Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82074 Mar 21, 2013
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001_1...

Creationist Claim CC001.1:

500 doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man.

Response:

The claim is false. In all probability, there were no doctoral dissertations on Piltdown Man. The claim probably arises from an editorial in Nature which says, "More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man." [Nature editors 1954; Harter 1996]
Links:

Harter, Richard, 1996. Piltdown Man: The bogus bones caper. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html...
References:

Harter, 1996.(see above)
Nature editors, 1954. The Piltdown bones and 'implements'. Nature 274(4419): 61-62.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#82075 Mar 21, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt you can do that, and the only ones who CLAIM to be able to do this are usually fundamentalist Christians working a "creationist" agenda.
<quoted text>
You are doubtless attacked because you are pushing your Christian religion in the guise of pseudo-science, by using sciencey-sounding language in attacking the uncontroversial (in SCIENCE, anyway) backbone of modern life science, evolution.
<quoted text>
Who proved Piltdown a hoax? Evangelical Christian pastors and "scientists" working a creationist agenda? Or rather real scientists in the 1950s who finally had the tools (radiometric dating methods) to prove something fraudulent which had LONG been suspected of being so by science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.h...
Creationist Claim CC001:
Piltdown Man was a hoax
In 1912, Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward announced the discovery of a mandible and part of a skull from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible was apelike except for humanlike wear on the teeth; the skull was like a modern human. These bones became the basis for Eoanthropus dawsoni, commonly known as Piltdown Man, interpreted as a 500,000-year-old British ape-man. But in the early 1950s, it was found that the jawbone was stained and filed down to give its appearance and that the skull was a recent human fossil. In short, Piltdown Man was a fraud. British scientists believed it because they wanted to. The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions.
Response:
1. Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and second, the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds.
2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.
Links:
Harter, Richard, 1996. Piltdown Man: The bogus bones caper. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
how's that 'demolishing' going, Mark?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Park City, Utah

#82076 Mar 21, 2013
"...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the Sun does indeed rotate around the Earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people."

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession.

When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask,'Have you ever read it'?" Bishop John Shelby Spong.

I think that most Christians of today have no clue of what the Bible is really saying and teaches.

They are used to preachers picking and choosing little bits of verse here and there and they don't have a coherent and whole understanding of what is going on.

Examples above are that the Bible, God, and Jesus actually condone slavery and making women second class humans fit mostly for child bearing, house work, and as sexual slaves.

Whatever freedoms that the Greek and Roman women of the time had were gone quickly when the Christian religion took hold

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82077 Mar 21, 2013
Gillette wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/ind excc/CC/CC001_1.html
Creationist Claim CC001.1:
500 doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man.
Response:
The claim is false. In all probability, there were no doctoral dissertations on Piltdown Man. The claim probably arises from an editorial in Nature which says, "More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man." [Nature editors 1954; Harter 1996]
Links:
Harter, Richard, 1996. Piltdown Man: The bogus bones caper. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html...
References:
Harter, 1996.(see above)
Nature editors, 1954. The Piltdown bones and 'implements'. Nature 274(4419): 61-62.
Nice series.

This, I love. Have you seen it?: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/t...

It's NOT what you might think, looking at the source.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82078 Mar 21, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nice series.
This, I love. Have you seen it?: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/t...
It's NOT what you might think, looking at the source.
Yes, it;s a great list, isn't it!

Bt if every Christian read it and abided by it, what wold we talk about here on Topix? LOL

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82079 Mar 21, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it;s a great list, isn't it!
Bt if every Christian read it and abided by it, what wold we talk about here on Topix? LOL
True dat.

Funny as hell, though - especially the squirmy bits at the beginning.

"We've been using these arguments for ages, even knowing that they're crap. They're about used up now, though, so we need some new crap."
a_friend

Reading, PA

#82080 Mar 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I am guessing by this question that you have done no research into scientific matters at all. Considering you ask for only one source, and you expect the list of sources to be able to fit into a reply on here .... you need to learn how to learn.
What a way to avoid my question. You still have not answered. What is your source of info? Just a brief explanation will do, no I do not expect a long list, don't assume things.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82081 Mar 21, 2013
a_friend wrote:
<quoted text>
What a way to avoid my question. You still have not answered. What is your source of info? Just a brief explanation will do, no I do not expect a long list, don't assume things.
How about a lifelong education, much of it in the sciences, plus all the resources of the Internet?

You want one single source?????

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#82082 Mar 21, 2013
a_friend wrote:
<quoted text>
What a way to avoid my question. You still have not answered. What is your source of info? Just a brief explanation will do, no I do not expect a long list, don't assume things.
*still doesn't get it*
Mark

Portland, OR

#82083 Mar 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how's that 'demolishing' going, Mark?
Oh, I feel the wooden stake going into my heart!! Are we back to if it's bad blame Christians and George Bush? Pretty waek, an anti-evo conspiracy?? Didn't know about that one. I guess you guys have your lit. and we have ours. It was a thoughtful and professional response, I appreciate that.

I have been to the TX footprint site...- iffy for sure. Have the lit on the "Moab Man", absolutely air tight, if it's the one about footprints in very early strata. There are plenty of other good examples that are in the same boat. The Nampa Idol for one.

"The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions"

My point - no discoveries, no acclaim. True

"The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee.(not what I said) A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim.

He showed up with a box and 1 knee inside, not 2. Which is the correct one?? He backtracked later.

My point - no discoveries, no acclaim - True

Repeated -

"The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions"

If human evo evidence is so strong why doesn't Johansson bring it up in his debates with folks on my side?? Of late the media headlines are reading, "human evo not as simple as previously thought".. "human evo tree uncertain" "someday we will find it" etc. Hardly convincing.

If evolution is so air-tight and operating, where are all the transitionals of living fauna now? I heard the argument, "this all happened very quickly in one confined area" - really, how convienent, no fossils needed! I asked Patterson about this and his response was, "my friends coming back from the tropics tell me the same thing". So I am not off base and the problem is real. Has gene mutation that drive this engine of evolution you speak of ceased to operate? No. So you are missing the observable and operational evidence. What then do you do with the platypus and the monarch butterfly? Time and accidents? I'm really trying to stretch out and find some science here, and it's not working for me. Sorry, stake is out.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#82084 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I feel the wooden stake going into my heart!! Are we back to if it's bad blame Christians and George Bush? Pretty waek, an anti-evo conspiracy?? Didn't know about that one. I guess you guys have your lit. and we have ours. It was a thoughtful and professional response, I appreciate that.
I have been to the TX footprint site...- iffy for sure. Have the lit on the "Moab Man", absolutely air tight, if it's the one about footprints in very early strata. There are plenty of other good examples that are in the same boat. The Nampa Idol for one.
"The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions"
My point - no discoveries, no acclaim. True
"The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee.(not what I said) A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim.
He showed up with a box and 1 knee inside, not 2. Which is the correct one?? He backtracked later.
My point - no discoveries, no acclaim - True
Repeated -
"The failure to expose it sooner shows that scientists tend to be guided by their preconceptions"
If human evo evidence is so strong why doesn't Johansson bring it up in his debates with folks on my side?? Of late the media headlines are reading, "human evo not as simple as previously thought".. "human evo tree uncertain" "someday we will find it" etc. Hardly convincing.
If evolution is so air-tight and operating, where are all the transitionals of living fauna now? I heard the argument, "this all happened very quickly in one confined area" - really, how convienent, no fossils needed! I asked Patterson about this and his response was, "my friends coming back from the tropics tell me the same thing". So I am not off base and the problem is real. Has gene mutation that drive this engine of evolution you speak of ceased to operate? No. So you are missing the observable and operational evidence. What then do you do with the platypus and the monarch butterfly? Time and accidents? I'm really trying to stretch out and find some science here, and it's not working for me. Sorry, stake is out.
the transitionals are all around you.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82085 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you guys have your lit. and we have ours. It was a thoughtful and professional response, I appreciate that.
Yes, ours is long-accepted, peer-reviewed science, while yours is Christian apologetics thinly disguised in sciencey language in order to further your agenda of somehow "prove the Genesis story true and literal history."

And we all know WHY you have to try and prove that.
a_friend

Reading, PA

#82086 Mar 21, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
How about a lifelong education, much of it in the sciences, plus all the resources of the Internet?
You want one single source?????
anysource given is better than no source. This poster specifically mentioned facts, so it would be nice to see where he or she got her facts from?
a_friend

Reading, PA

#82087 Mar 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>*still doesn't get it*
right, they don't get it.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82088 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
"The skeleton called Lucy does not have an intact knee.(not what I said) A different, isolated knee fossil was found two to three kilometers away (Johanson and Edey 1981). Confusion over the two fossils apparently led to the false claim.
He showed up with a box and 1 knee inside, not 2. Which is the correct one?? He backtracked later.
My point - no discoveries, no acclaim - True
True, but not very bright or very germane. OF COURSE scientists are often driven by the desire to make and publicize exciting new discoveries. OF COURSE such discoveries lead to career advancement

Duh!

If one of you "Christian scientists" would go ahead and find the proverbial rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian layer, etc. you would simultaneously blow evolution entirely out of the water and make yourself a wealthy, worldwide celebrity.

But you aren't much on actually going out and doing the work, are you? Much easier to take other peoples' discoveries and evidence and try (somehow) to twist them into your literal Bible paradigm.
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
He showed up with a box and 1 knee inside, not 2. Which is the correct one?? He backtracked later.
My point - no discoveries, no acclaim - True
Here, read more about the controversy, much in the words of the scientist himself -- and of the venality and dishonesty of your "Christian scientist" compatriots.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.ht...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#82089 Mar 21, 2013
a_friend wrote:
<quoted text>
right, they don't get it.
No, you don't get it...you should try to match wits with kitten, let me make some popcorn first...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#82090 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
If human evo evidence is so strong why doesn't Johansson bring it up in his debates with folks on my side??
I have no idea why, or even if Johansson or any other reputable scientists would want to be even SEEN in a fundie Christian church with a bunch of hack creationist liars piling on to him, doing the Gish Gallop at full speed.

I know that _I_ certainly would have better things than to give "you guys" an ounce of credibility by even acknowledging your existence, much less actually debating you.
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Of late the media headlines are reading, "human evo not as simple as previously thought".. "human evo tree uncertain" "someday we will find it" etc. Hardly convincing.
The DETAILS of the human evolutionary path (and ALL of evolution) change gradually as new knowledge becomes available. And with new technology and the Internet, knowledge is coming fast and furious now,

Welcome to the world of science. Must be a scary thing to fundamentalist Christians who absolutely depend on there being 3 or 4 simple truths they can hang unto for dear life in a fast-paced, "demon-infested" world.

But there is absolutely NO CONTROVERSY in science that evolution in general happened and continues to happen, and also that modern homo-sapiens evolved gradually out of earlier proto-human species.

And sorry, Bible-lovers, but everything in modern-day science points to the fact that there were never any two "first humans" whether named Adam and Eve or anything else -- nor could there have ever been, with one species population gradually evolving into the next one.

The DNA evidence alone demolishes this Bible myth.
a_friend

Reading, PA

#82091 Mar 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, you don't get it...you should try to match wits with kitten, let me make some popcorn first...
I get it fine.... All I want is some froof of where the info came from, that is not asking too much. Make sure you clean that popcorn between your teeth before bedtime, wouldn't want a cavity, or maybe you don't have real teeth?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82092 Mar 21, 2013
a_friend wrote:
<quoted text>
What a way to avoid my question. You still have not answered. What is your source of info? Just a brief explanation will do, no I do not expect a long list, don't assume things.
Sorry, unlike religion, science offers real answers, and real answers cannot be learned by "brief" explanations. You have a few decades of studying worth to do before you will have seen half the information for any scientific theory.
Mark

United States

#82093 Mar 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, unlike religion, science offers real answers, and real answers cannot be learned by "brief" explanations. You have a few decades of studying worth to do before you will have seen half the information for any scientific theory.
Thank you

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rest in Peace, Spock 5 min Super Ego Rob Lowe 311
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 13 min livelivedrh 825
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 13 min Princess Hey 4,409
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min wichita-rick 158,018
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 17 min Princess Hey 251
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 38 min andet1987 30,914
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 40 min andet1987 4,937
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Michael Satterfield 39,397
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 4 hr NinaRocks 17,934
More from around the web