RedOne77
Active Member
To be fair, what I understand is that much of the expressed skepticism was more of a political/nationalistic response than a serious scientific concern.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
To be fair, what I understand is that much of the expressed skepticism was more of a political/nationalistic response than a serious scientific concern.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not entirely... there is a good reason Piltdown was essentially ignored in scientific discussions of human ancestry. Especially after the "cricket bat" was found in 1915.
That was the straw that broke the camels back... and in the same year the first allegations of hoaxing were published. But it was difficult to attack a respected gentleman and a pastor during the time... it just wasn't done. Especially a dead gentleman who couldn't defend himself. It took the development of unquestionable scientific tests (fluorine test) to put the final nail in the coffin.
Thankfully today science isn't so gentlemanly.... you have to actually support your finds and not simply have them accepted because you have a reputation as a gentleman.
wa:do
outhouse
Atheistically
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific investigation
From the outset, there were scientists who expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[5] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.
Early 20th century science
The Piltdown case is a strong example of how racial, nationalist, and gendered discourses shaped some science at this time, just as it shaped society more generally. Piltdown's semi-human features were made sense of by reference to non-White ethnicities who were at that time considered by many Europeans to be less evolved than themselves.[15] The influence of nationalism was clear in the differing interpretations of the find: whilst the majority of British scientists accepted the discovery as "the Earliest Englishman",[16] European and American scientists were considerably more skeptical, and several suggested at the time that the skull and jaw were from two different creatures and had been accidentally mixed up.[15] Regarding gender, the find was discussed as a male, despite Woodward suggesting that the specimen discovered was a female. The only exception to this was in coverage by the Daily Mail newspaper, which referred to the discovery as a woman, but only to use it to mock the Suffragette movement of the time, which the Mail was highly critical of.[17]
Such discourses were not uncommon in the biological sciences, and persisted up until the middle of the century. The atrocities committed by Nazi scientists before and during World War II brought the dangers of scientific racism to the foreground, and along with changing attitudes in society more generally, had the effect of largely purging these practices from science.[18]
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Right, and it was the creation scientists that discovered it's falsehood?
Evidence that proves the contrary typically forces people to confess.
How about them? Whats your point?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So I take it you don't have the guts to accuse any specific scientist of fraud? In that case I think we can all ignore your vague accusations.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Agreed.....
Danmac
Well-Known Member
I can't put labels on people according to forum rules.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Java man is genuine, Homo erectus... we have lots of other fossils to confirm this.
Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nebraska man only really ever appeared in newspapers and was never a valid scientific find.
Nor was it ever expressly stated to have been a hominid, Osborn was clear in all his writings that it may not have been.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What rule?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
'in the beginning'
literally true...the universe had a beginning
another example of a literally true interpretation is found in the fossil record. Up until the 1970's science was teaching that life evolved slowly on this planet over billions of years....but that is not the case as the fossil evidence shows quite the opposite and backs up the genesis account.
Genesis states that all sea creatures were created together in the same period.
“Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.... a fifth day.
that is literally true according to the evidence of the Cambrian explosion... .and yet science continues to teach that life developed slowly after billions of years from the simplest forms to more complex forms. All the phyla alive on earth today appears in the fossil record in the same geological time scale....and whats worse for science is that the evidence of the cambrian explosion was gathered in 1909...it was hidden away by the then director of the Smithsonian institute because he didnt believe what he had found - it wasnt possible according to the scientific theory of the day.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
does it really upset you when your in the wrong???
I get caught up sometimes and say things I should not have.
I thank the person for the correction, admit my mistake and move on.
outhouse
Atheistically
only by your self imposed interpretation
imagine that! 40 years ago they viewed things differently due to limited knowledge. Some things have evolved slowly and things have been evolving for 3billion years + so they were not all together wrong.
genesis is a ficticious tale. with no merit or scientific value.
wrong again. I highly reccomend you get a education on the subject if you want to debate with any credibility, or simply not look foolish.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"A long, long time ago" is also literally true, as there was once a period that could be considered a long time ago. Does that mean we can use Grimm's Fairy Tales as the basis of scientific theory?
Clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of what the Cambrian explosion was or what happened during it.
The Cambrian explosion was a period of over 6 million years, in which the early earth environment facililitated a comparatively rapid speciation event. What's more, all that formed during the Cambrian explosion were a huge variety of simple life forms - most of which are now extinct - which then went on to speciate further over the following billions of years to form life as we know it.
Once again, you are dishonestly misrepresenting real science in order to further your anti-scientific pro-religious bias, spread ignorance, appeal to the ignorant and reject any factual notion which contradicts with your belief structure. You should be ashamed of yourself.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
No no... Pegg is admitting that humans evolved from apes and that all vertebrates share common ancestry.
After all if the big deal is that all phyla appear in the Cambrian then Pegg has no problem with being the descendant of things like a hagfish.
wa:do
After all if the big deal is that all phyla appear in the Cambrian then Pegg has no problem with being the descendant of things like a hagfish.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Baloney. The evidence clearly supports ToE even more now than in 1970, which is why it is still taught in every public school in the nation. Who lied to you and told you this baloney?
But they weren't. Some are ancient, like coelecanth, and some more modern, like dolphins.
You have no idea what the Cambrian explosion is. I assure, it has nothing to do with all the creatures of the sea suddenly springing into existence.
Because it did.
Do you know what a phyla is?
Honestly, Pegg, where do you get this baloney? I mean, it's just utter balderdash. True, there's a grain of truth, but don't you want more than a grain? This is nothing like what happened; not even close. What happened was, we didn't know as much in 1909 as we know now. Science progresses. Sheesh.
David M
Well-Known Member
What you are ignoring is that the sequence is not sea creatures, winged flying creatures then land creatures as the bible has it. Its not literally true according to the cambrian explosion. Its sea creatures, land creatures then winged flying creatures.
Also the bible puts land plants before the sea creatues which is also not literally true according to the cambrian explosion.
Completely false. Most animal phyla appear in or before the Cambrian but some appear later. e.g. Rotifera do not appear until the Eocence, Bryozoa not until the early ordovician.
And the majority of plant phyla (and the fungi) do not appear until after the cambrian (but the bible says they should be well before the cambrian).