The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Earthling]

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

You replied that I was wrong...


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.

Because I can't mention the Bible without science being shoved down my throat. You get that point? I was taught evolution in school. I don't believe it. Creation is not taught in school. I don't think it should be. Your message is that I can't talk about the Bible without first accepting Evolution. I reject that. And I have a little fun with science minded atheists.

 

[metis]

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.

Then I would suggest that we should also expect sometimes in science that which we see within Christianity, namely that not all people in either always do the right thing. Piltdown was an intentional hoax that was eventually caught by another anthropologist, plus steps have been taken that nothing like that should hopefully happen again like that because we changed the procedure..

 

[Earthling]

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?

Nevermind.

 

[John53]

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.

And.... what is it?

 

[metis]

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?

I taught it.

However, I gotta boogey out of Dodge until tomorrow, so respond to this and I'll get back to you then.

Take care.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

It's a good thing we have the scientific method to debunk such things.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

Perhaps you can answer this question I always ask when Piltdown Man is brought up.

Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, therefore.............?

 

[siti]

Difficult to bear, isn't it?

Not really - its actually quite amusing - I have this mental image...well a picture speaks a thousand words:

Piltdown man, piltdown man,...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

Piltdown Man is a fake, and it should be exposed as such. That doesn't make all of the other hominid fossils fakes. They are still evidence that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Creation is not taught in school. I don't think it should be.

Why? It has no use in the sciences, so why teach it in science class?

 

[Audie]

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.

That would be a stretch!

 

[ecco]

Because I can't mention the Bible without science being shoved down my throat. You get that point? I was taught evolution in school. I don't believe it. Creation is not taught in school. I don't think it should be. Your message is that I can't talk about the Bible without first accepting Evolution. I reject that. And I have a little fun with science minded atheists.

Did you completely misread my comments?

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.

I asked why you don't criticize obvious fraudulent behavior on the part of Christians/bible believers. It has nothing to do with evolution, it has everything to do with ethics.

 

[gnostic]

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

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

You do have the tendencies to write a lot of BS.

Charles Dawson was an archaeologist, not palaeontologist nor a biologist, and he wasn’t even a qualified archaeologist at that, so he had no business identifying fossils or remains.

The piltdown man was never taken seriously.

Even a couple of years after his finding (1913-15), people were already poking holes in fraudulent discovery.

Gerrit Smith Miller is a biologist, and in 1915, was the first to identify the hoax by correctly identifying mismatched parts of the skull, decades before more definitive evidences done by several other scientists in 1953, prove the piltdown man was a fraud.

I have brought it up previously in another older thread, that the piltdown man to another creationist poster (Guy Threepwood) who kept bringing up the piltdown man.

You, like this other poster, have ignored other scientists who refuted Dawson’s discovery, just show how little you understand science methodology.

Dawson was amateur archaeologist, and being amateur don’t make a person “scientist” or expert in their amateur chosen fields.

The problem with archaeology is that too often, especially amateur archaeologists, make their so-called discoveries known prematurely to the media, without and properly investigate the evidences.

But in Dawson’s case, it was a downright fraud, and people were already questioning his fraudulent discovery, by actual scientists.

Beside that piltdown man was never considered evolutionary specimen, because only Dawson and Woodward were advocating the piltdown man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you completely misread my comments?

I asked why you don't criticize obvious fraudulent behavior on the part of Christians/bible believers. It has nothing to do with evolution, it has everything to do with ethics.

If he did so his errors would be clear even to him.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Well , scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes. This subsection of the forum is here for those who doubt the science and wish to know why the sciences have arrived at this conclusion. They can present arguments for their own contrary position. Then its upto each person to assess and to decide, though hopefully with out of forum reading of relevant literature.

 

[Earthling]

Well , scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes. This subsection of the forum is here for those who doubt the science and wish to know why the sciences have arrived at this conclusion. They can present arguments for their own contrary position. Then its upto each person to assess and to decide, though hopefully with out of forum reading of relevant literature.

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

 

[sayak83]

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

No. That would disprove evolution. These are the kind of malicious misconceptions that we seek to remove in this section of the forum.

 

[gnostic]

Then there is Ron Wyatt for the "bible is true" chamber
of fraud 'n hoax.

The creos have one (1) evolution hoax to
trot out over and over.

Ron W was a regular one man army of fraud!
Red Sea chariot wheels, Sodom n' Gomorrah,
Ark o the covenant, Noahs ark, what else!

He found them all. So he says.

Where is the creo with the honesty to admit it is
fraud, all of it? Cap'n OP? Who?

Yes, I heard of Wyatt, especially his bogus discovery of Noah’s Ark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

Since you are an ape it appears that you are obviously wrong.

 

[Earthling]

Well , scientific evidence is firmly for the evolution of human from ancient apes.

Do we have any evidence of an ape becoming a human or a dog becoming a cellular telephone?

No. That would disprove evolution. These are the kind of malicious misconceptions that we seek to remove in this section of the forum.

How is it your first quote above doesn't contradict your second quote above?