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

[danieldemol]

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.

It is semantics that leads to people redefining terms so they can deflect labels that fit them only too well.

In my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Actually all the findings in support of evolution have turned out to be negative over the years.

What do you mean by 'negative', and how have you determined this?

They get a lot of press in the beginning, and when they have to revert their findings, its usually a small blip in the back of the paper. There was a recent thread I saw on this website that said there is proof of evolution everywhere, when there is really no real proof.

Link, please.
Science does not prove things. Science collects and tests actual evidence, then proposes explanations or conclusions.

"No real proof?" Well, there's no real proof that the Earth is round, that it circles the Sun, or that germs cause disease. All we have is a great deal of evidence.
We have a great deal of evidence for evolution, as well, and from many more sources than the evidence for a round Earth -- yet I'll bet you believe the round-Earth theory.

Unlike religion, science tests its evidence, encourages skepticism and research, and incorporates new discoveries into its theories. This is an epistemic strength, not a weakness.

In fact the more scientists discover, the more they realize how wrong their theories, especially Darwinian evolution, are. None of it holds up under scientific scrutiny.

Where are you getting these absurd "facts?" "Answers in Genesis?"

The more science discovers, the stronger the evidence for evolution is. Please cite an example of evidence countering evolution.

What is "Darwinian evolution," as opposed to regular evolution?
Please give an example of this evidence that didn't hold up under scrutiny.

With every new discovery, the evidence for evolution increases. There is no scientific skepticism about the fact of evolution.

A simple example is the fine-tuning of our universe. There are such impossible odds of it having coming to arrive as it has, all 4 fundamental laws of the universe tuned to just the right degree, that they come up with the theory of multiverse. An infinite amount of universes until the one we exist in arrives. This is metaphysical hocus pocus and is real science. Superstitious mumbo jumbo with no foundation in the real world.

There is no logical reason to conclude the universe is fine-tuned for us. If it were not, who would be here to realize it? This argument has been debunked a thousand times.

Once the original laws and constants were set, the universe unfolded naturally, through these set laws of physics, chemistry, &c.
As for life, what was possible, eventually developed. Life arose and developed through these same laws of physics and chemistry. It developed to fit its situation. It's situation was not pre-planned to fit life -- or to create a bipedal ape on an insignificant spec of dust 14B years later.
Fine tuning puts the cart before the horse, like the puddle amazed that its basin is so perfectly designed to fit its every contour.

Imagine the greats of science such as Stephen Hawking resort to this hocus pocus in statements such as: "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” -- Arthur C. Clark.
IE: To the scientifically illiterate, the findings and conclusions of science seem like hocus-pokus.

Does that make any sense? Gravity is something. It is not nothing.

It is not nothing, but it is no thing.

So the fact that gravity exists is not proof that the universe came from nothing.

Stop It! Please! Noöne is claiming the universe came from nothing. The claim is a strawman. Your case rests on a falsehood.
It's only RELIGION that claims something can be spoken into existence and appear from nothing.; only religion that bases its beliefs on magic.
You're falsely accusing science of an error only you are guilty of.

These intellectuals of the world that champion materialism that the people look up to resort to magical blind faith statements that have no basis in reality to uphold the tenants of their beliefs.

No! These intellectuals are the ones who spurn faith and rely on intellect, instead; on critical analysis and testing of observed facts. Their beliefs are entirely evidence-based.

It's you religious who believe on blind, unsupported faith.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But why do you believe this? Show me the genetic, anatomic or paleontological evidence you base this on.

Or maybe your doubt rests on the uncomfortable social status implications in the linkage? Maybe you've latched on to the only life-ring available: the religious contention that man is a special creation, the paragon of animals, magically poofed into existence from the dust of the Earth.

Reason dictates beliefs be based on evidence, not emotions or social implications.

 

[Valjean]

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

.
I'm skeptical. 'Pretty good' apes -- at best.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But why do you believe this? Show me the genetic, anatomic or paleontological evidence you base this on.

Or maybe your doubt rests on the uncomfortable social status implications in the linkage? Maybe you've latched on to the only life-ring available: the religious contention that man is a special creation, the paragon of animals, magically poofed into existence from the dust of the Earth.

Reason dictates beliefs be based on evidence, not emotions or social implications.

Because of my spiritual background i believe certain things that isn't based on science.

 

[ChristineM]

Have you ever read the plausibility reports? Like all the animals sleeping the whole time. Or all the carnivores were made into herbivores on there Ark so didn't need meat. Pretty amusing stuff.

And where did they store the blue whales?

 

[Valjean]

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.

It was accepted by the general public and fringe science. Most scientists were skeptical from the start, but the 'fossil' wasn't really properly tested till much later -- when it was immediately debunked.

The fact of evolution was never in question. The basic mechanisms were not in question. What changes is knowledge and interpretation of the details.
The disagreement religionists find so disturbing is usually on the fringes of science.
Moreover, religious beliefs are claimed to be set in stone; eternal and unchanging. The faithful, for some reason, find this reassuring, even in the face of new evidence. In fact, they find new evidence threatening, and even discourage research or questioning of established doctrine.

The ongoing evolution of scientific knowledge is very unsettling to them.

 

[Valjean]

Because of my spiritual background i believe certain things that isn't based on science.

I don't understand. How do spiritual beliefs affect facts, evidence or logic?

 

[Revoltingest]

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

They all walked across the water...thousands of miles
to get to the Ark. It was a particularly long trip for snakes.

 

[Revoltingest]

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).

That's true....with the Earth only a thousand or so years old
at this point, the animals would have a lot of freshly died meat....
Dinosaurs, pterosaurs, wooly mammoths, giant ground sloths,
short faced bears, saber tooth tigers, cave lions, homo habilis,
homo ecrectus, homo neanderthalensis, homo egaster, homo
georgicus, gigantopithecus, australopithecus, etc.

Dang, with all those "homo" hominds, no wonder God smited'm.

 

[Altfish]

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.

It was doubted for a long time and it was scientists who disproved it.

 

[Father Heathen]

If the Piltdown Man hoax disproves evolution, then the shroud of Torun hoax disproves Christ's divinity.

 

[Valjean]

If the Piltdown Man hoax disproves evolution, then the shroud of Torun hoax disproves Christ's divinity.

But then the fragment of the true Cross I bought at a yard sale last year definitively establishes his divinity, doesn't it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

As opposed to reliable old religion...
My preacher said it's the word of God, so it has to be true!

So, science is allowed to make statements based on faith? Interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, science is allowed to make statements based on faith? Interesting.

Scientists can say what they please.
But if tests cannot be repeated, they'll be forgotten.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Scientists can say what they please.
But if tests cannot be repeated, they'll be forgotten.

If they can say what they believe and the public believes them, how is that any different than believing what a preacher says?

 

[Audie]

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.

Can you figure out for us what point you
are attempting to make by reviewing this
well known old story?

The choice of words, "hoax" and "fraud"
rather than "practical joke" * are of course selected for a specific reason, which is...?

* a couple hundred years earlier, a professor
at a German university got interested in marinr
fossils readily excavated from a nearby quarry
of some sort.
He made a collection and enjoyed showing
his stome clams, or whatever.

A colleague made a fake fossil, carved from
limestone and left it to be found. When that
succeeded, he did more and it got out of hand.

Eventually he was doing things like Greek
letters and crucifixes.

Both professors ended up being fired.



Plz excuse my being heavy handed here but,
are you sure you know the motives of the piltdown practical joke perp? Nobody knows who did it. "Fraud" is a pretty serious charge.
And against someone with nothing to gain whatever.
Odd choice ofvwords.

Is there a reason not to give a reasonable estimate of how many people were never taken in by the fake fossil?

Is there some deep significance to the story?
That fraud, ineptitude, group think, and
whatever else ( please list) you wish to imply
is so typical of evolutionism that.....?

Should we figure that the wide and still bitterly
clung to acceptance of countless fake christiam relics and miracles proves Christianity is a hoax?
You have something to say?
How about you just come out in the open and say it, drop the sly hints, word games and innuendo?

 

[exchemist]

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 is the point of this post?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Ciao

- viole

I don't buy it. No ape ever built a computer or a car.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they can say what they believe and the public believes them, how is that any different than believing what a preacher says?

Scientists test their theories.
Preachers don't test...they just believe.