Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.

Started by Xavier, July 30, 2018, 12:33:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

LausTibiChriste

Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Sempronius

Now, if  :cheeseheadbeer: there is a God then He has clearly not blessed us with noble scientists. We're left with wacky prots but as long as there is room for doubt in evolution then one should hold onto the traditional faith. A female scientist discovers something potentielly huge that may make us rethink about dinosaurs and nobody wants to make further researches!


GloriaPatri

Quote from: Sempronius on July 30, 2018, 02:12:34 PM
Now, if  :cheeseheadbeer: there is a God then He has clearly not blessed us with noble scientists. We're left with wacky prots but as long as there is room for doubt in evolution then one should hold onto the traditional faith. A female scientist discovers something potentielly huge that may make us rethink about dinosaurs and nobody wants to make further researches!

There is little to no room for doubt in the theory of evolution. It is the only model that adequately explains all of the evidence. Further, as I have already stated, this "discovery" is from 12 years ago. Further studies have cast doubt that what she found are actually dinosaur blood cells. They could very well be contamination of the fossils by microorganisms (which happens frequently since fossils are not always in airtight environments). And to stress this even further, she doesn't even think that her discovery points to a refutation of evolution or a young Earth creationist view of the world.

So again, ladies and gentlemen, your anti-evolution stand simply has no real evidence supporting it. Everything you attempt to bring up can be interpreted in a way that does not contradict other pieces of evidence.

Sempronius

Yeah, she doesnt believe in young earth and that makes her more credible. And she has been careful in eliminating contamination.

Xavier

Quote from: GloriaPatriFurther, as I have already stated, this "discovery" is from 12 years ago. Further studies have cast doubt that what she found are actually dinosaur blood cells.

No, they haven't. Evolutionist liars have been attacking and harassing her because they realize their whole, sorry edifice of error is very soon about to come crumbling down. Collagen, Protein, Soft tissue, blood cells and more have been found in "195 million year" fossils.  Here is some documentation:

1. Here is Nature: "Here  we  report  evidence  of  protein  preservation  in  a  terrestrial vertebrate found inside the vascular canals of a rib of a 195-million-year-old sauropodomorph dinosaur, where blood vessels and nerves would normally have been present in the living organism."

2.  Science Mag: "One study, led by Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University in Raleigh who has chased dinosaur proteins for de­cades, confirms her highly controversial claim to have recovered 80-million-year-old dinosaur collagen. The other paper suggests that protein may even have sur­vived in a 195-million-year-old dino fossil." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper

3. Science Daily: "Utilizing the most rigorous testing methods to date, researchers from North Carolina State University have isolated additional collagen peptides from an 80-million-year-old Brachylophosaurus."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170123145210.htm

4. And here is an actual professional paper from Science Vs Evolution proving these and related discoveries show any reasonable person that evolution is the greatest deception inflicted on mankind in the last century: Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna." http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

You're not seriously interested in pursuing the ramifications of these scientific facts for your pagan worldview. Your pagan theory will collapse to the ground when everyone realizes collagen shows they are hardly tens of thousands of years old at most, and therefore evolution never happened.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Xavier

Quote from: PonI'm actually willing to consider Xavier's claim that evolution is a conspiracy.

To be clear on one thing I thought I explained on the other thread, when we say, for e.g. fractional reserve central banking is usurious, unnecessary and a deception started some 350 years ago, that doesn't mean each and every Fed economist today is a conspirator. Not at all. Many are in good faith thinking the Fed is the solution to all of mankind's problems, and that their economic work is going to help society and the economy. We never blame the good with the bad. We blame only those who, for the sake of shameful greed, deliberately perpetrate what they know is a scam.

Applied to evolution, good scientists may unwittingly support a lie invented by others in good faith. They are innocent. Who is guilty (1) Those who perpetrated the scam of Piltdown man (2) Those who deliberately kept honest inquirers (open your eyes, Pon, this is the deception of the century, those in that small circle knew very well what they were keeping from the public!) away for 40 years, while some 250 odd publications wrecked the Christian Faith of millions for a generation based on total deception (3) Those who perpetuate Haeckel's falsified drawings in textbooks even today and the like. Who are good (1) Those who honestly report on what they find, and try as best they can to analyse the implications of their findings. (2) Those who discovered the fraud of Piltdown man and warned the public of the deception (3) Those few good people who call for Haeckel's deliberate deception to be completely purged from textbooks and never taught again. And so on.

For Vetus and the Christians here, take seriously the warnings of a creation science textbook in 1928, which clearly rings true even some 100 years later (a telegraph article said less than 43% in evolutionist England now identify as Christians, in 2015, and that's a rapidly declining numbers - the day Christianity attacks, and with God's help, triumphs over this pagan heresy, Christianity will triumph again in the West like never before in history): "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we are happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and teachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or infidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great college or university.

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers.

The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionnaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory.

Will Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that give an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges teach today the world will believe tomorrow.

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its only hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. In Russia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) party unless he is an atheist. It will be a sorry world when "scientific" atheism wins, under the name of evolution.

No one has a moral right to believe what is false, much less to teach it, under the specious plea of freedom of thought.

It is the privilege and duty of parents to send their children to institutions that are safe.

Nathan Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb kidnapped and cruelly murdered Robert Franks. Both were brilliant scholars and atheists. Both graduates of universities though minors, and both were taking a post-graduate course in the University of Chicago. It is asserted and widely believed that they were encouraged in their atheistic belief by the teaching of evolution and modernism, and were thus prepared to commit a crime that shocked the world.

Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?" http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Xavier

See how prescient the creation science textbook is for combating the Piltdown Fake way back in the 1920s when it was defended by evolutionists, and for explaining why the record shows all evolution is a scam, at the same time:

"Piltdown Man (See Appendix). The next fragments of bones, in chronological order, upon which evolutionists rely to prove their impossible theory, has been called the Piltdown man. It has been more truthfully called the Piltdown fake. Dr. Chapin gravely tells us (Social Evolution, p. 67): "During the years 1912, a series of fragments of a human skull and a jaw bone were found associated with eolithic implements and the bones of extinct mammals in Pleistocene deposits on a plateau, 80 feet above the river bed, at Piltdown, Fletching, Sussex, Eng. ...The remains were of great importance. The discoverers regard this relic as a specimen of a distinct genus of the human species and it has been called Eoanthropus Dawsoni. This extinct man lived in Europe hundreds of thousands of years ago." We have passed over 200,000 to 300,000 years since the Heidelberg man, that have not yielded a scrap of bone, though according to the theory, countless millions of ape-men must have lived in various stages of development, in that great stretch of time. Why were not some of them preserved? Simply because there were no ape-men. There are countless relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a great open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of 100,000 horses." Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000 years? Instead of mullions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of which are of a very doubtful character.

The bones of this precious Piltdown find consisted, at first, of a piece of the jaw bone, another small piece of bone from the skull, and a canine tooth, which the zealous evolutionists located in the lower right jaw, when it belonged in the upper left; later, two molar teeth and two nasal hones--scarcely a double hand full in all. An ape man was "reconstructed" made to look like an ape-man, according to the fancy of the artist. The artist can create an ape-man, even if God could not create a real man! But scientists said the teeth did not belong to the same skull and the jaw could not be associated with the same skull. Ales Hrdlicka says, "The jaw and the tooth belong to a fossil chimpanzee." Conscientious scientists said that the pieces of the jaw and skull could not belong to the same individual. They constructed a scarecrow from the bones of an ape and of a man, and offer this, without the batting of an eye, as a scientific proof of the antiquity of man. The great anthropologist of world-wide reputation, Prof. Virchow, said: "In vain have Darwin's adherents sought for connecting links which should connect man with the monkey. Not a single one has been found. This so-called pro-anthropus, which is supposed to represent this connecting link, has not appeared. No true scientist claims to have seen him." Sir Ray Lancaster, writing to H. G. Wells, concerning the Piltdown find, says, "We are stumped and baffled." Yet in spite of all this, nearly 1,000,000 persons annually pass through the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and view the "reconstruction" according to the artist's fancy, of the pithecanthropus, the Heidelberg man, the Piltdown man, and the Neanderthal man, the "ancestors of the human race," and the multitude of high school students and teachers, as well as the general public, are not told how dubious and unscientific the representation is ... The entire absence of human remains during the during the 750,000 years and more is a demonstration against the brute origin of man, and a proof of special creation .

It will be remembered that there is no complete skeleton among all the remains, nor enough parts to make one altogether, nor to make any large part of a skeleton-- not even an entire skull. What bones are found are not joined together, and some of them scattered so widely apart, that no one can be certain they belong to the same individual. Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to man--doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone of an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man, and their ancestor."
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

GloriaPatri

Xavier, why don't you list your specific problems with the theory of evolution in a series of questions, and I will do what I can to answer them for you (or at least point you in the direction of resources that provide the answers you seek). And keep the questions to a scientific nature, as this is the natural science sub-forum.

Mono no aware

Quote from: Xavier on July 30, 2018, 11:38:49 PMTo be clear on one thing I thought I explained on the other thread, when we say, for e.g. fractional reserve central banking is usurious, unnecessary and a deception started some 350 years ago, that doesn't mean each and every Fed economist today is a conspirator. Not at all. Many are in good faith thinking the Fed is the solution to all of mankind's problems, and that their economic work is going to help society and the economy. We never blame the good with the bad. We blame only those who, for the sake of shameful greed, deliberately perpetrate what they know is a scam.

Understood.  Every program will naturally have its useful idiots and unwitting dupes.  What we have to ascertain here is why, if, as you claim, the fraud of Piltdown Man easily discredits evolution, those who uncovered the fraud continued to be persuaded by evolution.  This puts your claim in doubt.  Clearly the scientists who debunked Piltdown Man did not see evolution as disproved because of it.  All it proved in the end, really, is that people can be opportunistic, deceptive, or prankish.

What I detect on the creationist side is a continual rushing to judgement.  The fraud of evolution is assumed, and any little thing (even something irrelevant) that can be seized on to rhetorically support this claim, is seized on.  But that's no way to do things fairly.  You have to go into it neutral or agnostic at the very least—or, for the truly brave, you can assume the other side true.  Jim Garrison, who uncovered the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, went into it believing like the rest of America that Kennedy had been killed by a lone nut.  All he did was follow the evidence.

The Mary Schweitzer thing is a perfect example.  It's evidence of nothing.  It's a controversy within the scientific community.  Neither she nor anyone else involved thinks the issue is going to blow the lid off of evolution or make an old earth impossible.  Evolution will live or die by the facts.  And there are no facts in the Schweitzer controversy dangerous to evolution.  It can't be considered evidence of a conspiracy if people within the alleged conspiracy happen to disagree on certain minor issues that aren't even fatal to the conspiracy.  That's just everyday human happenstance; to trumpet it as evidence of a conspiracy is somewhat dishonest dealing—or hand-waving, or sleight-of-hand, or something to do with hands: those grasping appendages with fingernails and opposable thumbs which we share with our ape relatives.

Greg

Here are my arguments against evolution.

It cannot be demonstrated that it takes place at the rate necessary to generate the complex processes and very different species and biological bio-chemical mechanisms through natural selection.

I cannot conceive of how less complex processes can randomly mutate into vastly more complex one.  This is not observable in nature.  Things break and break down, they don't become more complex unless an intelligence directs that.

Any accepted evolutionary explanation for man drives a coach and horses through Original Sin as it was framed, taught and believed for 2000 years.  The Church can't just say "whoops" we got that wrong, or that Original Sin is "some sort of poetic metaphor" for the state of mankind because it claims Divine Authority.

If you claim to be an expert in law and command the respect of people as a expert and make demands on them, then, in justice, you had better bloody well be an expert and not move the goalposts.

If evolution is correct then Christianity has been telling a pack of lies about original sin and making a dogma out of it.  That is an appalling injustice and frankly an outright fraud.  Why would I take anything the Catholic Church says before or since seriously when it was completely wrong and baseless on its assertions and teachings about Original Sin.

Original Sin as we have been taught it as a dogma requires two original parents to the entire human race and evolutionary and genetic science simply don't suppose this.  As far as they are concerned we evolved from a pack of hominids not a pair.

If evolution is even essentially correct then Christianity is bullshit.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

GloriaPatri

Quote from: Greg on July 31, 2018, 01:17:30 PM
Here are my arguments against evolution.

It cannot be demonstrated that it takes place at the rate necessary to generate the complex processes and very different species and biological bio-chemical mechanisms through natural selection.

I cannot conceive of how less complex processes can randomly mutate into vastly more complex one.  This is not observable in nature.  Things break and break down, they don't become more complex unless an intelligence directs that.

Any accepted evolutionary explanation for man drives a coach and horses through Original Sin as it was framed, taught and believed for 2000 years.  The Church can't just say "whoops" we got that wrong, or that Original Sin is "some sort of poetic metaphor" for the state of mankind because it claims Divine Authority.

If you claim to be an expert in law and command the respect of people as a expert and make demands on them, then, in justice, you had better bloody well be an expert and not move the goalposts.

If evolution is correct then Christianity has been telling a pack of lies about original sin and making a dogma out of it.  That is an appalling injustice and frankly an outright fraud.  Why would I take anything the Catholic Church says before or since seriously when it was completely wrong and baseless on its assertions and teachings about Original Sin.

Original Sin as we have been taught it as a dogma requires two original parents to the entire human race and evolutionary and genetic science simply don't suppose this.  As far as they are concerned we evolved from a pack of hominids not a pair.

If evolution is even essentially correct then Christianity is bullshit.

Again, Greg, your arguments are purely philosophical/theological. I am hoping that you, and Xavier, and anyone else really, could limit your questions to purely scientific matters. The subforum for sacred sciences would be a better place for you theological questions.

As far as whether you can or cannot conceive something, that's on you. I can't mentally conceive of nth dimensional space where n is greater than 3, but such a space has a well defined mathematical existence and consequently can have a well defined physical existence.

And more simpler things do develop into more complex ones in nature. A fertilized ovum develops into a complex foetus. A seed grows into a tree. Simpler elements combine into more complex ones all the time. As far as things breaking down in nature, that is true. But you forget that evolution does not happen in one lifespan, but rather happens over many, many generations. Each generation is genetically slightly different from the one before it. As those changes add up you'll eventually have a new organism.

Mono no aware

Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 31, 2018, 01:25:07 PMAs far as things breaking down in nature, that is true. But you forget that evolution does not happen in one lifespan, but rather happens over many, many generations.

Very true.  There is a passage in Schopenhauer somewhere where he talks about the bloom of a young woman's beauty, and how that beauty is really just nature dangling the most exquisite flower to a man, to which he will be drawn like an eager bee, and then before he knows it her beauty has faded, and the nubile girl is a fat-ankled harridan, and his peace is being constantly disturbed by the shrieks of their children (Schopenhauer despised noise).  The point, in biological terms, is that everything breaks down and everything decays, beauty most tragically of all, and natural selection is more or less done with us once we've ripened to maturity and put our genes into the next generation.  After that, it's "the aging process," and it's all downhill.  Perhaps David Bowie was more succinct about it: "we live for just these twenty years / do we have to die for the fifty more?"



Xavier

Creation Scientists deserve credit for saying Piltdown fraud was a fake in the 1920s more than 30 years before our poor evolutionist friends caught up!

Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 31, 2018, 12:55:33 PM
Xavier, why don't you list your specific problems with the theory of evolution in a series of questions, and I will do what I can to answer them for you (or at least point you in the direction of resources that provide the answers you seek). And keep the questions to a scientific nature, as this is the natural science sub-forum.

Ok, we'll do that, then. (1) The first question I have for you is, Do you a priori exclude the possibility of a Divine Designer, or special creation, or are you willing to consider it? (2) second, are you willing to admit the imperfections in the fossil record, which have been amply documented even by evolutionists, or by those favorable to or at least neutral toward your theory? Let me cite British Australian Biochemist Michael Delton as we go on.

Broadly speaking, creation scientists employ two types of scientific demonstrative disproofs of evolution (1) First, to show the alleged transition very clearly never took place from a study of the past (2) Second, and as an addendum, to show the time required for the transition was not present.

Quote from: Evolution: A Theory in CrisisThe  overall  picture  of  life  on  Earth  today  is  so  discontinuous,  the  gaps between the different types so obvious, that, as Steven Stanley reminds us in his recent book Macroevolution, if our knowledge of biology was restricted to those species presently existing on Earth, "we might wonder whether the doctrine  of  evolution  would  qualify  as  anything  more  than  an  outrageous hypothesis."1  Without  intermediates  or  transitional  forms  to  bridge  the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis ...

Curiously,   the   problem   is   compounded   by   the   fact   that   the   earliest representatives of most of the major invertebrate phyla appear in the fossil record  over  a  relatively  short  space  of  geological  time,  about  six  hundred million years ago in the Cambrian era. The strata lain down over the hundreds of  millions  of  years  before  the  Cambrian  era,  which  might  have  contained the connecting links between the major phyla, are almost completely empty of animal fossils. If transitional types between the major phyla ever existed then  it  is  in  these  pre-Cambrian  strata  that  their  fossils  should  be  found.

The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives of each major group  appear  in  the  fossil  record  already  highly  specialized  and  highly characteristic  of  the  group  to  which  they  belong.  Perhaps  one  of  the  most abrupt arrivals of any plant group in the fossil record is the appearance of the angiosperms  in  the  era  known  to geologists  as  the  Cretaceous.

Again,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  absence  of  pre-Cambrian  fossils,  no  forms have ever been found in pre-Cretaceous rocks linking the angiosperms with any  other  group  of  plants.  According  to  Daniel  Axelrod:  The  ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record,  and  no  living  angiosperm  points  to  such  an  ancestral  alliance.  In addition,  the  record  has  shed  almost  no  light on  relations  between  taxa  at ordinal and family level ...

The same pattern is true of the vertebrate fossil record. The first members of each  major group appear abruptly, unlinked to other groups by transitional or intermediate forms. Already at their first appearance, although often more generalized  than  later  representatives,  they  are  well  differentiated  and already   characteristic   of   their   respective   classes.

No fish group known to vertebrate paleontology can be classed as an ancestor of   another;   all   are   related   as   sister   groups,   never   as   ancestors   and descendants.

The  pattern  repeats  itself  in  the  emergence  of  the Amphibia ...  The  same pattern  is  evident  as  the  various  reptile  and  mammalian  groups  make  their first appearance in the fossil record.

The  overall  character  of  the  fossil  record  as  it  stands  today  was  superbly summarized  in  an  article  by  G.  G.  Simpson  prepared  for  the  Darwin Centenary  Symposium  held  in  Chicago  in  1959.  Simpson  is  a  leading paleontologist whose testimony to the reality of the gaps in the fossil record has considerable force. As he points out, it is one of the most striking features of  the  fossil  record  that  most  new  kinds  of  organisms  appear  abruptly: They  are  not,  as  a  rule,  led  up  to  by  a  sequence  of  almost  imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution ...

It   would   be   pointless   to   continue   citing   examples   to   illustrate   the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. Anyone who doubts the reality of the gaps may either take the word of leading paleontologists or simply open one  of  the  standard  works  on  paleontology  such  as  Romer's  Vertebrate Paleontology  or  Schrock  and  Twenhofel's  Invertebrate  Paleontology  and examine  any  of  the  stratigraphic  charts  showing  the  abundance  of  various groups  during  different  geological  eras  and  dotted  lines  suggesting  their hypothetical  phylogenetic  relationships. Even  a cursory glance shows clearly that profound and undoubted discontinuities do in fact exist.

There  is  no  doubt  that  as  it  stands  today  the  fossil  record  provides  a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution, because to close the very  considerable  gaps  which  at  present  separate  the  known  groups  would necessarily have  required  great  numbers  of  transitional  forms.

Darwin's insistence that gradual evolution by natural selection would require inconceivable numbers of transitional forms may have been something of an exaggeration but it is hard to escape concluding that in some cases he may not have been so far from the mark. Take the case of the gap between modem whales  and  land  mammals.  All  known  aquatic  or  semi-aquatic  mammals such as seals, sea cows (sirenians) or otters are specialized representatives of distinct orders and none can possibly be ancestral to the present-day whales.

To  bridge  the  gap  we  are  forced  therefore  to  postulate  a  large  number  of entirely   extinct   hypothetical   species   starting   from   a   small,   relatively unspecialized  land  mammal  like  a  shrew  and  leading  successively  through an otter-like stage, seal-like stage, sirenian-like stage and finally to a putative organism which could serve as the ancestor of the modern whales.

Even from the hypothetical whale ancestor stage we need to postulate many hypothetical primitive  whales  to  bridge  the  not  inconsiderable  gaps  which  separate  the modern filter feeders (the baleen whales) and the toothed whales.

That will do for now. More later as I have time.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Xavier

Quote from: PonYou have to go into it neutral or agnostic at the very least—or, for the truly brave, you can assume the other side true.  Jim Garrison, who uncovered the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, went into it believing like the rest of America that Kennedy had been killed by a lone nut.  All he did was follow the evidence.

Ok, very good. But what did he do after he became convinced? Would a studied neutrality still be the optimal approach? Would it not be necessary to expose the scam to the public, even if everyone thinks you a nut for doing so? By the way, you may enjoy this article from St. Michael's Journal on the Subject. https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy "On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec­utive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve. Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was perfect­ly obvious that Kennedy was out to under­mine the Federal Reserve System of the United States. But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. No reason was given, of course, for anyone wanting to commit such an atrocious crime. But for those who knew anything about money and banking, it did — not take long to put the pieces of the puzzle together. For surely, President Kennedy must have had It in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money." President Trump is on course now to do the same thing, so it's not surprising those who hate western civilization have their agents in the media and elsewhere trying to undermine him at every turn; but he's one step ahead of them this time, and nobody can even think of assassinating him without intelligence agencies gathering evidence of it. It's necessary to scream these things about the Fed and the like from the rooftops, even if the world thinks you mad. One day, you'll be sorry to be proved right. But hopefully, people will correct before that and those things will never happen.

Re: Piltdown Man. Sure, I credit the good evolutionist scientists who after 1953 admitted and admit it was a fraud. Will you credit Rev. Williams and other creation scientists who said it was a fraud in the 1920s? Rev. Williams is exceptionally kind to his adversaries, but of course, it turned out worse than what he wrote: "Some of the bones belong to an ape, and some to man--doubtless modern man. Ardent evolutionists, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, have taken a fractional bone of a man, and a bone of an ape, and fashioned a composite being, and called it an ape-man, and their ancestor." Evolutionists took 30 years to catch up with Creation Scientists!

Re: Mary Schweitzer. But Pon. Just imagine for a moment if it was proven those fossils and the earth itself was less than say a 100 thousand or even a million years old. What would happen? Evolution would collapse overnight. That's what some of them are afraid of. That's why she's hard pressed to get funding and many of those who are far less qualified than her bully her. She is not even a creation scientist, yet this is the reaction. As for us, we welcome honest analysis of everything, because we know truths of reason from the Book of Nature will never contradict truths of revelation from the Book of Scripture. Both come from one same God and Father, the Lord of Life and the God of History. Would you like to comment on the discovery of collagen studied in Nature and reported in Science Daily, above? Do you think collagen can survive millions of years? "But Schweitzer's team pressed on. In 2009, she, Asara, and colleagues reported in Science that they had isolated protein fragments from a second dinosaur, an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. Asara's lab identified eight collagen fragments. This time Schweitzer sent samples of fossil extract to an independent lab, which also detected three of the collagen fragments. ;Collectively, the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles. "This proves the first [T. rex] study was not a one-hit wonder," Asara said at the time."

Greg, the correct inference is, since Christianity is known to be true, evolution is (and also can be independently and scientifically demonstrated to be) garbage. You said yourself the fossil evidence is essentially a demonstrative proof once. That's correct. But I think Christianity is like collecting butterflies to some people. You can do it one day and give it up the next. It is not like a lifelong commitment or a treasure you should be willing to give your life to defend. That's wrong. If that's the approach, then you don't love God above all things, as the first commandment requires. Nobody would abandon a spouse at the first sign of difficulty. No soldier would give up service to country even after struggles. How much less should man give up his fidelity to God and his service to the King of kings just because somebody claims men descended from monkeys? We most certainly did not, nor did whales or the other species documented above descend from anything, but were directly and immediately created by God, as the Prophet Moses, made an eyewitness to God's creation, testified long ago.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

John Lamb

Quote from: Pon de Replay on July 31, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: GloriaPatri on July 31, 2018, 01:25:07 PMAs far as things breaking down in nature, that is true. But you forget that evolution does not happen in one lifespan, but rather happens over many, many generations.

Very true.  There is a passage in Schopenhauer somewhere where he talks about the bloom of a young woman's beauty, and how that beauty is really just nature dangling the most exquisite flower to a man, to which he will be drawn like an eager bee, and then before he knows it her beauty has faded, and the nubile girl is a fat-ankled harridan, and his peace is being constantly disturbed by the shrieks of their children (Schopenhauer despised noise).  The point, in biological terms, is that everything breaks down and everything decays, beauty most tragically of all, and natural selection is more or less done with us once we've ripened to maturity and put our genes into the next generation.  After that, it's "the aging process," and it's all downhill.  Perhaps David Bowie was more succinct about it: "we live for just these twenty years / do we have to die for the fifty more?"

What an abysmal view of life and physical beauty. The external beauty of the human form is meant to accord with the dignity of the human person, not just stir up sexual appetites; and the evil effects of ageing, injury, genetic deformity, etc., are the consequences of original sin, not an intrinsic part of human nature.

"The point, in biological terms, is that everything breaks down and everything decays, beauty most tragically of all, and natural selection is more or less done with us once we've ripened to maturity and put our genes into the next generation."
This shows how much evolutionary thought can deform the Christian mind. You're already beginning to think that ageing and death is the faithful servant of so-called "natural selection", and not a punishment for sin.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul