin Walker << and in my opinion the author [Darwin, Origin of Species] really placed his hoof squarely in his mouth when he made the absolute statement regarding the non-existance of God. >>

You mean like here:

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…” (Origin of Species, last chapter)

“There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Origin of Species, last sentence, sixth edition)

Phil P


#20

We have two choices ladies and gentlemen,

  1. God created a perfect world, and He created mankind as a special creation in His own image, and later Adam and Eve “selected” sin over folowing God’s commands–through their sin, we all inherit sin and thus need Christ to save us and redeem us.

        --OR--
    
  2. Life naturally evolved on its own through the natural chemical and biological processes of “natural selection.” Eventually, some apes (I mean of course–the common ancestors of us and apes–wink wink) experienced lust and mated, through some perfectly natural means, some genes randomly and naturally mutated in the monkey sperm and monkey ovum and now we have a person (of course the ancestors of people–wink wink).

So are we the product of God’s special supernatural creation, or are we the natural byproduct of monkey lust?

Of course, it is understood that those who do not believe in natural evolution are ignorant “fundamentalists”—those of you who are the byproducts of monkey lust don’t need to point this out–again:p .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.