The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Earthling]

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

Replace creo with person and you have a point.

 

[Audie]

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.

Kinda hate to do it, but I put two people on ig today.

There's a homeless guy I see most every day,
talking away to himself, I could listen to him
and get as much sense. At least he has an excuse.

 

[Audie]

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.

Recall the subject? I dont see them concede even
something stone obvious that has nothing to do with
their central idea. But even the most irrelevant detail
must be defended like it was the Alamo.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

I've dealt with it! It's a wonderful example of how the ToE uses the Scientific Method to correct for errors. It's a part of evolution's history that should be celebrated, because it demonstrates a dedication to finding the truth over upholding ideologies. Yet ANOTHER example of why the Scientific Method has demonstrated itself to be BY FAR the most effective means we've found for determining how the physical universe works.

So apparently the purpose of your post was to demonstrate how effective and reliable the Scientific Method is. Good for you!

 

[Earthling]

I've dealt with it! It's a wonderful example of how the ToE uses the Scientific Method to correct for errors.

Then why all of the upset?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then why all of the upset?

My mistake! I assumed that when you wrote:
After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***)
That you were trying to disparage the Scientific Method. But now that we know that actually the purpose of your post was to demonstrate how effective and reliable the Scientific Method is, I guess it means you were saying Insert Head In Logical Thinking Cap or something to that effect.

SO glad we could clear this up.

 

[Earthling]

My mistake! I assumed that when you wrote:
After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***)
That you were trying to disparage the Scientific Method. But now that we know that actually the purpose of your post was to demonstrate how effective and reliable the Scientific Method is, I guess it means you were saying Insert Head In Logical Thinking Cap or something to that effect.

SO glad we could clear this up.

Obviously.

 

[metis]

That must have been awkward for them.

Was and is it "awkward" for Christianity when so many ministers, priests, and laity commit sins?

 

[Earthling]

Was and is it "awkward" for Christianity when so many ministers, priests, and laity commit sins?

Good question. The answer is yes and no. It shouldn't be because Christianity originally taught that we are all of sin, so, if we didn't sin we wouldn't need Christ. All sin comes from the same place, so to a degree, all sin is the same. From the monster that murders millions to the guy on his way to work who breaks the speed limit, but of course, in a practical sense that isn't the case.

 

[exchemist]

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

Well you did your bit to lower the tone, didn't you, by starting this thread the way you did? What was the point of doing that? And what was the point in asserting, without evidence, that you think Darwin was mad, as you did later in the thread? If you are interested in a better style of debate, you have a funny way of setting about achieving it.

 

[Earthling]

Well you did your bit to lower the tone, didn't you, by starting this thread the way you did? What was the point of doing that? And what was the point in asserting, without evidence, that you think Darwin was mad, as you did later in the thread? If you are interested in a better style of debate, you have a funny way of setting about achieving it.

OK, then, why don't you introduce a new thread that will bury this one. Only this time do it your way. I honestly don't understand you people. I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[ecco]

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

If we want to look at things, like fraud and acceptance, historically, let's look at faith healing.

Faith healing has many practitioners from little rural pastors to the mega preachers like Peter Popoff.

How many of these frauds have ever been busted by bible believing people or groups. None.

So, Piltdown man vs faith healers: Science:1 Bible believers:0

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[ecco]

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?

I didn't see your post until after I posted the above.

 

[exchemist]

OK, then, why don't you introduce a new thread that will bury this one. Only this time do it your way. I honestly don't understand you people. I don't understand your reasoning.

You mean you don't understand how starting a thread designed to annoy succeeded in its objective? Really?

But OK. You tell me, politely, in dispassionate language, what you wanted to explore by reference to the case of the Piltdown Man hoax. And let's see if a decent thread can be made out of it.

P.S. Perhaps it would also help if you could explain what you intended by referring to something called the "Evolution Chamber".

 

[Earthling]

If we want to look at things, like fraud and acceptance, historically, let's look at faith healing.

Faith healing has many practitioners from little rural pastors to the mega preachers like Peter Popoff.

How many of these frauds have ever been busted by bible believing people or groups. None.

So, Piltdown man vs faith healers: Science:1 Bible believers:0

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

That is entirely incorrect. On my website I deal briefly with this subject here.

The Bible teaches that those sorts of things were temporary, as signs to the specific people in those specific times and that they were no longer available after the deaths of the apostles. So any "faith" healing claims by Christians are not Christian in that they are not in agreement with those original teachings.

 

[ecco]

I was taught evolution for years in school.

In what Country was this school that taught you evolution for years? Did you take advance biology courses?

 

[exchemist]

You know they say that you'll reap what you're sowing.

But maybe some never read that.

I don't have high hopes but I admit I am somewhat intrigued to know what relevance someone thinks this hoax has to science or religion.

 

[Earthling]

You mean you don't understand how starting a thread designed to annoy succeeded in its objective? Really?

But OK. You tell me, politely, in dispassionate language, what you wanted to explore by reference to the case of the Piltdown Man hoax. And let's see if a decent thread can be made out of it.

P.S. Perhaps it would also help if you could explain what you intended by referring to something called the "Evolution Chamber".

1. Because something taught as fact for 40 years doesn't make it so.
2. People don't like to be criticized, especially when the real heart of the discussion is a class struggle of sorts, one world view trying to silence another world view.
3. Which is more important? To learn or do science or argue about mythology?
4. Science and theology have the same possibilities of corruption. Most of these complaints are human in nature rather than exclusive to either of the opposing paradigms.

Evolution Chamber was inspired by the Prometheus & Bob clip of the same title which I posted in another thread in promise of this one. For me, knowing there are so many science minded atheists who don't want to discuss religion I often throw a proverbial bone, allowing them, at least the opportunity to take or defend criticisms and open the opportunity for them to do what I'm asking you to do.

Teach me and present your subject as honestly and fairly as I have my own.

 

[metis]

All sin comes from the same place, so to a degree, all sin is the same.

In the Tanakh, all sins are not considered the same, which is why they have different penalties or no penalties at all that are listed. Nor is it that way in Christianity either as blaspheming against the H.S. is considered unforgivable, but that's the only one dealt with as such. Sins are sins, but not all sins are the same or dealt with in the same way.

 

[Earthling]

In what Country was this school that taught you evolution for years? Did you take advance biology courses?

Don't keep insinuating that the more I try the more likely it is that I accept Evolution. I was taught Evolution in public school, USA, from at least 6th grade to 10th grade, as far as I recall, which may not be entirely accurate. Approximately. But years. I f that wasn't enough then, well, what do I care? It means almost nothing to me.