There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[Dan From Smithville]

The exact reason I have bowed out of replying to them.

I understand that they will likely take my bowing out as a win.
But it seems to me that that particular win is less satisfying to them than the "suffering for the lord" they relish in.

In my view, it is an effort to keep an anti-science/anti-reason position alive while having no real means or basis to do it properly. This sort of thing is all there is to keeping it alive. Empty claims, logical fallacies and repetition. That is the way it has been for decades. The attempts to bring science down and replace it with unverified personal belief haven't changed and we keep seeing the same claims and dismissals rotate through in cycles.

I see the same thing on other threads here from different individuals. Even the ID movement, where there were a few actual scientists involved, couldn't produce any viable results to change science, see it dismissed or even sustain the movement in any effective way. Those remaining few academics and scientists are clinging there on the ignorance of their audience and the stamina of repetition and attention seeking. Just hanging in there hoping the remission won't last.

I think correcting this with a few posts and then letting it die may be the best response. I'm not good at holding to that, but I try.

It seems like this recent wave of 50 claims in 50 threads is waning.

 

[Polymath257]

In my view, it is an effort to keep an anti-science/anti-reason position alive while having no real means or basis to do it properly. This sort of thing is all there is to keeping it alive. Empty claims, logical fallacies and repetition. That is the way it has been for decades. The attempts to bring science down and replace it with unverified personal belief haven't changed and we keep seeing the same claims and dismissals rotate through in cycles.

I see the same thing on other threads here from different individuals. Even the ID movement, where there were a few actual scientists involved, couldn't produce any viable results to change science, see it dismissed or even sustain the movement in any effective way. Those remaining few academics and scientists are clinging there on the ignorance of their audience and the stamina of repetition and attention seeking. Just hanging in there hoping the remission won't last.

I think correcting this with a few posts and then letting it die may be the best response. I'm not good at holding to that, but I try.

It seems like this recent wave of 50 claims in 50 threads is waning.

I go back and forth on this. There is a part of me that really thinks we should combat such propaganda at every step. It's the old 'the only thing evil needs is for good people to do nothing'.

But it is also true that this is more playing to the audience and not to the specific proponent of the conspiracy view. Most creationists will never want to learn the actual science. Neither will most flat earthers, etc. So the issue is how many people will they lead astray with their falsehoods?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I go back and forth on this.

I do too. My comment of not being very good at following the advice I offer goes to that back and forth. And then someone will say something so utterly wrong or with such blatant, unfounded arrogance that I fail to hold my tongue.

There is a part of me that really thinks we should combat such propaganda at every step. It's the old 'the only thing evil needs is for good people to do nothing'.

Again, I agree. My attempts to provide correct information confronting the misinformation is one way I try to address it. Discussion of the claims with other parties not drunk on the kool aid of absolutist dogma is another means.

But it is also true that this is more playing to the audience and not to the specific proponent of the conspiracy view. Most creationists will never want to learn the actual science. Neither will most flat earthers, etc. So the issue is how many people will they lead astray with their falsehoods?

A person that has declared they reject the theory of evolution using their own biased, flawed, personal view as the standard of rejection and then keeps asking questions related to biology and evolution as if interested in learning something in a repeated pattern is another example. I have to ask myself, are those questions sincere or just keeping this going so that the person can win by attrition or be able repeat how they reject the theory? When there is an established pattern of this, the answer seems obvious to me. Just another means to keep declaring rejection of the theory hoping that it will spread.

In those instances, I think addressing that fact and then providing valid information is to counter the flawed claims is about as good as it gets. Becoming a cog in that broken machine hoping to fix it isn't going to happen in my view.

Sometimes, I think it is better just to let some attempts wither and die from lack of attention. Who wants to keep a poison ivy plant as a houseplant anyway?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I go back and forth on this. There is a part of me that really thinks we should combat such propaganda at every step. It's the old 'the only thing evil needs is for good people to do nothing'.

But it is also true that this is more playing to the audience and not to the specific proponent of the conspiracy view. Most creationists will never want to learn the actual science. Neither will most flat earthers, etc. So the issue is how many people will they lead astray with their falsehoods?

I have learned a lot reading your responses to those types of posts we are discussing. I appreciate that knowledge and your greater ability at presenting it too. That, to me, is the only real value in them. These wild claims based on dogmatic belief bring in others with knowledge and ideas that I may not know or have thought through as far as someone else has.

I see this as the real value of them and the only reason I can think of for sustaining them for any length. It is the same idea I believe is reflected in @sayak83's thread thanking creationists and other science deniers.

 

[Polymath257]

I have learned a lot reading your responses to those types of posts we are discussing. I appreciate that knowledge and your greater ability at presenting it too. That, to me, is the only real value in them. These wild claims based on dogmatic belief bring in others with knowledge and ideas that I may not know or have thought through as far as someone else has.

I see this as the real value of them and the only reason I can think of for sustaining them for any length. It is the same idea I believe is reflected in @sayak83's thread thanking creationists and other science deniers.

I agree. While the creationists and IDers may not learn much, I find that *I* am learning a lot. There is a great deal of expertise on these issues in this forum.

And don't sell yourself short: you are one of the best posters here. I admire your intellect and ability to provide useful information.

 

[McBell]

In my view, it is an effort to keep an anti-science/anti-reason position alive while having no real means or basis to do it properly. This sort of thing is all there is to keeping it alive. Empty claims, logical fallacies and repetition. That is the way it has been for decades. The attempts to bring science down and replace it with unverified personal belief haven't changed and we keep seeing the same claims and dismissals rotate through in cycles.

I see the same thing on other threads here from different individuals. Even the ID movement, where there were a few actual scientists involved, couldn't produce any viable results to change science, see it dismissed or even sustain the movement in any effective way. Those remaining few academics and scientists are clinging there on the ignorance of their audience and the stamina of repetition and attention seeking. Just hanging in there hoping the remission won't last.

I think correcting this with a few posts and then letting it die may be the best response. I'm not good at holding to that, but I try.

It seems like this recent wave of 50 claims in 50 threads is waning.

When does responding to someone who is not the least bit interested in anything other than their "suffering for the Lord" become nothing more than helping keep the anti-science/anti-reason position alive?

At this point in the thread, it seems that all you are doing is feeding their "suffering for the lord" complex....

 

[Astrophile]

Areas that were once under the ocean are now 6000 miles up,

Do you mean metres, or do you mean to say that areas that were once under the ocean are now 6000 miles inland?

 

[Astrophile]

is that your evidence that it wasn't a fraud?

Nobody since 1953 (70 years ago now) has tried to claim that 'Piltdown Man' was anything but a fraud. It is about time that the Piltdown fraud was declared dead and buried; it is not relevant to the modern understanding of human evolution.

What about the Java Man? Are you a believer that Dubois wasn't wrong in his assumptions concerning this specimen?

For example:

• Dubois was a medical practitioner, not a geologist nor paleontologist
• Dubois never actually dug out the two bones...they were brought to him by engineers who were working for him
• The two bones were more than 10 metres apart and may not even be from the same specimen and it was not accurately documented what level in the cave the bones were found...there is variation even within Dubois own writings whether they were found 10, 12, or 15m apart!
• The femur was found a year later than the skull
• there is strong evidence the specimen suffered from ricketts and vitamin deficiency common among Neandertals
• It is likely that the specimen is no older than modern humans
• A number of scientists have grave reservations about Dubois claims with this specimen ...ie his claim that it was transitional between ape and human

Lubenow in his book Bones of Contention states "When any other fossils similar to Java man were found, Dubois rejected the evidence out of hand. He laboured hard to find tiny areas where his fossils differed from anything else that had been found so as to defend the uniqueness of his discovery"

GHR von Koenigswald wrote
"on this point he was as unaccountable as a jealous lover. Anyone who disagree with his interpretation of Pithecanthropus was his personal enemy"

Franz Weidenreich, who replaced Black in China after the latter's death in 1933, argued that Sinanthropus was also a transitional fossil between apes and humans, and was in fact so similar to Java's Pithecanthropus that they should both belong to the family Hominidae. Eugène Dubois categorically refused to entertain this possibility, dismissing Peking Man as a kind of Neanderthal, closer to humans than the Pithecanthropus, and insisting that Pithecanthropus belonged to its own superfamily, the Pithecanthropoidea Java Man - Wikipedia

I haven't studied Java Man in as much detail as 'Piltdown Man', so I cannot comment on your assertions. So far as I know, most specialists accept that Java Man is a specimen of Homo erectus and that it dates from the Lower Pleistocene epoch - Java Man - Wikipedia

 

[Astrophile]

We have atheists running around schools trying to stop Christian studies during school hours calling it indoctrination and evil. What a load of ****e...since when is any study of philosophy considered evil? It seems to me that there is this fear of being convinced and then converted because it may just be right!

I know that this is off-topic, but this is a subject on which I feel strongly. In my experience, religious education was worse than useless. I was taught Christianity at school, and when I first started doubting that it was true, I had to spend four years in research unlearning what I had been taught.

So far as I can remember, Christianity was the subject that took up the greatest amount of time at primary school. In hindsight, this was a sheer waste of time; if it had been given to something like mathematics, I should be a better mathematician (and therefore a better scientist) than I actually am.

It was not even as if religion was well taught. As an example, I learnt about the prophets Elijah and Elisha and assumed that there were books of the Bible named after these prophets. It was quite a long time before I found that these stories came from I and II Kings.

Obviously you are a Christian and hold a different opinion about religious education. As I have said, in my experience it was worse than useless, and the whole subject should have been dropped from the curriculum and replaced by other, more useful, subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody since 1953 (70 years ago now) has tried to claim that 'Piltdown Man' was anything but a fraud. It is about time that the Piltdown fraud was declared dead and buried; it is not relevant to the modern understanding of human evolution.

I haven't studied Java Man in as much detail as 'Piltdown Man', so I cannot comment on your assertions. So far as I know, most specialists accept that Java Man is a specimen of Homo erectus and that it dates from the Lower Pleistocene epoch - Java Man - Wikipedia

Creationists far too often try to make it about the person and not the evidence. As a medical doctor Dubois was able to recognize a human thigh that was not a Homo sapiens thigh and skullcap that was a human skullcap but not a Homo sapiens skullcap. He was, like Darwin, able to come up with a valid conclusion on not all that much evidence. Many creationists claimed "hoax" at that time due to how little evidence there was. But here is the important part. As you and I know it was confirmed by further evidence that Java Man was the first example of Homo erectus ever found. The same applies to Peking Man. The only hope of some creationists is to repeat long ago refuted claims of "hoax".

Religion is usually based upon individuals. They seem to think that everything is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you mean metres, or do you mean to say that areas that were once under the ocean are now 6000 miles inland?

Actually i DID make a mistake. I meant to say 6000 feet. I never use the metric system, so I have no idea what that is in terms of metres. You'll have to google it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Creationists far too often try to make it about the person and not the evidence. As a medical doctor Dubois was able to recognize a human thigh that was not a Homo sapiens thigh and skullcap that was a human skullcap but not a Homo sapiens skullcap. He was, like Darwin, able to come up with a valid conclusion on not all that much evidence. Many creationists claimed "hoax" at that time due to how little evidence there was. But here is the important part. As you and I know it was confirmed by further evidence that Java Man was the first example of Homo erectus ever found. The same applies to Peking Man. The only hope of some creationists is to repeat long ago refuted claims of "hoax".

Religion is usually based upon individuals. They seem to think that everything is.

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific and not some hoax or deception?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific and not some hoax or deception?

Yes. Scientists have been doing so ever since Darwin came up with his theory.

To date no creationist has formed a hypothesis of creation. Or if they have it has been quickly refuted.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific and not some hoax or deception?

Such evidence has been provided many times. It seems you are simply not willing to entertain it. My suggestion to you is to get a good basic book on evolution, and learn about the lines of evidence, from fossils to genetics. Good luck to you.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific and not some hoax or deception?

You realize that 'evolution' and 'billions of years' are two separate claims, right? Each has its own evidence. The two are *consistent* with each other, but don't expect direct evidence for one to be direct evidence of the other.

 

[metis]

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific and not some hoax or deception?

Can I recommend getting a subscription to Scientific American as it runs such articles in almost every issue. Even Yahoo has a science division if you google it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Another terribly failed argument that is based upon a false dichotomy. The possibilities are not just your God and atheism. Do you understand that? The possibilities are your God and all of the other man made gods versus atheism. Many of those versions of god will punish a person worse if they believe in the wrong god than they would if a person was an atheist. And unlike the lottery that only costs you a buck or two to play according to the rules of the Bible it costs a person a lot more to play the game of Christianity. A tenth of your earnings are supposed to go to your version of god. That ain't cheap.

this is stup[id reasoning. When you are on your death bed, i hope that you remember this as you contemplate the reality of kaput!
Christians follow the bible because of a lot more than there are many gods...the bible is full of authenitic history and that supports its narrative. The other gods you speak of, none of them as far as i am aware have ever produced anything that certifies the truth of said religions and that is the difference.
yours is a typical argument from someone that wishes to be a naysayer without actually doing any genuine unbiased] in depth study of what they are naysaying against.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The two are *consistent* with each other, but don't expect direct evidence for one to be direct evidence of the other.

that argument is like a individual trying to claim that a life of crime doeasnt pay when in fact, in monetry terms, if it didnt pay, who would actually engage in it? (some of the worlds richest men sat/sit at the top of criminal enterprises)

 

[Polymath257]

that argument is like a individual trying to claim that a life of crime doeasnt pay when in fact, in monetry terms, if it didnt pay, who would actually engage in it? (some of the worlds richest men sat/sit at the top of criminal enterprises)

How is it like that at all? I am pointing out that these are distinct questions that have independent evidence. Both have mountains of evidence, though.

 

[Polymath257]

this is stup[id reasoning. When you are on your death bed, i hope that you remember this as you contemplate the reality of kaput!
Christians follow the bible because of a lot more than there are many gods...the bible is full of authenitic history and that supports its narrative. The other gods you speak of, none of them as far as i am aware have ever produced anything that certifies the truth of said religions and that is the difference.
yours is a typical argument from someone that wishes to be a naysayer without actually doing any genuine unbiased] in depth study of what they are naysaying against.

Funny. Those who believe in Islam say much the same thing. They claim to have much more authentic history, in fact.