Piltdown Man, now this. When will evolution be taught for what it
Nashton
Boikat
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
How about all those *religious* frauds, like ceationism and ID? Oh,
they are okay, aren't they?
Pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains. No, On second
thought, leave it where it's at. You might deprive someone useful of
their O2.
Boikat
bpuharic
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
OMFG!!!! he's discovered piltdown man is a fake!!!
wonder who told the creationist what the rest of the world has known
for decades.
oh wel...creationists just aren't all that bright
and one can only guess at what this has to do with evolution...
Stuart
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
Two words:
"TV Preacher"
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message news:hekv71$ab8$1...@aioe.org...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
>
Please .....
tell me you're not THAT stupid!
Burkhard
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
>
>
And this has anything to do with evolution exactly how?
Nashton
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Eric Root
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
Sorry, Piltdown man was the product of charlatans, the spiritual and
personality equivalents of creationists. So charlatans are to blame
for Piltdown, scientists are to the credit for uncovering it, and
creationists were sitting around uselessly doing nothing, as always.
Eric Root
Inez
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
You're right! Piltdown Man invalidates all of science! I recommend
you put down your computer and go and live in a science-free unibomber
style shack in the woods.
Steven L.
There has definitely been scientific fraud in recent years, such as the
sad case of the Ketek antibiotic, in which the key clinical trial was
revealed to be a total fake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telithromycin
This was far worse than Piltdown Man; because as a result of this fraud,
a number of patients died from this drug.
I wonder if these creationists would then argue that such frauds prove
we should throw out all of modern medicine and go back to herbalism and
prayer. Maybe they would.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
even been modernized in 50 years.
There have been more recent examples of scientific fraud that are far
worse than Piltdown Man--medical frauds that led to the deaths of
patients, fake "discoveries" that remained in the scientific journals
for years, etc.. They might be ammunition for this creationist-Fortean
argument that science is never sure about anything, so why should we
trust them about evolution, or anthropogenic global warming for that matter?
But the creationists don't cite them--because they never bothered to
learn about them. They keep citing Piltdown Man, which didn't occur in
the lifetimes of most of their audience.
I could do a better job arguing their case than they could, at least as
far as OEC goes.
Ye Old One
You should not be sorry, you should be ashamed.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Nashton
> On Nov 25, 10:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>
> How about all those *religious* frauds, like ceationism and ID? Oh,
> they are okay, aren't they?
Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
> Pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains.
Irony.
No, On second
> thought, leave it where it's at. You might deprive someone useful of
> their O2.
....tumbleweed.
Did your moma tell you that you were funny?
Lemme guess, middle child?
>
> Boikat
>
Newsreader, learn to use it.
Nashton
> Stuart wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>>
>> Two words:
>>
>> "TV Preacher"
>
> The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
> even been modernized in 50 years.
So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
might be "in" again?
>
> There have been more recent examples of scientific fraud that are far
> worse than Piltdown Man--medical frauds that led to the deaths of
> patients, fake "discoveries" that remained in the scientific journals
> for years, etc.. They might be ammunition for this creationist-Fortean
> argument that science is never sure about anything, so why should we
> trust them about evolution, or anthropogenic global warming for that
> matter?
Piltdown was one of the worst hoaxes, frauds in science and the one that
has the most relevance with this ng.
>
> But the creationists don't cite them--because they never bothered to
> learn about them. They keep citing Piltdown Man, which didn't occur in
> the lifetimes of most of their audience.
They are irrelevant as far as the ToE is concerned. Medicine gallops
along without any help from the useless ToE, remember?
>
> I could do a better job arguing their case than they could, at least as
> far as OEC goes.
At least in medicine, it can be as much of an art than it is a science,
so you are wrong...again.
>
>
Boikat
> Boikat wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 10:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>
> > How about all those *religious* frauds, like ceationism and ID? Oh,
> > they are okay, aren't they?
>
> Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
Your lack of criticism of creationist posts, for oen. Especially the
more inane ones. Please feel free to show you are unbiased. The next
fallacious All Seeing-I's post is all your's, if you have the balls.
Personally, I think you will simply kiss his ass..
>
> > Pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains.
>
> Irony.
Reality.
>
> No, On second
>
> > thought, leave it where it's at. You might deprive someone useful of
> > their O2.
>
> ....tumbleweed.
'tard.
>
> Did your moma tell you that you were funny?
Many times. Is there something wrong with making ones mother laugh on
occasion?
>
> Lemme guess, middle child?
Upper middle. Your point, besides the one on top of your head?
>
> Newsreader, learn to use it.
Brain.... Maybe you can rent one. The one you're usings seems to be
on the blink.
Boikat
Stuart
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>
> >> Two words:
>
> >> "TV Preacher"
>
> > The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
> > even been modernized in 50 years.
>
> So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
> might be "in" again?
>
>
Who know? Creationists bullshit goes in and out style with
creationists.
>
> > There have been more recent examples of scientific fraud that are far
> > worse than Piltdown Man--medical frauds that led to the deaths of
> > patients, fake "discoveries" that remained in the scientific journals
> > for years, etc.. They might be ammunition for this creationist-Fortean
> > argument that science is never sure about anything, so why should we
> > trust them about evolution, or anthropogenic global warming for that
> > matter?
>
> Piltdown was one of the worst hoaxes, frauds in science
Really who got hurt by it?
Now how many people were killed believing in faith healing?
You're so stupid it is beyond comprehension.
and the one that
> has the most relevance with this ng.
>
>
Actually the least probably. Human evolution is fairly well documented
in the fossil record.
<snip>
Stuart
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Steven L. wrote:
>> Stuart wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>>>
>>> Two words:
>>>
>>> "TV Preacher"
>>
>> The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
>> even been modernized in 50 years.
>
>So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
>might be "in" again?
No, it is dead as a dodo.
>
>>
>> There have been more recent examples of scientific fraud that are far
>> worse than Piltdown Man--medical frauds that led to the deaths of
>> patients, fake "discoveries" that remained in the scientific journals
>> for years, etc.. They might be ammunition for this creationist-Fortean
>> argument that science is never sure about anything, so why should we
>> trust them about evolution, or anthropogenic global warming for that
>> matter?
>
>Piltdown was one of the worst hoaxes, frauds in science and the one that
> has the most relevance with this ng.
It was a very minor hoax. If it had not been for two world wars, and
one of the greatest economic depressions in history, the hoax would
have been exposed far earlier. Even from the outset some were not
convinced by the fossil and certainly long before the hoax was
exposed, by scientists, it was clear the fossil did not fit with
others that had been discovered.
>
>
>>
>> But the creationists don't cite them--because they never bothered to
>> learn about them. They keep citing Piltdown Man, which didn't occur in
>> the lifetimes of most of their audience.
>
>They are irrelevant as far as the ToE is concerned. Medicine gallops
>along without any help from the useless ToE, remember?
Rubbish.
>
>
>>
>> I could do a better job arguing their case than they could, at least as
>> far as OEC goes.
>
>At least in medicine, it can be as much of an art than it is a science,
>so you are wrong...again.
Evolution is so deep rooted in biology today that it is impossible to
consider one without the other.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Desertphile
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Inez wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 8:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
> > You're right! Piltdown Man invalidates all of science! I recommend
> > you put down your computer and go and live in a science-free unibomber
> > style shack in the woods.
NO! Please, I don't want NaffOff as a neighbor. It's shits like
him that give paranoid woods-dwelling schizophrenics a bad name.
> There has definitely been scientific fraud in recent years, such as the
> sad case of the Ketek antibiotic, in which the key clinical trial was
> revealed to be a total fake:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telithromycin
>
> This was far worse than Piltdown Man; because as a result of this fraud,
> a number of patients died from this drug.
I just read the article. Four people dead from liver failure, when
safer antibiotics could have been used. The woman who falsified
her data ought to be crucified, instead of being in prison for 57
months.
Note the victim of the fraud included the maker of Telithromycin.
Meanwhile, Creationists not only ignore lies and fraud committed
by other Creationists, they actively and agressively *DEFEND*
those lies and frauds.
> I wonder if these creationists would then argue that such frauds prove
> we should throw out all of modern medicine and go back to herbalism and
> prayer. Maybe they would.
You know damn well they would. And they would also demand that the
government fund those prayers.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
> >>
> >> Two words:
> >>
> >> "TV Preacher"
> >
> > The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
> > even been modernized in 50 years.
> So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
> might be "in" again?
Refused arguments indeed are "perishable." Why are you cult
retards parroting Creationist lies and bullshit that was refuted
as far back as Thomas Aquinas?
Desertphile
<bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:08 am, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> > Steven L. wrote:
> > > Stuart wrote:
> > >> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
> >
> > >> Two words:
> >
> > >> "TV Preacher"
> >
> > > The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
> > > even been modernized in 50 years.
> > So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
> > might be "in" again?
> Who know? Creationists bullshit goes in and out style with creationists.
What assertions have Creationists made recently that are not at
least 300 years old? The details may change, and the delivery, but
all of their arguments are centuries old, going at least as far
back as the 13th century.
John Wilkins
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:37:37 -0800 (PST), Stuart
> <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 11:08 am, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> > > Steven L. wrote:
> > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > >> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-ch
> > > >>>a...
> > >
> > > >> Two words:
> > >
> > > >> "TV Preacher"
> > >
> > > > The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
> > > > even been modernized in 50 years.
>
> > > So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
> > > might be "in" again?
>
> > Who know? Creationists bullshit goes in and out style with creationists.
>
> What assertions have Creationists made recently that are not at
> least 300 years old? The details may change, and the delivery, but
> all of their arguments are centuries old, going at least as far
> back as the 13th century.
I wish to disagree. Their arguments are at best 150 years old. Prior to
Darwin, arguments were *from* design to the nature of God or
Providence, not from God *to* the nature of the world. Paley honestly
thought, as did all the natural theologians before and since, that by
understanding the world honestly, we could infer things about the
designer. This is the one thing no creationist of IDevotee has ever
tried to do, because they *already know* what God is about from their
interpretation of revelation.
Creationists ought to think of Paleyesque design arguments as heretical
and deistic. Why? Because you do not get the God of the Bible from
natural theology (and they knew it).
Cory Albrecht
And here he had hopes for you being not stupid.
Why did you burst his bubble?
bpuharic
>Boikat wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 10:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>>
>> How about all those *religious* frauds, like ceationism and ID? Oh,
>> they are okay, aren't they?
>
>
>Not at all. Where did you get that idea?
because it's your assertion that science is fatally flawed because
there have been frauds
yet you refuse to say the same about religion.
bpuharic
>Steven L. wrote:
>> Stuart wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 6:12 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-cha...
>>>
>>> Two words:
>>>
>>> "TV Preacher"
>>
>> The Piltdown Man case proves how the creationists' arguments haven't
>> even been modernized in 50 years.
>
>So are arguments ...perishable? Perhaps if I bring it up in 10 years, it
>might be "in" again?
actually yes. what it shows is that, when scientists discover fraud,
creationists pretend it falsifies science
i suggest you go look up jan hendrik schon. does his fraud invalidate
the science behind your computer?
the creationist is SSSOOOO hopelessly illiterate he cant understand
the very basics behind science
>
>Piltdown was one of the worst hoaxes, frauds in science and the one that
> has the most relevance with this ng.
it's also irrelevant
>
>
>>
>> But the creationists don't cite them--because they never bothered to
>> learn about them. They keep citing Piltdown Man, which didn't occur in
>> the lifetimes of most of their audience.
>
>They are irrelevant as far as the ToE is concerned. Medicine gallops
>along without any help from the useless ToE, remember?
not according to those of us who are scientists
and god? THAT is a useless idea. the bible? 70% of humanity lives
without it.
that's useless