Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[SkepticThinker]

Its just a recitation of moldy creoclaims.
Zero understanding of anything involved.

Same old, same old.

 

[Audie]

Same old, same old.

They could at least stop and scrape little
mold off before serving it up as fresh?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Creationists oppose results in science because it goes against their religious assumptions and beliefs. So these oppositions are unprofessional, unfounded, and absurd. The well educated defer to what science reports because the experts have authority due to their expertise and professionalism. They show their work.

Way to avoid the problems with " science", by not addressing it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You're showing your ignorance of the subject you're opining about, again.
Do you think science comes up with its theories out of thin air?
If you don't understand why science believes as it does, you might want to reserve judgement.

I understand why.

"The Big Bang is the moment that space and time (or ‘space-time’) came into existence. Before the Big Bang there was no space or time. So, it is actually meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang to happen – there was no Universe in which that cause could have existed."

This is an actual serious attempt from sciencefocus to explain the BB... If you can't see the problem you're not trying.

It's circular reasoning at its best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No ape ever built a computer or a car.

Except an ape did. We call them humans.
Newsflash: that ape / human.... it's also a mammal. And a vertebrate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not the ones about the past that cant be tested. Try testing the big bang.

The big bang makes loads of testable predictions.
Like the cosmic background radiation.
A Nobel prize was handed out for confirming that prediction.

Yet we are still told it's reality and scoffed at if we question it.

It makes testable predictions and when tested, the predictions are confirmed.
What more do you want?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, since we are great apes, it comes without saying that apes cab build computers and cars. I wonder why you find it difficult to believe.

Well, since ape appears to hurt your ego, what about primates? Can primates build computers and cars? If not, what about mammals? I think it is obvious we are mammals, that is why we girls have feeding breasts (and you nipples for some mysterious divine reason). Is mammal better than ape? Why? Honestly, I would prefer to be confused with a gorilla than with a rat.

For your information, we are: great apes, a subset of primates, a subset of mammals, a subset of vertebrates.

At which level would you put us, according to your Book?

Ciao

- viole

Human... A little lower than angels.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Except an ape did. We call them humans.
Newsflash: that ape / human.... it's also a mammal. And a vertebrate.

No... that would be human beings.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It makes testable predictions and when tested, the predictions are confirmed.
What more do you want?

Evidence. I have no problem with the BB per say but at least you could admit that it's just one theory among many held by scientists.

 

[stevecanuck]

Someone committed fraud?
I am shocked...shocked, I tell you!

Of all the debate sites on the internet, he had to walk into this one.

 

[stevecanuck]

Science isnt perfect.

Yes it is. It’s our knowledge that isn’t perfect. Just because we don’t know all the answers doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

 

[Audie]

Evidence. I have no problem with the BB per say but at least you could admit that it's just one theory among many held by scientists.

" per se "

Plz tell us of these other theories

 

[Wildswanderer]

" per se "

Plz tell us of these other theories

Let's see:
The Oscillating model

Simulation model...the universe according to quantum physics may be nothing like how it appears to human observers. It might be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, or it could be a digital simulation running on a vast computer.

There's a steady state model also.

A big bounce model, which sounds like a fashion show for chubby women.

An electric light orchestra, I mean electric universe model ...

Black hole origin theory




Eternal Inflation theory...

 

[gnostic]

So now, for many years it was broadly accepted that fossilized bones put together were the remains of an early human. Although not everyone accepted it, yet it was widely accepted as indicative of an early human. The hoax was finally verified in 1953. Seems that in 1912, a man named Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. Finally found out to be a fraud even though accepted by many for decades.

You are completely ignoring the facts that Dawson was a lawyer, pretending to be a paleontologist and an archaeologist, and he was certainly no biologist.

He conned other people to accepting his story and “discovery”.

But as early as 1915, biologist Gerrit Smith Miller was the first to begin questioning Dawson’s “discovery”. And Miller wasn’t the only one, others too have recognized the inconsistencies between the skull cap and jawbone, in the following decades before 1953.

So it was a lawyer who conned everyone. And the Piltdown Man was hardly his only fraud he committed. He sought attentions and fames with his fraudulent discoveries, not just fake fossils, but also with fake artefacts.

 

[Audie]

Let's see:
The Oscillating model

Simulation model...the universe according to quantum physics may be nothing like how it appears to human observers. It might be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, or it could be a digital simulation running on a vast computer.

There's a steady state model also.

A big bounce model, which sounds like a fashion show for chubby women.

An electric light orchestra, I mean electric universe model ...

Black hole origin theory




Eternal Inflation theory...

Now which are long since abandoned or version of the same thing?

Simulation and electric are crackpot.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Simulation and electric are crackpot.

Says who?
That's debatable.

 

[Audie]

Says who?
That's debatable.

Steady state was abandoned decades ago.
Inflation is a sunset of big bang
So is oscillating

Nobody takes those other " theories"
seriously, their crackpot status being
" debateable" only in the sense that
alien abductions are debatable.

To suggest there is anything remotely
resembling a credible alternate theory to
bb is not reasonable.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree, that the motive of the thread is to fool people into believing that all studies of human ancestors are wrong.

I think that I heard that hundreds of years ago, a Christian told a lie. From this, we can infer, that all Christians are liars and frauds??????

I fail to see that the Piltdown Man story (subject of this thread) shows anything more than a mistake or a fraud about one set of bones.

Surely it doesn't invalidate all science?

Who discovered that it was a hoax? Other scientists. Go figure!

From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together".[13] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration, inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[3]

In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence, gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner, proving that Piltdown Man was a forgery[14] and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

The Piltdown Man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists.[9] It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed,[9] also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe.​

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

Yup, other scientists figured out it was a hoax. Which, of course, was taught as truth for many years. But that's ok. The prejudice as truthfully expressed in the last paragraph really pulls the reins in on this. "hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence."
I guess no one made the effort to test the evidence for a while.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, since we are great apes, it comes without saying that apes cab build computers and cars. I wonder why you find it difficult to believe.

...
Ciao

- viole

See, that's another reason why we're not apes. Anyway I won't go into it now, have a good night. One thing in favor of gorillas and chimpanzees, etc. -- they are not burdened down with silly reasoning. Such as inventing theories and categories.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was accepted by the general public and fringe science. Most scientists were skeptical from the start, but the 'fossil' wasn't really properly tested till much later -- when it was immediately debunked.

The fact of evolution was never in question. The basic mechanisms were not in question. What changes is knowledge and interpretation of the details.
The disagreement religionists find so disturbing is usually on the fringes of science.
Moreover, religious beliefs are claimed to be set in stone; eternal and unchanging. The faithful, for some reason, find this reassuring, even in the face of new evidence. In fact, they find new evidence threatening, and even discourage research or questioning of established doctrine.

The ongoing evolution of scientific knowledge is very unsettling to them.

The point is not whether the so-called fact of evolution was in question. What is the issue is that the idea that some things are promoted and taught as fact or true when, in fact, these so-called facts change, either by discovery of the first 'fact' being untrue, yet taught for quite a while as true, or in this case, as being fraudulent.