The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Audie]

The difference is that scientists accept this was a fraud, it was scientists who discovered it was a fraud, it was scientists who banished it from their books - apart from a side line of "This is what can go wrong if you don't check facts"

If only creationists had the same rigorous standard and ethics. Instead it is lying for Jesus, double downing for Jesus. And they still claim the moral high ground.

So sad. Is it any wonder religion is failing.

Do we see the "religious community" rejecting and denouncing such hoaxes as "Paluxy man tracks"?

Of course not. Why? Who knows. Maybe some sort
of group solidarity?

Or is it something deeper, like that those who practice
self deception lose track of where boundaries are
between what they wish for and what is truthful.

For lo, our "Christians" who hold forth here about how
the do Objective Morality, and fear "god's" punishment
if they practice deceit holdeth themselves not to their standards

Look at all the nonsense they just make up and state as
if were fact!

Even their occasional claim that they are at least no better and no worse than the common man is, yes false, phony
as a Paluxy Man track.

Atheists are a considerably better behaved bunch-besides
being smarter and better educated that "Christians".

 

[sayak83]

Difficult to bear, isn't it?

Not really. We find your positions pitiful. We feel sympathy for people who are so deeply mired in false illusions.

 

[sayak83]

No, what you don't understand is that Piltdown Man as discussed in this thread is only a demonstration of how emotionally fixated you are to your beliefs. The title of the thread could be "My God Is Bigger Than Your God." It's pointless. Even the ignorant Christians know this, that's why religious forums primarily consist of disgruntled science minded skeptics who could be spending their time doing science instead of arguing with mythologists.

You made the thread. Why make pointless threads? Why join at all? What do you wish to discuss?

 

[Audie]

Nebraska man was also a artifact which along with Piltdown man was considered slam dunk evidence at the Scopes trial.... turned out Nebraska man was a tooth of an extinct pig and Piltdown man a fraud so the Brits could catch up with the German neanderthal... sad

It was not an artifact.
The statement about slam dunk is false
It was not a pig tooth
There was no fraud, it was a simple
misidentification.

Your statement that Piltdown was a "fraud"
and the make up motive for it is baloney.

Nobody knows who made it, nor his motive.
A practical joke? Who knows.

As for what you know, not much it seems.
A lot of errors and made up claims of fact
in so few words.

Almost what they call "ironic" that you'd
do that while complaining about someone
else being deceitful.

 

[Audie]

You made the thread. Why make pointless threads? Why join at all? What do you wish to discuss?

We see a pattern with people who have nothing to say,
and no standards for their conduct.

They will start thread after thread, make things up, and
flee like a squirrel the treetops if there is any risk of being
cornered and having to admit to a falsehood.

The whole point is to be able to go back to creoland
and boast that they argued a whole roomfull of evos
to a standstill.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Like I told the other guy, you aren't going to read the Aid To Understanding The Bible, either, and it doesn't even make the claim of truth. You guys can really be as obtuse as you are arrogant. I suppose the same applies to me as well.

And how the heck do you KNOW that I won't read Aid to Understanding the Bible? As someone who cares whether or not what I believe is true, I'm NEVER opposed to listening to alternate points of view in hopes that I might learn something new. I'm not so desperate to hold onto my current beliefs that I refuse to view new evidence just because I'm afraid that it might force me to question my current beliefs.

Sadly that doesn't appear to be the case with you.

 

[Earthling]

You made the thread. Why make pointless threads? Why join at all? What do you wish to discuss?

The pointlessness isn't in the thread itself, it's in the debate. The Evolution Vs. Creation, ie, Science Vs. The Bible debate is pointless unless you look at it for what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not an artifact.
The statement about slam dunk is false
It was not a pig tooth
There was no fraud, it was a simple
misidentification.

Your statement that Piltdown was a "fraud"
and the make up motive for it is baloney.

Nobody knows who made it, nor his motive.
A practical joke? Who knows.

As for what you know, not much it seems.
A lot of errors and made up claims of fact
in so few words.

Almost what they call "ironic" that you'd
do that while complaining about someone
else being deceitful.

Even creationist sources would have told him that it was not used in the trial. I challenged him to support his claim, he didn't because he couldn't. I already refuted this once for him, this time I use a creationist source, of course it is loaded with bias and general false claims but they got that this was not used in the trial correct:

"In June of 1925, just before the Scopes trial was to begin, Osborn suddenly became quiet regarding the Nebraska Man fossil. "

Nebraska Man and the Scopes Trial

That was about all that I could stomach to quote from that site..

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, I wouldn't. I would be out there promoting awareness of it like I do with failures and frauds in my beliefs, like here in these forums I have with spurious scriptures, The Jehovah's Witnesses, and the fallibility of the Bible, not to mention Inquisition, and pagan influence. You've got to keep it honest if you want to keep it true.

I have to wonder why you mention Piltdown Man as if it was some sort of failure of the Scientific Method, when in reality it a demonstration of how the Scientific Method is designed to successfully correct for errors.

 

[Earthling]

And how the heck do you KNOW that I won't read Aid to Understanding the Bible? As someone who cares whether or not what I believe is true, I'm NEVER opposed to listening to alternate points of view in hopes that I might learn something new. I'm not so desperate to hold onto my current beliefs that I refuse to view new evidence just because I'm afraid that it might force me to question my current beliefs.

Sadly that doesn't appear to be the case with you.

That is correct. I will NEVER read Why Evolution Is True. Nor will I read Why The Flying Spaghetti Monster Is True and you will NEVER read Aid To Understanding The Bible. Also, I will never read Aid To Understanding The Bible, though I have read parts of it. It's a Bible Encyclopedia, 1696 pages. 1971. Somewhat out of date.

If you drop the Us Vs Them attitude you may have known all of this.

 

[Earthling]

I have to wonder why you mention Piltdown Man as if it was some sort of failure of the Scientific Method, when in reality it a demonstration of how the Scientific Method is designed to successfully correct for errors.

It was self explanatory. An historical look at Evolution. It's part of the history of Evolution. You deal with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct. I will NEVER read Why Evolution Is True. Nor will I read Why The Flying Spaghetti Monster Is True and you will NEVER read Aid To Understanding The Bible. Also, I will never read Aid To Understanding The Bible, though I have read parts of it. It's a Bible Encyclopedia, 1696 pages. 1971. Somewhat out of date.

If you drop the Us Vs Them attitude you may have known all of this.

Did you not understand his post? He did not say that he would never read Aid to Understanding the Bible. You appear to be projecting your flaws upon others again. You are the one that will not look at the evidence that proves your myth wrong. He said he is open to opposing ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was self explanatory. An historical look at Evolution. It's part of the history of Evolution. You deal with it.

A very small part just as Peter Popoff and his fake cures is part of the history of Christianity. Does Peter Popoff disprove Christianity in any way at all?

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is correct. I will NEVER read Why Evolution Is True. Nor will I read Why The Flying Spaghetti Monster Is True and you will NEVER read Aid To Understanding The Bible. Also, I will never read Aid To Understanding The Bible, though I have read parts of it. It's a Bible Encyclopedia, 1696 pages. 1971. Somewhat out of date.

If you drop the Us Vs Them attitude you may have known all of this.

You're more than welcome to live in your self-imposed ignorance. But please don't make the ridiculous claim that I'm the one adopting the Us vs Them attitude. I AM willing to read books that support your point of view, even if you admit that YOU haven't read them and that they are out of date. Sadly you insist on burying your head in the sand so that you can pretend as if the verifiable evidence that contradicts your claims isn't real. Rather childish to proclaim that if I refuse to read about the evidence then it doesn't exist. But again,you're more than welcome to live in your self-imposed ignorance.

 

[Earthling]

Did you not understand his post?

I think so.

He did not say that he would never read Aid to Understanding the Bible.

That's correct. I did, in both application to him as well as myself.

You appear to be projecting your flaws upon others again.

If you had a point here, it would be you that were projecting, but you have no point. Think about it.

You are the one that will not look at the evidence that proves your myth wrong.

I was taught evolution for years in school. That **** was shoved down my throat. Am I here saying that Creation should be taught in schools? I am not and never have. **** you , you arrogant old ****.

He said he is open to opposing ideas.

Good for him. As am I. I gave you the opportunity to teach me and you couldn't.

 

[exchemist]

The pointlessness isn't in the thread itself, it's in the debate. The Evolution Vs. Creation, ie, Science Vs. The Bible debate is pointless unless you look at it for what it is.

Look pal, you started this thread to poke fun at science for being taken in, for a bit, by a hoax. In effect you started by hurling a custard pie.

If you had wanted a civil and high-level discussion of why it was that Piltdown Man was temporarily taken seriously and what that says about the working of science, you would not have kicked off with sneers about "prestige in the halls" of science, or "insert head in ****".

And now you have the gall to complain about the quality of the resulting debate.

 

[Audie]

Even creationist sources would have told him that it was not used in the trial. I challenged him to support his claim, he didn't because he couldn't. I already refuted this once for him, this time I use a creationist source, of course it is loaded with bias and general false claims but they got that this was not used in the trial correct:

"In June of 1925, just before the Scopes trial was to begin, Osborn suddenly became quiet regarding the Nebraska Man fossil. "

Nebraska Man and the Scopes Trial

That was about all that I could stomach to quote from that site..

Well, it is beyond the limits of reason to expect a creo
to ever admit to an error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think so.



That's correct. I did, in both application to him as well as myself.



If you had a point here, it would be you that were projecting, but you have no point. Think about it.



I was taught evolution for years in school. That **** was shoved down my throat. Am I here saying that Creation should be taught in schools? I am not and never have. **** you , you arrogant old ****.



Good for him. As am I. I gave you the opportunity to teach me and you couldn't.

Oh my, caught flat out more than bending the truth.

 

[Earthling]

Look pal, you started this thread to poke fun at science for being taken in, for a bit, by a hoax. In effect you started by hurling a custard pie.

If you had wanted a civil and high-level discussion of why it was that Piltdown Man was temporarily taken seriously and what that says about the working of science, you would not have kicked off with sneers about "prestige in the halls" of science, or "insert head in ****".

And now you have the gall to complain about the quality of the resulting debate.

Not the resulting debate, the debate in general. The subject is moot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it is beyond the limits of reason to expect a creo
to ever admit to an error.

You said it. Though once on a now defunct website I had two different creo's admit that they were wrong on the same day. If I had known how rare that was at that time I would have done a screen capture and saved it for posterity.