Evolution Refuted

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#147 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No, a farmer found a tooth.
He sent it in to the Smithsonian asking if it was a human ancestor.
The guy replied "Maybe". He was not an expert in swine dentition.
The farmer then leaked the story to a magazine which in turn hired an artist to draw up caveman pictures.
The story in the magazine was not based on any facts because the "facts' were "A farmer found a tooth that a scientist couldn't identify".
There was never a scientific paper written. No one in the scientific community took this story seriously.
It is a NON-story outside of the realm of Creationists.
Again this is from WIKI, do a little reading. A farmer did not write the article.

In February of 1922, Harold Cook(a geologist) wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of the tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. The tooth had been found years prior in the Upper Snake Creek beds of Nebraska along with other fossils typical of North America. Dr. Osborn received the specimen in March of 1922, and quickly set out to identify it. Osborn, along with Dr. William D. Matthew soon came to the conclusion that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape (now referred to as simians). They then passed the tooth along to William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman who agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. Only a few months later, an article was published in Science announcing the discovery of a manlike ape in North America.[1] An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate,"(this quote is not in the article referenced).[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#148 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nebraska Man was never accepted in the mainstream scientific community.
It was a claim, that is all.
Now its a hallmark of creationist desperation. Thats all.
Now why don't you take a look at some specimens that are unmistakably ape/ hominid intermediates. Not because I say so, but because comprehensive measurements put their dimensions at intermediate between ape and human norms.
Thats science.
Until I read it on hear a couple of years ago, Nebraska man was not something I was aware of. I attribute that in part to the fact that the mechanisms in science to weed that sort of thing out, work.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#149 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nebraska Man was never accepted in the mainstream scientific community.
It was a claim, that is all.
Now its a hallmark of creationist desperation. Thats all.
Now why don't you take a look at some specimens that are unmistakably ape/ hominid intermediates. Not because I say so, but because comprehensive measurements put their dimensions at intermediate between ape and human norms.
Thats science.
I am not saying that it was accepted in the mainstream scientific community.

Nuggin said "Nebraska man isn't a real thing. It's a Creationist fantasy. No one on this thread ever heard of Nebraska man before they started dealing with Creationists. A farmer found a tooth and a popular magazine ran a story about it. That's not science any more than stories about Elvis being alive are science."

So as I said to him do a little reading. It was a real error and was not made up by creationists.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#150 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Again this is from WIKI, do a little reading. A farmer did not write the article.
In February of 1922, Harold Cook(a geologist) wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of the tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. The tooth had been found years prior in the Upper Snake Creek beds of Nebraska along with other fossils typical of North America. Dr. Osborn received the specimen in March of 1922, and quickly set out to identify it. Osborn, along with Dr. William D. Matthew soon came to the conclusion that the tooth had belonged to an anthropoid ape (now referred to as simians). They then passed the tooth along to William K. Gregory and Dr. Milo Hellman who agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. Only a few months later, an article was published in Science announcing the discovery of a manlike ape in North America.[1] An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate,"(this quote is not in the article referenced).[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
Not a report by the scientists. Not a peered review paper. An article in a popular magazine with drawings by an illustrator than even the original people disagree with.

That's not a scientific study.

This was a couple of guys who couldn't identify a specific tooth, planned to do more research, then the person who found it jumped the gun and went to a magazine.

We don't discredit all of physics because the two guys announced "Cold Fusion" off bad data.

We don't discredit all of Geography because Greenland is inaccurately named.

We don't discredit all of NASA because someone made a meters/yards mistake on a probe.

This was never a significant story. It was never published in peer review journals. It was never taken seriously by anyone outside the people who handled the original tooth.

It's a NON story that Creationists trot out as if this one NON-story somehow discredited the hundreds of millions of fossil finds worldwide

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#151 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not saying that it was accepted in the mainstream scientific community.
Nuggin said "Nebraska man isn't a real thing. It's a Creationist fantasy. No one on this thread ever heard of Nebraska man before they started dealing with Creationists. A farmer found a tooth and a popular magazine ran a story about it. That's not science any more than stories about Elvis being alive are science."
So as I said to him do a little reading. It was a real error and was not made up by creationists.
Yes someone made an error.

The FANTASY part for Creationists is in thinking that this was a real thing. It wasn't. There was no peer reviewed paper. There was no change in evolutionary thinking based on this alleged find.

Had this guy written a paper, it would not have gotten published by a reputable journal.

Had, by accident, it gotten published, it would have been destroyed by the rest of the community.

Like I said, and like others have now also said, this is _NOT_ a real story. No one outside of those of us dealing with Creationists cranks have ever heard of this story. It made NO impact within the world of science.

Do you want Creationism to be held to this standard? We'd LOVE to be able to treat you guys with the same level of dishonesty you trot out.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#152 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin the point is this is who made the mistake. I was not a factitious thing made up by creationists as you claimed it was.

Who claimed it was real, these people did;

Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn - geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist.

Dr. William D. Matthew -?

William King Gregory - renowned as a primatologist, paleontologist, and functional and comparative morphologist.

Dr. Milo Hellman - was an Instructor at New York University's Dental School and a research associate in Physical Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History.

4 years later in 1926 further discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.

There is no way you can fairly lay the blame for this on creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#153 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Nuggin the point is this is who made the mistake. I was not a factitious thing made up by creationists as you claimed it was.
Who claimed it was real, these people did;
Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn - geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist.
Dr. William D. Matthew -?
William King Gregory - renowned as a primatologist, paleontologist, and functional and comparative morphologist.
Dr. Milo Hellman - was an Instructor at New York University's Dental School and a research associate in Physical Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History.
4 years later in 1926 further discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified. The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in the journal Science in 1927.
There is no way you can fairly lay the blame for this on creationists.
Yes, Nuggin did underplay the error of the scientists involved. But that was all that it was, a mistake. It was never widely accepted and the error was discovered by other scientists. Creationists have never debunked anything that I am aware of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#154 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
There is no way you can fairly lay the blame for this on creationists.
You are clearly deliberately misunderstanding the reality.

In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (both well established in their field) announced that they had achieved cold fusion.

They did this prior to publishing a peer reviewed paper, prior to other scientists reviewing their data.

They were mistaken both in what they thought they had accomplished and in the way they went about announcing it to the world.

If Creationists were treating physics like they treat biology, you would be arguing that become of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, there is no reason to believe Newtonian physics.

Meanwhile, to date, there has not been a single Creationist "discovery" which has NOT proven fraudulent.

I think it's a little outrageous that you would point to a non-event in which someone didn't actually make a real claim and which is generally ignored as evidence that biology is false.

Meanwhile, RIGHT NOW on Creationist websites we can find claims which are WELL KNOWN to be absolutely fraudulent.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#155 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly deliberately misunderstanding the reality.
In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (both well established in their field) announced that they had achieved cold fusion.
They did this prior to publishing a peer reviewed paper, prior to other scientists reviewing their data.
They were mistaken both in what they thought they had accomplished and in the way they went about announcing it to the world.
If Creationists were treating physics like they treat biology, you would be arguing that become of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, there is no reason to believe Newtonian physics.
Meanwhile, to date, there has not been a single Creationist "discovery" which has NOT proven fraudulent.
I think it's a little outrageous that you would point to a non-event in which someone didn't actually make a real claim and which is generally ignored as evidence that biology is false.
Meanwhile, RIGHT NOW on Creationist websites we can find claims which are WELL KNOWN to be absolutely fraudulent.
Since learning of Nebraska man, my reading indicates that the "discovery" was not intended as a hoax or a fraud. It was just poor science that was corrected by science.

Creationist love their straw man arguments don't they.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#156 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly deliberately misunderstanding the reality.
You said Nebraska man wasn't real. That you had never heard of him until creationists starting coming to this thread. That it was a creationists fantasy.

So in reality I showed you it was real and not made up by creationists. Also as I said it was a mistake made from people who jumped the gun, not a hoax.

Now if you want to use a mistake made by others to throw a stone at the creationists that is up to you, but the mistake was not made by them or a made up fantasy by them.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#157 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what we are talking about when we say fundies lie.
Piltdown man was a fake. You know who exposed it? Scientists. You know how? Because it didn't fit the rest of the real evidence.
Nebraska man isn't a real thing. It's a Creationist fantasy. No one on this thread ever heard of Nebraska man before they started dealing with Creationists. A farmer found a tooth and a popular magazine ran a story about it. That's not science any more than stories about Elvis being alive are science.
And Java Man? How is that a lie at all?
Nebraska man is not real in the sense that it represents a discovery accepted by science. It is misrepresented as such in efforts by creationists to refute science and by extension the theory of evolution.

I mentioned this before, but I hadn't heard of Nebraska man until reading about it on this forum. As I recall it was in a post by a creationist.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#158 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You said Nebraska man wasn't real. That you had never heard of him until creationists starting coming to this thread. That it was a creationists fantasy.
So in reality I showed you it was real and not made up by creationists. Also as I said it was a mistake made from people who jumped the gun, not a hoax.
Now if you want to use a mistake made by others to throw a stone at the creationists that is up to you, but the mistake was not made by them or a made up fantasy by them.
First of all, Nebraska man wasn't real. That's your whole point in bringing it up. If it was real, there would be no argument.

Second, ask around. NO ONE hears about Nebraska man EXCEPT through Creationists claiming it was a big deal. Clearly it wasn't.

Text books TEACH about Piltdown. No one mentions Nebraska Man because it was never a story to begin with.

And it was a mistake not a hoax.

A hoax would be if the farmer who first sent it in had deliberately tried to trick someone. He didn't. He found a tooth. He sent it to a scientist who couldn't tell what it was. That guy said it might be a homonid. He didn't write a peer reviewed report about it. He didn't publish.

The farmer then went to a popular magazine (not a peer reviewed journal) which ran a story based on nothing (because all they had was a tooth) and the magazine hired an artist to make up pictures that even the scientists involved said were outrageous.

You want to hold ALL of biology accountable because one guy who WASN'T and expert in teeth DIDN'T write a paper about a tooth someone mailed him.

This isn't even grasping at straws. This is grasping at shadows of straws.

THAT is the fantasy. You are PRETENDING that this is a real story that gripped the scientific community worldwide. It didn't. No one knows about this because it's a NON-EVENT.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#159 Aug 31, 2013
What is disgusting often about creationists is that they are not consistent. If fraud would disprove an idea then Christianity has been "disproved" hundreds of more times than evolution. The field of religion has one outright fraud after another.

And it is usually not the religions that clean themselves up. They leave that to others.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#160 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, Nebraska man wasn't real. That's your whole point in bringing it up. If it was real, there would be no argument.
Second, ask around. NO ONE hears about Nebraska man EXCEPT through Creationists claiming it was a big deal. Clearly it wasn't.
Text books TEACH about Piltdown. No one mentions Nebraska Man because it was never a story to begin with.
And it was a mistake not a hoax.
A hoax would be if the farmer who first sent it in had deliberately tried to trick someone. He didn't. He found a tooth. He sent it to a scientist who couldn't tell what it was. That guy said it might be a homonid. He didn't write a peer reviewed report about it. He didn't publish.
The farmer then went to a popular magazine (not a peer reviewed journal) which ran a story based on nothing (because all they had was a tooth) and the magazine hired an artist to make up pictures that even the scientists involved said were outrageous.
You want to hold ALL of biology accountable because one guy who WASN'T and expert in teeth DIDN'T write a paper about a tooth someone mailed him.
This isn't even grasping at straws. This is grasping at shadows of straws.
THAT is the fantasy. You are PRETENDING that this is a real story that gripped the scientific community worldwide. It didn't. No one knows about this because it's a NON-EVENT.
For the 5th time, as I said it was a mistake, not a hoax. Even said that before you did. As for it being real, the event of Nebraska man did happen, it turns out it was a jump the gun mistake.

Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn - geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist is the one that had the article published, not the FARMER. "Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community,[3] and the purported species was retracted half a decade after the original article had been published by "Osborn" AGAIN not the Farmer!

Get over it! You are starting to sound like oneway on his broken record kick.

Now you can color it with all the crap you want but fact is it did happen.

And for the creationists that won't let it go,,, they are just as blind as you acting like it never happened.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#161 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, Nebraska man wasn't real. That's your whole point in bringing it up. If it was real, there would be no argument.
Second, ask around. NO ONE hears about Nebraska man EXCEPT through Creationists claiming it was a big deal. Clearly it wasn't.
Text books TEACH about Piltdown. No one mentions Nebraska Man because it was never a story to begin with.
And it was a mistake not a hoax.
A hoax would be if the farmer who first sent it in had deliberately tried to trick someone. He didn't. He found a tooth. He sent it to a scientist who couldn't tell what it was. That guy said it might be a homonid. He didn't write a peer reviewed report about it. He didn't publish.
The farmer then went to a popular magazine (not a peer reviewed journal) which ran a story based on nothing (because all they had was a tooth) and the magazine hired an artist to make up pictures that even the scientists involved said were outrageous.
You want to hold ALL of biology accountable because one guy who WASN'T and expert in teeth DIDN'T write a paper about a tooth someone mailed him.
This isn't even grasping at straws. This is grasping at shadows of straws.
THAT is the fantasy. You are PRETENDING that this is a real story that gripped the scientific community worldwide. It didn't. No one knows about this because it's a NON-EVENT.
And again the FARMER did not have the story published, Dr Osborn (a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist) did after he consulted with;

Dr. William D. Matthew -?

William King Gregory - renowned as a primatologist, paleontologist, and functional and comparative morphologist.

Dr. Milo Hellman - was an Instructor at New York University's Dental School and a research associate in Physical Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. <<<<<<< This guy knew about teeth.

Why you continue to blame the FARMER and say the Farmer did it all just shows how daft you are.

It was a mistake in science. Not a farmer or a creationists. Science makes mistakes just like anyone else. Sorry to be the one to inform you they are not perfect but you can't blame the FARMER!

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community,[3] and the purported species was retracted half a decade after the original article had been published by Osborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#162 Aug 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
What is disgusting often about creationists is that they are not consistent. If fraud would disprove an idea then Christianity has been "disproved" hundreds of more times than evolution. The field of religion has one outright fraud after another.
And it is usually not the religions that clean themselves up. They leave that to others.
I am not taking science or evolution side. I am just pointing out to Noggin that it did happen, it was a mistake made by people in the field of study, not a Farmer as he keeps blaming it all for!

I have not said once that creationists don't make mistakes or make crap up, I don't have too you all bring it up in every comment in defense of the Nebraska man mistake.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#165 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not taking science or evolution side. I am just pointing out to Noggin that it did happen, it was a mistake made by people in the field of study, not a Farmer as he keeps blaming it all for!
I have not said once that creationists don't make mistakes or make crap up, I don't have too you all bring it up in every comment in defense of the Nebraska man mistake.
The point is not whether or not a mistake was made, the point is that ONE or TWO people making a claim does not represent the entirety of the scientific community.

In the MIDDLE of the supposed "Nebraska" mistake a number of books were published about Human evolution which either didn't mention it at all because it wasn't important, or reference it just to say that it's not being referenced because there isn't enough support.

Again, this is manufactured controversy from people who have never once presented anything that was NOT utterly fraudulent.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#166 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not whether or not a mistake was made, the point is that ONE or TWO people making a claim does not represent the entirety of the scientific community.
In the MIDDLE of the supposed "Nebraska" mistake a number of books were published about Human evolution which either didn't mention it at all because it wasn't important, or reference it just to say that it's not being referenced because there isn't enough support.
Again, this is manufactured controversy from people who have never once presented anything that was NOT utterly fraudulent.
And again even when you know it wasn't, you blame the creationists for this mistake. Thick headed aren't you. Lol.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#167 Aug 31, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not whether or not a mistake was made, the point is that ONE or TWO people making a claim does not represent the entirety of the scientific community.
In the MIDDLE of the supposed "Nebraska" mistake a number of books were published about Human evolution which either didn't mention it at all because it wasn't important, or reference it just to say that it's not being referenced because there isn't enough support.
Again, this is manufactured controversy from people who have never once presented anything that was NOT utterly fraudulent.
Oh and do you mean controversy like the evolutionists like to stir by saying the Bible says the earth was flat when they called it a circle even though the word sphere did not exist then? Both sides knit pick each other in anyway they can. It is almost like a convention of clowns arguing which one is the funniest and putting each other down for the way they look. Point being they all look pretty darn silly like both sides knit picking at silly crap.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#168 Aug 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And again even when you know it wasn't, you blame the creationists for this mistake. Thick headed aren't you. Lol.
Wow, you are really dense.

I'm not blaming Creationists FOR the events that happened in the 1920s.

I'm blaming them for MANUFACTURING controversy over the events which were in NO WAY controversial.

Nebraska man _AT THE TIME_ wasn't taken seriously and has never been taken seriously since.

Yet, EVERY CREATIONIST trots it out as if the entire Theory of Evolution rests solely on this one find. A find which NO ONE on the science side ever even hears about until the Creationists trot it out.

In the meantime, you hold exactly 0.00% of Creationist errors (almost all of which are delibrate fraud) to this standard.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min Paul Porter1 168,912
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Paul Porter1 141,831
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr ChristineM 19,788
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 22 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web