The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[ecco]

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.

How does one find your website?

 

[Earthling]

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.

Correct enough, I suppose, but all sin, no matter how great or how small, comes from the same source.

 

[Earthling]

How does one find your website?

I posted the link to it in the post you responded to , and you can access it from my sig, the big Gods And Men logo, or my profile page.

 

[metis]

The flood story is like that. It is a complete lie,
god or no god, but if a god did it, it is a horrific
atrocity.

I don't consider it a lie but as allegory. On a literal basis, it make no sense, plus it would have God as being the worse homicidal maniac in world history through killing all those in all families, even those with infants, except for just one family.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really, anyone who coughs up "Piltodown" is letting
you now right off that he is in no way equipped to
actually discuss ToE.

But we can't presume that.
Every new poster who brings it up should go thru the usual discussion.
Then we'll see where it leads.

 

[metis]

Correct enough, I suppose, but all sin, no matter how great or how small, comes from the same source.

Ya-- us.

 

[exchemist]

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.

OK, I'll leave the Evolution Chamber bit aside, as I don't understand the references.

I struggle a bit to see a coherent issue in the 4 items on your list. So I suppose I shall have to treat each of the four individually.

Re yr (1), yes of course, when there is deliberate deception, plainly something can end up being taught as fact and turn out later to be untrue. Russian schoolchildren were taught for years that a Russian invented television for instance. Or take the forged Donation of Constantine. But I'm not sure anyone can deduce anything fundamental from such cases.

Re yr (2), You will need to explain how the Piltdown Man hoax illustrates that people don't like to be criticised or how it illustrates a "class struggle" of some sort. I don't follow either at the moment.

Re yr (3), how does the Piltdown Man hoax relate to your question? I can't see a connection.

Re yr (4), this has more substance to it than your 1-3, I think. I presume the point of citing the Piltdown Man hoax in this context is to show an example of corruption in science - which is fair enough.

Indeed, you can have corruption - or simply error- in theology and in science and I agree entirely that both can occur as a result of human frailty. What defences does each discipline have against error?

There is a self-correcting feature of science, which is that the theories of science are always judged by testing against observation. Sooner or later a dud theory will come to grief because observations will be found that contradict it. In the Piltdown Man hoax, it was found that an observation was a dud. This process is a less often publicised but valuable feature of the way science works, too. People look at outliers, challenge them and repeat them to see if they really don't fit or if there is some artifact of the observation that it is responsible. (This happened recently with the Italian data that seemed to suggest particles travelling at superluminal speeds. It was challenged and found to be due to an artifact.)

In theology, it is less clear cut. I like to think that in the Western world there is sufficient freedom of expression and interchange of ideas that poorly argued theology will be criticised and eventually discarded. But as there are rival theologies that are intrinsically opposed to one another, and no means of objective arbitration analogous to the recourse to observation that science uses, it seems hard to decide who is right and who is in error.

 

[Earthling]

I don't consider it a lie but as allegory. On a literal basis, it make no sense, plus it would have God as being the worse homicidal maniac in world history through killing all those in all families, even those with infants, except for just one family.

Well, there was the invitation open to all. Nobody believed it. As far as it's literal basis not making sense, what do you think that basis was? Is it the supernatural aspects of it? Have you read the account?

 

[ecco]

Don't keep insinuating that the more I try the more likely it is that I accept Evolution.

That wasn't my intention at all.

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.

Quite the opposite. You said you were taught evolution for years. Yet, in reality, in the USA, there is very little taught about evolution in grades 7 - 10. In some States it's barely mentioned.

 

[exchemist]

Really, anyone who coughs up "Piltodown" is letting
you now right off that he is in no way equipped to
actually discuss ToE.

I think he's going somewhere else, to do with the sociology of systems of thought and their adherents. Watch this space.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Find me an exception some time. Bringing it up
as argument against evolution or science
is seriously ignorant.

But sure, give people a chance. this feller has
had his.

While success in debates is uncommon, it can happen.
But even when changing a mind looks impossible, we should still be friendly.
After all, we're just disagreeing.
And we don't want to behave anything remotely like Maxine Waters or her ilk.

Edit:
I wasn't comparing you to Ms Waters.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

You want to dissect the flaws in Evolutionary Theory while only having, at best, a Sophomoric understanding of the topic? Is that correct?

 

[ecco]

For me, knowing there are so many science minded atheists who don't want to discuss religion...

If that were true, then there wouldn't be so many science minded atheists in something called Religious Forums.

But here we are. I doubt we came here to argue over the definition of atheist, although that has come up.

 

[Audie]

That wasn't my intention at all.




Quite the opposite. You said you were taught evolution for years. Yet, in reality, in the USA, there is very little taught about evolution in grades 7 - 10. In some States it's barely mentioned.

For me-
About the only time it came up beyond maybe a mention of the word was in comparative vertebrate
anatomy. And none of that makes a whole lot
of sense without talk of evolution.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The evolution chamber is a look back at classic science. An historical look at the theory of Evolution.

The Shroud of Turin is a fake, therefore Jesus never existed.

If you think that argument is flawed, then yours would be as well.

 

[Earthling]

Re yr (1), yes of course, when there is deliberate deception, plainly something can end up being taught as fact and turn out later to be untrue. Russian schoolchildren were taught for years that a Russian invented television for instance. Or take the forged Donation of Constantine. But I'm not sure anyone can deduce anything fundamental from such cases.

It doesn't have to be deliberate. More often than not something is presented as fact when it's not. It's a control device, sure, but it doesn't have to be deliberate.

Re yr (2), You will need to explain how the Piltdown Man hoax illustrates that people don't like to be criticised or how it illustrates a "class struggle" of some sort. I don't follow either at the moment.

If you read the OP is says simply, here is an historical case of Evolution being presented for 40 years and then turning out to be a fake. Why object to it? It may be true but people object to criticism, especially when it is perceived as an attack on a world view.

Re yr (3), how does the Piltdown Man hoax relate to your question? I can't see a connection.

If I were not a Bible believer but a "believer" for a lack of a better term, of Evolution and had presented the OP would there be a conflict in my having presented the topic? It doesn't matter whether it were Piltdown or any other.

Re yr (4), this has more substance to it than your 1-3, I think. I presume the point of citing the Piltdown Man hoax in this context is to show an example of corruption in science - which is fair enough.

Indeed, you can have corruption - or simply error- in theology and in science and I agree entirely that both can occur as a result of human frailty. What defences does each discipline have against such corruption?

There is a self-correcting feature of science, which is that the theories of science are always judged by testing against observation. Sooner or later a dud theory will come to grief because observations will be found that contradict it.

If I say to you the soul is immortal, most scholars of theology will agree, due to tradition. If you read Ezekiel 18:4 it clearly states the soul is mortal. If you teach Evolution as fact it becomes a tradition which scholars adhere dogmatically to. If you overlook the correction you are enforcing a tradition which negates all methodology of true science while still presenting it as the effective methodology which in truth has been negated.

In theology, it is less clear cut. I like to think that in the Western world there is sufficient freedom of expression and interchange of ideas that poorly argued theology will be criticised and eventually discarded. But as there are rival theologies that are intrinsically opposed to one another, and no means of objective arbitration analogous to the recourse to observation that science uses, it seems hard to decide who is right and who is in error.

Well, first of all science can't test the supernatural. Now, squid and whales used to be thought of as supernatural, like mermaids still are. That whales and giant squid were once thought of as supernatural was completely reasonable because they couldn't easily get to them. Science can't test what it can't get to. It's impractical to suggest that because they used to think whales were supernatural then perhaps mermaids aren't. Simply by definition of supernatural, or the historical presentation of the mermaid in folklore etc.

No one here wants to teach me Evolution. They want for me to accept it or shut up and go away. You have to ask yourself why so many science minded atheist post on religious forums. I certainly wouldn't go to a science forum and argue about religion. It's a world view - science minded atheists against religion. I myself dislike organized religion, but I would much rather teach the Bible. Whenever I try to teach the Bible I'm attacked by science minded atheists. Why are they arguing with me instead of learning or doing science? Why do I have to justify my position on science, and especially Evolution in order to teach the Bible on a religious forum? Because the opposing world view can't tolerate disagreement with something presented as fact that will be presented in some other "factual" presentation in the near future.

Full circle.

 

[Earthling]

The Shroud of Turin is a fake, therefore Jesus never existed.

If you think that argument is flawed, then yours would be as well.

The Shroud of Turnin is fake, and should be presented, exposed as such.

If I said otherwise I would be wrong. That is debatable. It is ALWAYS debatable.

If you think that doesn't apply to Evolution you are wrong. That is debatable.

 

[exchemist]

It doesn't have to be deliberate. More often than not something is presented as fact when it's not. It's a control device, sure, but it doesn't have to be deliberate.



If you read the OP is says simply, here is an historical case of Evolution being presented for 40 years and then turning out to be a fake. Why object to it? It may be true but people object to criticism, especially when it is perceived as an attack on a world view.



If I were not a Bible believer but a "believer" for a lack of a better term, of Evolution and had presented the OP would there be a conflict in my having presented the topic? It doesn't matter whether it were Piltdown or any other.



If I say to you the soul is immortal, most scholars of theology will agree, due to tradition. If you read Ezekiel 18:4 it clearly states the soul is mortal. If you teach Evolution as fact it becomes a tradition which scholars adhere dogmatically to. If you overlook the correction you are enforcing a tradition which negates all methodology of true science while still presenting it as the effective methodology which in truth has been negated.



Well, first of all science can't test the supernatural. Now, squid and whales used to be thought of as supernatural, like mermaids still are. That whales and giant squid were once thought of as supernatural was completely reasonable because they couldn't easily get to them. Science can't test what it can't get to. It's impractical to suggest that because they used to think whales were supernatural then perhaps mermaids aren't. Simply by definition of supernatural, or the historical presentation of the mermaid in folklore etc.

No one here wants to teach me Evolution. They want for me to accept it or shut up and go away. You have to ask yourself why so many science minded atheist post on religious forums. I certainly wouldn't go to a science forum and argue about religion. It's a world view science minded atheists against religion. I myself dislike organized religion, but I would much rather teach the Bible. Whenever I try to teach the Bible I'm attacked by science minded atheists. Why are they arguing with me instead of learning or doing science? Why do I have to justify my position on science, and especially Evolution to teach the Bible on a religious forum? Because the opposing world view can't tolerate disagreement with something presented as fact that will be presented in some other "factual" presentation in the near future.

Full circle.

Well now you are drifting away from your example of Piltdown Man and introducing all kinds of questionable statements, mixed in with personal complaints about the forum and goodness knows what. There are far too many hares running for me to spend time chasing them all. If you want to pick one of them I'll have a go at dealing with it. What point is for you the main one?

 

[ecco]

Since you criticized science for allowing fraud, I asked why you didn't take the same attitude toward religion...

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.

You replied that I was wrong...

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

Ahh, I missed the link in the word "here". ( I do wish that forums could make links more easily recognizable).

Now I did click on it. On that page on your website the word "heal" is used once and the word "fraud" never. There is no discussion, let alone condemnation of, fraudulent Christian faith healers.

I haven't read all your threads and posts, but I don't recall you ever chastising faith healers as you did regarding people involved with piltdown man.

Furthermore, you showed no evidence of any Christians/bible believers, criticising faith healers.

So, my comments were not "entirely incorrect" by any stretch of the imagination.

You are quick to try to put down science while, at the same time, ignoring the frauds of your faith and persons associated with it.

 

[ecco]

Excerpts from a very good, reasonably short, article on the subject.

Solving the Piltdown Man Scientific Fraud
Solving the Piltdown Man Scientific Fraud
New evidence emerges a century after Britain’s “missing link” debacle

So who did it? Suspects have ranged from French priest and palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin to writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but many archaeologists naturally suspect Charles Dawson.

Very few scientists of the time were allowed to study the “original” fossils and were given plaster cast copies instead.

It has been suggested that his motive was scientific recognition and, in particular, his ambition to be elected a fellow of the Royal Society. Dawson wrote more than 50 publications but none up until Piltdown appears to have greatly furthered his career.