Author Topic: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.  (Read 6064 times)

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2492
  • Thanked: 514 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2018, 01:57:58 PM »
Theistic evolutionists try to have it both ways and seem willfully ignorant of the amount of sadism their position necessarily ascribes to the creator.

How so?

I think Pon's point (and he can correct me if I'm off the mark) is that theistic evolution in a Christian framework requires that God willed a universe with death present from the very beginning, rather than death entering the world with the fall of humanity. Of course, one could possibly allow for this and simply state that there was no death in the Garden until after the fall. But that's more to do with Biblical exegesis.
 

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Thanked: 1746 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2018, 02:00:51 PM »
Find me one, just one, proponent of evolution who seriously believes that rocks 'evolved' into birds after billions of years. I'll be waiting.

As Maximilian says, that's exactly what every proponent of (mechanistic) evolution believes. You believe that the earth at some point was without plant or animal life, yes? i.e. it was all mineral (rock, crystal). Then, somehow or other, you have life developing out of these minerals (rock, crystals). Slowly, over billions of years and many millions of "transitional forms", the rock turns into a bird.

What bamboozles the minds of evolutionists is that they somehow think that a rock turning itself into a bird very slowly is somehow more "scientific" and plausible than a rock turning itself into a bird instantaneously. They would call the latter "magic", but philosophically there is nothing less "magical" about a rock turning into a bird slowly rather than quickly. If I wave my magic wand over a rock and it instantly turns into a giraffe, that is magic. If I wave my magic wand over a rock and it turns into a giraffe gradually over the course of an hour, that is also magic. The same if it's billions of years.

You might say, "but it's not just a rock, it's all kinds of chemicals reacting and with the zap of a lightning bolt to get it started". OK. I get a bowl full of all kinds of chemicals, zap it with lightning, wave my magic wand, and out comes a giraffe. You still have the problem of minerals/chemicals somehow turning into birds.


Watch this video. See how a pond turning itself into a dinosaur is presented as scientific and plausible, but a woman magically nodding her head and animals appearing is presented as ludicrous. Yet in reality, the former is no less magical (or ludicrous) than the latter.

Creationism, to my view, is the more immediately satisfying of the theistic schemes, even though it's at odds with DNA and the going science, and requires at least some level of belief in a conspiracy theory. 

The presumption here is (1) that intelligent people are not apt to be deceived, (2) that groups of intelligent people are not apt to be deceived.

On the contrary, intelligent people are just as apt to be deceived as any, and arguably moreso seeing as they can come up rationalisations to justify their delusion; and groups of people are more apt to be deceived than individuals, because then conformity and social pressures enter in.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 02:02:27 PM by John Lamb »
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2515
  • Thanked: 1996 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2018, 02:16:22 PM »
Theistic evolutionists try to have it both ways and seem willfully ignorant of the amount of sadism their position necessarily ascribes to the creator.

How so?

I think Pon's point (and he can correct me if I'm off the mark) is that theistic evolution in a Christian framework requires that God willed a universe with death present from the very beginning, rather than death entering the world with the fall of humanity. Of course, one could possibly allow for this and simply state that there was no death in the Garden until after the fall. But that's more to do with Biblical exegesis.

Whatever it may be, death is always present because God ordained it to be present. It's a fact. Everything that exists and comes to pass in the universe has been ordained by God from the very beginning. He is the ultimate cause, secondary causes notwithstanding. This very post is proof of it. I am the author of this post but this post came to be, ultimately, because God willed it and ordained it to come to pass from the very beginning.

Fixism (creation scheme) or transformism (evolution scheme) are simply means by which we can discern the divine Hand in the development of life. I don't see how divine sadism really fits into the equation, since death occurs in whichever scheme you adopt.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2492
  • Thanked: 514 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2018, 02:21:34 PM »
The Miller-Urey experiment shows how early conditions on Earth would have allowed simpler inorganic compounds to combine into more complex organic compounds, and from there they would have combined into the first microorganisms. That's not the same thing as saying that a rock spontaneously changes into a bird, even given billions of years.

 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2515
  • Thanked: 1996 times
  • Religion: The Way
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2018, 02:25:47 PM »
The Miller-Urey experiment shows how early conditions on Earth would have allowed simpler inorganic compounds to combine into more complex organic compounds, and from there they would have combined into the first microorganisms. That's not the same thing as saying that a rock spontaneously changes into a bird, even given billions of years.

The beginning of life remains a mystery:

One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarises the situation well (p. 883): Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote, The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote, You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.


http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3161
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Thanked: 1746 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #50 on: August 01, 2018, 02:31:31 PM »
The Miller-Urey experiment shows how early conditions on Earth would have allowed simpler inorganic compounds to combine into more complex organic compounds, and from there they would have combined into the first microorganisms. That's not the same thing as saying that a rock spontaneously changes into a bird, even given billions of years.

"Inorganic compounds", i.e. rocks, "to combine into more complex organic compounds", i.e. birds.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2492
  • Thanked: 514 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #51 on: August 01, 2018, 02:31:57 PM »
The Miller-Urey experiment shows how early conditions on Earth would have allowed simpler inorganic compounds to combine into more complex organic compounds, and from there they would have combined into the first microorganisms. That's not the same thing as saying that a rock spontaneously changes into a bird, even given billions of years.

The beginning of life remains a mystery:

One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarises the situation well (p. 883): Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery.

This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote, The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote, You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.


http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/content.cfm?id=3161

I agree that the origin of life remains a mystery. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the spontaneous combination of simpler inorganic compounds into more complex organic compounds is not the same as evolutionary biologists believing that a rock could spontaneously transform into a bird. Simple inorganic compounds -> Complex organic compounds -(presumably)-> the first microorganisms. A to B has definitely been shown to happen given certain environmental conditions. How we go from B to C, of course, still remains an open question.
 

Offline GloriaPatri

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2492
  • Thanked: 514 times
  • Religion: Platonic Realist
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #52 on: August 01, 2018, 02:39:23 PM »
The Miller-Urey experiment shows how early conditions on Earth would have allowed simpler inorganic compounds to combine into more complex organic compounds, and from there they would have combined into the first microorganisms. That's not the same thing as saying that a rock spontaneously changes into a bird, even given billions of years.

"Inorganic compounds", i.e. rocks, "to combine into more complex organic compounds", i.e. birds.

Inorganic compounds are compounds that lack C-H bonds (for example, carbonates or CO3), while organic compounds are compounds that have C-H bonds (for example, methane or CH4). Put carbonate molecules and hydrogen molecules together in conditions similar to the early Earth and you'll find the carbonate break down into carbon and oxygen atoms, and then the free carbon atoms will bond with the free hydrogen atoms to form methane.

That's a massive difference from going straight to birds from rocks. There are countless intermediary steps that you cannot just ignore.
 
The following users thanked this post: Pon de Replay

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3736
  • Thanked: 1835 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #53 on: August 01, 2018, 04:06:08 PM »
I think Pon's point (and he can correct me if I'm off the mark) is that theistic evolution in a Christian framework requires that God willed a universe with death present from the very beginning, rather than death entering the world with the fall of humanity. Of course, one could possibly allow for this and simply state that there was no death in the Garden until after the fall. But that's more to do with Biblical exegesis.

Whatever it may be, death is always present because God ordained it to be present. It's a fact. Everything that exists and comes to pass in the universe has been ordained by God from the very beginning. He is the ultimate cause, secondary causes notwithstanding. This very post is proof of it. I am the author of this post but this post came to be, ultimately, because God willed it and ordained it to come to pass from the very beginning.

Fixism (creation scheme) or transformism (evolution scheme) are simply means by which we can discern the divine Hand in the development of life. I don't see how divine sadism really fits into the equation, since death occurs in whichever scheme you adopt.

It's true that there's death in both schemes (creationism and theistic evolution) but theistic evolution posits that death and suffering are the very mechanisms by which God arrived at man after billions of years.  Whereas creationism only allows for death to enter the world after the Fall.  A God who decides it best to create man by the process of having countless sentient beings dying from famine, predation, and disease is, I suppose, acceptable in an "Allah wills it" sort of way, but it does not appear commensurate with a God who is loving, merciful, and compassionate.  I will quote here from a poster (a creationist) whom I admire on a different forum:

Quote
The overarching need in a Christian doctrine of Creation is that it give glory to God by assigning him all forethought, invention, and power in an act ex nihilo. A secondary need is that this Work of his be objectively good, in intent and fact, and so evil as we experience it be the result of a fall from that good, from which he is mighty to save us and all creation. Further requirements might be such things as maintaining the exceptionality of man and the end of the world in Judgment. None of these things are a consideration of evolutionary theory as it is commonly taught, and so "theistic evolution" has its work cut out for it.
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12130
  • Thanked: 6772 times
  • I am now self-identifying as Michael Jackson.
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #54 on: August 01, 2018, 04:08:41 PM »
Again, Greg, your arguments are purely philosophical/theological.

No, the first couple are scientific.

Evolution on a grand scale where new species and complex mechanism come about through random mutation is not in any way demonstrable.

It is the equivalent of turning the power on and off on a computer and it writing a program.  That would never happen.  Even in a Billion Billion years.  The series of 1s and 0s you might induce in the memory with a power surge would NEVER accidentally turn into even the simplest computer program.

And yes, I understand that the mutations might give a SLIGHT survival advantage but they would have to overcome the random threats to survival that the creature was subjected to, such as being eaten, or famine, or disease or heat or cold, to give a significant survival chance.  In short, it doesn't matter if I am 6ft5 or 5ft6 when the Titanic sinks because the cold of the water is going to kill me regardless of ANY genetic mutation I have.  No human ever has been born with thick whale like blubber and the ability to live in cold seas for hours or days.

A cheetah that suddenly had legs that could make it run 20mph faster would have a BIG survival advantage.  But 1mm longer ain't going to make any difference (the noise is greater than the signal).

Quote
I am hoping that you, and Xavier, and anyone else really, could limit your questions to purely scientific matters.

Why would we do that?

Nobody here is interested in being purely a scientist.  There are other forums for that.  Even science has to be judge in light of what we believe religiously.  You can't just snuff God out of the argument for the sake of convenience, because if He exists then he created evolution too!


Quote
And more simpler things do develop into more complex ones in nature. A fertilized ovum develops into a complex foetus.

All the information of HOW to do that is already in the ovum.

Quote
A seed grows into a tree.

All the information of HOW to do that is already programmed into that seed.

Quote
Simpler elements combine into more complex ones all the time.

Yes according to the rules of chemistry and in a known, ordered and REPEATABLE WAY.

The day that Na and K react with each other because of random mutation in chemistry of their atomic structure, will be the day I believe in evolutionary theory.

Quote
Each generation is genetically slightly different from the one before it. As those changes add up you'll eventually have a new organism.

This assumes they do "add up".
My preferred pronoun is "he he"
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Frank, Xavier, John Lamb, Blue Violet

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12130
  • Thanked: 6772 times
  • I am now self-identifying as Michael Jackson.
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #55 on: August 01, 2018, 04:15:28 PM »
Whatever it may be, death is always present because God ordained it to be present.

This is a very good point.

Over those 13 billion years nothing has evolved to the point where it does not die.

Why?

Not dying would be a very significant survival advantage and allow you to spread you genes for eons.

Why haven't long living creatures, spread their long living DNA through more opportunity to mate, such that they live 1000s of years today.

Brachiosaurs and Diplodocus live 80 years, the same as an modern day elephant.
My preferred pronoun is "he he"
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline Pon de Replay

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3736
  • Thanked: 1835 times
  • Religion: Agnostic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2018, 04:56:10 PM »
Creationism, to my view, is the more immediately satisfying of the theistic schemes, even though it's at odds with DNA and the going science, and requires at least some level of belief in a conspiracy theory. 

The presumption here is (1) that intelligent people are not apt to be deceived, (2) that groups of intelligent people are not apt to be deceived.

On the contrary, intelligent people are just as apt to be deceived as any, and arguably moreso seeing as they can come up rationalisations to justify their delusion; and groups of people are more apt to be deceived than individuals, because then conformity and social pressures enter in.

No, I agree, intelligent people can be just as apt (if not moreso) to be deceived.  This does not, however, necessarily mean that the majority of intelligent people must be laboring under a deception (though they may well be).  But the more important aspect, to me, is bias.  Skepticism seems to be the only mechanism that can correct for bias, and the scientific method rests on skepticism: proof is required for belief.  As I mentioned earlier, most scientists, however great their biases, would probably agree with the statement from the biologist who famously claimed he would doubt evolution if they found fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. 

Whereas with faith, on the other hand, skepticism is the enemy.  Most creationists would doubtless say that nothing could ever be introduced to make them doubt creation, because faith is supernatural and divinely correct.  Doubt is deadly, and error (that which contradicts received doctrine) has no rights.  An intelligent person who has faith will then have this bias, and however intelligent they are, it's a difficult bias to overcome, since skepticism of it is reflexively anathema.  We don't have to consider evolution to see it.  Just imagine Gerry Matatics and an imam of ISIS trying to convert each other.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 09:17:18 PM by Pon de Replay »
 

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Thanked: 1746 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #57 on: August 01, 2018, 04:59:11 PM »
Whatever it may be, death is always present because God ordained it to be present.

This is a very good point.

Over those 13 billion years nothing has evolved to the point where it does not die.

Why?

Not dying would be a very significant survival advantage and allow you to spread you genes for eons.

Why haven't long living creatures, spread their long living DNA through more opportunity to mate, such that they live 1000s of years today.

Brachiosaurs and Diplodocus live 80 years, the same as an modern day elephant.

What's funny is that Genesis says the opposite: men lived for upwards of 900 years in the early days, and the ~120 year limit is relatively recent: "And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." There were giants who could pick up lions and play with them like cats. The Book of Job describes creatures (Leviathan & Behemoth) which sound like dinosaurs, and the ancient & medieval description of dragons (giant lizards) is also reminiscent of dinosaurs.
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Thanked: 4006 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #58 on: August 01, 2018, 04:59:36 PM »

Nobody here is interested in being purely a scientist. 

Some are certainly behaving as if they fancy themselves pure scientists, and as if science is their religion, which actually I suspect it is for some.

Quote
There are other forums for that.

But it's way more fun to exercise one's doubts --and anger over one's doubts-- on traditional Catholics -- in other words, to use a Catholic forum to engage in a type of rant against God for supposedly making it difficult to believe in Him, and to indirectly make lay Catholics responsible for those doubts, while proclaiming superior "faith" in very different theories and unprovable suppositions.

Quote
Even science has to be judge in light of what we believe religiously.

Absolutely.

Quote
You can't just snuff God out of the argument for the sake of convenience, because if He exists then he created evolution too!

Of course He is the Author and Creator of all.  But people who are more attached to Sometimes Mighty science over Almighty God find convenience more appealing.
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier, Blue Violet

Offline John Lamb

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Thanked: 1746 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Britain's Greatest Hoax: The fraud of Piltdown Man and of Evolution.
« Reply #59 on: August 01, 2018, 05:05:05 PM »
Creationism, to my view, is the more immediately satisfying of the theistic schemes, even though it's at odds with DNA and the going science, and requires at least some level of belief in a conspiracy theory. 

The presumption here is (1) that intelligent people are not apt to be deceived, (2) that groups of intelligent people are not apt to be deceived.

On the contrary, intelligent people are just as apt to be deceived as any, and arguably moreso seeing as they can come up rationalisations to justify their delusion; and groups of people are more apt to be deceived than individuals, because then conformity and social pressures enter in.

No, I agree, intelligent people can be just as apt (if not moreso) to be deceived.  This does not, however, necessarily mean that the majority of intelligent people must be laboring under a deception.  But the more important aspect, to me, is bias.  Skepticism seems to be the only mechanism that can correct for bias, and the scientific method rests on skepticism: proof is required for belief.  As I mentioned earlier, most scientists, however great their biases, would probably agree with the statement from the biologist who famously claimed he would doubt evolution if they found fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. 

The idea that the scientific method rests on skepticism is somewhat of a myth. From the time you are four years old to the day you gain your doctorate in biology, at what point do you begin to be "skeptical" about the theory of evolution? Answer: never, because your grades and academic advancement depend on accepting the theory of evolution as an assumption and working in that paradigm. If you are skeptical about it you will fail tests and invite ridicule upon yourself. Sure, you are allowed to express skepticism on minor issues from within the paradigm (once you get to a higher academic level), but to question the major premise/paradigm itself? Ridicule from almost the entire establishment. The consensus of the establishment is that "nothing in biology makes sense without evolution" - what room is there for skepticism?
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier, Blue Violet