Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[Clara Tea]

And keeping all those animals alive on the ark.
What a hoot that claim is!

Theists could argue that all of the details of the Noah's Ark story are miracles of God.

Miracles:

1. Animals went two by two

2. Animals didn't eat each other

3. There was enough food for 40 days for all those animals

4. The ark was big enough to store all those animals.

5. Noah talked with God (and God talked back).

6. There was so much water in the atmosphere that the entire earth flooded.

My theist friend asserts that it ws an alien spaceship (most likely from Venus, because stars would be too far away, and the climate of Venus was different long ago), and that spaceship wasn't carrying animals, but carrying animal DNA, which was reconstituted into live animals again. Evidence of life on Venus, she claims, was obscurred by the roiled soil of Venus due to winds and meteors.

 

[Clara Tea]

Maybe the pre historic man just looked different to todays homo sapiense so when they find remains "older than time" it just means that we humans looked different then?

Personally i believe human race are millions of years old.

Maybe the missing link that some expect is not there at all. Maybe some bonobo chimp had a human (or almost human) baby, due to genetic mutation, and unlike most mutations, it turned out to be beneficial, so it survived, and eventually dominated?

It seems that there is a sudden transition from the full set of chromosomes to the partial set of chromosomes of humans in the fossil record.

 

[Clara Tea]

Not to mention, how did they get all those animals from Australia?

Frequent flyer miles.

Except for the problem of the age of the earth (theists say 6,000 years old), continents drift, and land masses could have been connected to transfer animals. Also, during the ice age, ice could have connected land masses, or animals and plants could have drifted over on iceburgs.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Maybe the missing link that some expect is not there at all. Maybe some bonobo chimp had a human (or almost human) baby, due to genetic mutation, and unlike most mutations, it turned out to be beneficial, so it survived, and eventually dominated?

It seems that there is a sudden transition from the full set of chromosomes to the partial set of chromosomes of humans in the fossil record.

Somewhere in the line there could maybe have been a mix, i cant rule that fully out.

But my personal belief is that even humans once maybe looked more hairy....there are still two different branches of evolution. Humans vs ape.

 

[Clara Tea]

Science isnt perfect.
By the way, didn't science figure that out?

Yes, science caught the fraud.

 

[Clara Tea]

Or God eliminated the need to eat.
Either way, it's magic!

Well, the dinosaurs did go extinct, and there was a lot of meat on them.

Noah should have opened the first KFD (Kentucky Fried Dinosaurs).

 

[Clara Tea]

Yeah, Genesis is wrong about the the earth being formed in the beginning. The earth wasn't formed in the beginning of the universe, it's only about 5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So from the first ten words the Bible is wrong.

Do we need to read more? No. It's already wrong. Fortunately we have science to learn about how things are, and how it shows the Bible is wrong (if interpreted literally). So what we have learned is not to interpret the Bible literally.

You are forgetting that time dilates in strong gravitational fields (General Relativity) and at fast speeds (Special Relativity). So, God's time might not be our time, depending on where God was relative to the big bang and how fast he was traveling.

Furthermore, days were measured by the rotation of the earth, and years by the orbit of the earth around the sun. If the sun and earth didn't exist at the formation of the universe, days and years didn't exist either. Furthermore, once days and years existed, they were different lengths of time than they are now.

Also, the bible's translation might be wrong. In Hebrew the word "year" might also mean the word "era."

 

[Clara Tea]

Somewhere in the line there could maybe have been a mix, i cant rule that fully out.

But my personal belief is that even humans once maybe looked more hairy....there are still two different branches of evolution. Humans vs ape.

Actually, there are many separate species of primates. Species are said to not be able to procreate offspring that could procreate. Thus a horse and a donkey can have a mule baby, but the mule is generally (though not always) sterile. So, the horse and donkey are said to be separate species.

By that definition, I would think that Neanderthals and humans are separate species, because we know that they did procreate, and many people alive today have Neanderthal DNA (some as much as 6%). That's almost like having a great grandfather who was a Neanderthal.

Ditto, Denisovans (another branch like Neanderthals) bred with humans, and it has been established in the last couple of years, that Neanderthals and Denisovans mated as well, and produced offspring, the bones of which were recently found in Russia and checked for DNA, which proved it.

Reading further, I found that humans and Neanderthal didn't mate much (though it seems as though they mated plenty from my perspective), and that is why they are considered separate species, though they did procreate and make offspring which could also procreate.

 

[Clara Tea]

Somewhere in the line there could maybe have been a mix, i cant rule that fully out.

But my personal belief is that even humans once maybe looked more hairy....there are still two different branches of evolution. Humans vs ape.

For sure, Neanderthals and Denisovans did breed with humans and each other.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Actually, there are many separate species of primates. Species are said to not be able to procreate offspring that could procreate. Thus a horse and a donkey can have a mule baby, but the mule is generally (though not always) sterile. So, the horse and donkey are said to be separate species.

By that definition, I would think that Neanderthals and humans are separate species, because we know that they did procreate, and many people alive today have Neanderthal DNA (some as much as 6%). That's almost like having a great grandfather who was a Neanderthal.

Ditto, Denisovans (another branch like Neanderthals) bred with humans, and it has been established in the last couple of years, that Neanderthals and Denisovans mated as well, and produced offspring, the bones of which were recently found in Russia and checked for DNA, which proved it.

Reading further, I found that humans and Neanderthal didn't mate much (though it seems as though they mated plenty from my perspective), and that is why they are considered separate species, though they did procreate and make offspring which could also procreate.

I have no reason to doubt you on this

I believe the neandertals and denisova are human beings from a lost and forgotten time

 

[Mock Turtle]

I knew it was all a hoax when I listened to this - in 1960/61 it seems - twas them that did it:

 

[viole]

It's more common than we are led to believe. A few bone fragments, and poof! It must be an ape ancestor of humans!

Actually, we are apes. Great apes, to be exact.

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

There many many frauds done by various people YT. I mean in all walks and all ideologies.

Nevertheless, what is the idea behind this post? Please clarify if you dont mind.

I really would like to see how people react to this. It was basically taught and accepted as true until further examination was done decades later, exposing it as untrue and a fraud. Many things regarding evolution are widely heralded and accepted as true, then conclusions sometimes change upon further discoveries or investigations.

 

[YoursTrue]

There many many frauds done by various people YT. I mean in all walks and all ideologies.

Nevertheless, what is the idea behind this post? Please clarify if you dont mind.

The initial claim was that it was a fossil from an "early human," and, as we know, many people accepted that as true. It was not true but my point is that many people, including scientists, accepted it as true for a long time. There were no questions about evolution in school and which I accepted as true beyond doubt (because I did not question the theory of evolution at the time, naively accepting what they taught me as true, having no reference to place it against). Meantime, while the Piltdown Man is a rather extreme example of that which is fraudulent or untruthful yet accepted by many, yes -- it causes me to consider much of what is commonly accepted as truthful regarding the conclusions of some scientists in reference to fossils placing it within the theory of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Other topics may be discussed later. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

They may not specifically be young earth creationists but they sure appear to be creationists because they believe that each kind was made by an intervention from God.

In other words if the shoe fits, whether they reject the term or not is irrelevant.

In my opinion.

When I was in high school and college and thereafter until I began really examining the hypothesis of the theory of evolution, I had no reason to NOT believe it. I did not question "scientific findings" and conclusions of many things until later. And snce the Piltdown Man fraud is significant in that it was accepted by many as true for many years without question, and -- since I have looked at scientific conclusions based on what is considered as evidence, I have come to realize that the mainstream community of what is accepted as science not only has logical and reasonable gaps that cannot be bridged except by conjectural assessments as to their placement in the theory, but which are promoted as true by the mainstream scientific community.
I do appreciate scientific endeavors such as vaccines. I am not anti-science. Just as you categorize and accept within bounds definitions (such as human apes), others may not agree with definitions of what is considered as a creationist, despite the term being embracing.

 

[viole]

I really would like to see how people react to this. It was basically taught and accepted as true until further examination was done decades later, exposing it as untrue and a fraud. Many things regarding evolution are widely heralded and accepted as true, then conclusions sometimes change upon further discoveries or investigations.

Cold fusion was a fraud. Ergo, the entire atomic science is a fraud.
Homeopathy is a fraud, ergo all medical science is nonsense. Correct?

By the way, who found it was a fraud?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

The initial claim was that it was a fossil from an "early human," and, as we know, many people accepted that as true. It was not true but my point is that many people, including scientists, accepted it as true for a long time. There were no questions about evolution in school and which I accepted as true beyond doubt (because I did not question the theory of evolution at the time, naively accepting what they taught me as true, having no reference to place it against). Meantime, while the Piltdown Man is a rather extreme example of that which is fraudulent or untruthful yet accepted by many, yes -- it causes me to consider much of what is commonly accepted as truthful regarding the conclusions of some scientists in reference to fossils placing it within the theory of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Other topics may be discussed later. Thank you.

I understand all of that YT.

My question is, what is your ultimate accusation or point. Hope you understand.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So now, for many years it was broadly accepted that fossilized bones put together were the remains of an early human. Although not everyone accepted it, yet it was widely accepted as indicative of an early human. The hoax was finally verified in 1953. Seems that in 1912, a man named Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. Finally found out to be a fraud even though accepted by many for decades.

What a wonderful example of the scientific method in action! The skeptical nature of the method ensures that hoaxes such as this will be vigorously questioned and tested and eventually exposed for the fraudulent science that it is. Thanks for sharing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless, what is the idea behind this post? Please clarify if you dont mind.

"science BAD, bible GOOD"

no more, no less.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really would like to see how people react to this.

Are you under the impression that you are bringing something up that we aren't aware of?

It was basically taught and accepted as true until further examination was done decades later, exposing it as untrue and a fraud

Through science. This is the strength of science: it is self-correcting.
Funny how you wish to present this as being a weakness.

Many things regarding evolution are widely heralded and accepted as true, then conclusions sometimes change upon further discoveries or investigations.

Yes, it's called "progress".