Pat Buchanan: Hoax of the century
Jason Spaceman
----------------------------------------------------------------
With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
"Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
filed down to look human.
The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
J. Spaceman
Dan Listermann
"Jason Spaceman" <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
.
UC
wrote:
But Buchanan does bring up some valid points.
Kermit
wrote:
He continues on with global warming:
"Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
warmers said this validated their theory.
You can't have it both ways."
Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
chemicals".
But he's assuming, probably correctly, that anyone reading his columns
and nodding their head in agreement won't be double-checking his
claims.
Kermit
aganunitsi
> "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
>
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>
> .
Shall we take a historical count of "duped by science" vs "duped by
religion"?
Kermit
>
> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
>
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>
> .
Those are all you have to know about to understand his point. You
don't want to sow the seeds of doubt among the party faithful, do you?
Kermit
UC
The fact that there is any scientific shennaningans going on (and
there are in the case of so-called "global warming") is a disgrace.
Mitchell Coffey
No he doesn't. Much of what he claims to be fact isn't, beginning
with his assertion that the Nebraska Man was a hoax. (His absurdity
that in 1922 Williams Jennings Bryan was "newly elected to Congress"
only gives further discredit, if any more were needed, to his claim to
be a political historian.)
Mitchell Coffey
Kermit
wrote:
I am more interested in evolution that I am in climatology. But the
latter is probably more important. Sigh. It's all part of the battle
against determined ignorance. Here's where to start for us amateurs:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Kermit
UC
"Global Warming is a leftist-inspired crock of lies."
Stuart
Nor was he watching the Olympics
Stuart
UC
Selective interpretation of evidence. The eastern part of the country
has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
UC
Even if the "climate" is changing, so what? There is no 'right'
climate which we are obliged to maintain. It's constantly subject to
change, as any geologist understands.
Boikat
wrote:
This just in:
NEWS FLASH! NEWS FLASH!
Talking Head Discovers Old News, thinks it's New News. Even more
noteworthy is the fact this Talking Head thinks a hoax and a
misidentification (Both detected and corrected by scientists)
invalidated the ToE, which only demonstrates he's a right wing
idiologue and an idiot.
Oh. Pat Buchanan? Oh, in that case, scratch the "News flash"
thingy. We already know he's a right wing moron and idiot.
Boikat
haiku jones
Lessee -- eight of the ten warmest years is "selective
interpretation",
but a single snowy winter is not?
How does that work exactly?
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
Sure. And Snowball Earth is part of the normal climatological
course of things too.
But I'd rather it not happen to us. You?
Haiku Jones
Mike Dworetsky
Yes, the lack of global warming explains why the Vancouver Winter Olympics
were nearly a disaster, with no snow and "unseasonable" warm weather.
>
> You can't have it both ways."
>
> Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
> were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
> twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
> year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
> that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
> chemicals".
>
> But he's assuming, probably correctly, that anyone reading his columns
> and nodding their head in agreement won't be double-checking his
> claims.
>
> Kermit
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
UC
I like warmer better. Don't you?
UC
I point out that lots of snow in the eastern US is just as valid
evidence as little snow in Western Canada, dumbass.
Boikat
While true, I wonder if you'd feel the same if an "killer" asteroid
were to be detected, that was on a dead certain collision course for
Earth, and we had time to deflect or destroy it, should we let it
impact instead? After all, major impacts are naturally occuring
events too.
Boikat
UC
I'm not sure we could do anything, but I hope we could.
Ray Martinez
>
> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
>
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
(1) Darwinists were caught red-handed crafting and lying about crucial
evidence. (2) The fraud lasted many years. (3) A generation of deniers
has also appeared. Honest and intelligent people see a grave
credibility problem in these facts.
To make it even more simple for you: review the story about the boy
who cried wolf.
Ray
Frank J
> "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
>
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
Nah, the rest are either ape or humans. ;-)
What would be fun is to get clowns like Buchanan to pick which are
which - *without* looking at the choices of those who are far more
skilled at misrepresenting evoltionthan they are:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
Boikat
For the sake of argument, as implied in my senerio, assume we had the
time and the means.
> but I hope we could
Why? Just like climate osccillations through time, major impacts are
natural events.
Boikat
JohnN
wrote:
No Pat, the hoax of the 20th Century was "I am not a crock."
JohnN
UC
Don't wanna die, just yet.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Nobody with a grain of sense would expect anything but lies, usually
very stupid ones, from Buchanan.
David Hare-Scott
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> filed down to look human.
>
> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
This piece is a little darker than just a re-run of a tired old creationist
argument. It is part of a much wider anti-science rant which mocks the
rational approach to getting information about the world and infers that the
irrational is better. It can be used to denigrate climate change, which is
done in this case, and any other target that one chooses.
David
JohnN
>
> - Show quoted text -
TYPO: "I am not a crook."
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's actually the green political agenda of modern science. They want
the masses to become Amish-like, serving the elite who make no
sacrifices.
No one disputes global warming. What is in dispute is the cause. Since
the polar ice cap is not ancient, warming is a natural cycle. It is
funny to see secularists frantically running around, marching, holding
up signs, engaging in civil disobedience, all because "the sky is
falling" (LOL!). Global warming: the secular apocalypse!
Global warming is the latest Piltdown Man hoax. This is what happens
when your starting assumptions deny God a place in reality.
Ray
UC
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
>
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > J. Spaceman
>
> This piece is a little darker than just a re-run of a tired old creationist
> argument. It is part of a much wider anti-science rant which mocks the
> rational approach to getting information about the world and infers that the
> irrational is better. It can be used to denigrate climate change, which is
> done in this case, and any other target that one chooses.
>
> David
Well "global warming" is such a crock of lies and bullshit to start
with, what do you expect?
Frank J
Right. So who was that always unnamed "creatorist" who exposed the
hoax? And while you're evading yet another question, read this:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/piltdown-man-the-creationists-savior/
David Hare-Scott
I expect it to be assessed on the evidence and not to be smothered with this
kind of emotive guilt-by-association nonsense.
How do you think we should get information and make decisions about the
world?
David
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your link is a caricature of the facts, also known more commonly as
propaganda.
Ray
UC
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Your link is a caricature of the facts, also known more commonly as
> propaganda.
>
> Ray
I find it fascinating that one's political-religious leanings have
more to do with what one accepts than any objective assessment of
'facts'. The problem with "global warming" is hardly something that is
even remotely 'scientific'. How are the temperatures measured? How
long have the temperatures been measured? There has been as of yet
nothing but smoke and mirrors, not science presented. Hysterical
pronouncements, mostly by politicians, hardly do justice to any claims
that may be true.
John Harshman
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> filed down to look human.
>
> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
Buchanan is truly a vile person. But we knew that.
Ray Martinez
>
> Buchanan is truly a vile person. But we knew that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harshman is more upset with the messenger than he is with the report
of fraud by Darwinists.
Ray
chris thompson
How do you feel about increasing storm severity? Do you know what
that's going to do to things like the prices of goods that are shipped
overseas? What do you think is going to happen to all those oil rigs?
What's going to happen to all the low-lying areas along the coasts-
say, most of Florida, Louisiana, the Texas coast. What are you going
to do with all the people moving inland because their homes were
destroyed by ever-more severe storms and tidal surges?
That's not to mention the human suffering that will happen in places
like Bangladesh, and southeast Asia. Remember the typhoon not long ago
that hit Vietnam and Cambodia- the damage was so extensive rice prices
surged worldwide.
So does all that sound like just another weather forecast to you?
Chris
Grandbank
(snip)
>
> To make it even more simple for you: review the story about the boy
> who cried wolf.
>
> Ray
"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with
His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who
will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom." - Matthew 16:27-28
You mean that one?
KP
UC
Compared to what? When?
> Do you know what
> that's going to do to things like the prices of goods that are shipped
> overseas? What do you think is going to happen to all those oil rigs?
> What's going to happen to all the low-lying areas along the coasts-
> say, most of Florida, Louisiana, the Texas coast. What are you going
> to do with all the people moving inland because their homes were
> destroyed by ever-more severe storms and tidal surges?
>
> That's not to mention the human suffering that will happen in places
> like Bangladesh, and southeast Asia.
The Eskimos will love it though.
> Remember the typhoon not long ago
> that hit Vietnam and Cambodia- the damage was so extensive rice prices
> surged worldwide.
>
> So does all that sound like just another weather forecast to you?
>
> Chris
How was the weather 20,000 tears ago, bubba?
hersheyh
> has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
So who claims that global warming (which is about *climate*) means
that the temperature (which is about *weather*) *always* has to go up
each year and *always* has to be the consistent in every region?
Bottom line: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have yet to see any evidence
presented by the doubters that it isn't. The amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere is increasing right in line with the amount being pumped
into it by humans. There is no known infinite sink for CO2 (the
oceans cannot become too acidic and support life). And the
overwhelming majority of indicators indicate that temperatures have
been increasing over time. So, even if the present warming is
miraculously due to some unknown non-human source of CO2, the
greenhouse effect is still inevitable if we continue to quickly spew
into the atmosphere what took millennia to store.
Picking out a particular year or a particular region in a particular
year is both irrelevant and dishonest. [Any idiot can pick out two
years where the earlier one has a higher temperature than the more
recent one. And that is about the best evidence that I have seen the
denialist community present. *That* is interpretation of *selective*
evidence.]
What the denialist community needs is experimental evidence that CO2
(and methane and several other gases) really are not greenhouse
gases. Until they can actually show evidence against the *important*
underlying assumptions, they are merely engaging in wishful thinking.
Mike Lyle
> On Mar 2, 1:38 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am more interested in evolution that I am in climatology. But the
>>> latter is probably more important. Sigh. It's all part of the battle
>>> against determined ignorance. Here's where to start for us amateurs:
>>
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
>>
>
> the masses to become Amish-like, serving the elite who make no
> sacrifices.
>
> No one disputes global warming. What is in dispute is the cause. Since
> the polar ice cap is not ancient, warming is a natural cycle. It is
> funny to see secularists frantically running around, marching, holding
> up signs, engaging in civil disobedience, all because "the sky is
> falling" (LOL!). Global warming: the secular apocalypse!
>
> Global warming is the latest Piltdown Man hoax. This is what happens
> when your starting assumptions deny God a place in reality.
>
over here religious believers are prominent in green campaigning, to
include climate change activism. I'd guess that members of the grown-up
denominations in America take much the same positions as European ones.
To call it a secular movement betokens a very strange religious outlook.
--
Mike.
hersheyh
Neither, by itself, is evidence of climate change. [Snow does not
mean especially cold, since really cold regions are actually deserts.
Snow means really moist air on one side of the freezing point, but not
too far from it.] Climate is not weather. OTOH, the long term trend
*is* climate, and indicators like the date that organisms now flower
or where the northernmost or highest (in mountains) range of
organisms, the 30-100 year trend in the size of most glaciers, etc.
are measuring *climate* change and not year-to-year or region specific
weather.
Baron Bodissey
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your link is a caricature of the facts, also known more commonly as
> > propaganda.
>
> > Ray
>
> I find it fascinating that one's political-religious leanings have
> more to do with what one accepts than any objective assessment of
> 'facts'. The problem with "global warming" is hardly something that is
> even remotely 'scientific'. How are the temperatures measured? How
> long have the temperatures been measured? There has been as of yet
> nothing but smoke and mirrors, not science presented. Hysterical
> pronouncements, mostly by politicians, hardly do justice to any claims
> that may be true.
Funny thing that nearly all climatologists -- you know, the people who
actually study the climate -- agree on it. Yes, I agree with you that
"one's political-religious leanings have more to do with what one
accepts than any objective assessment of the 'facts.'" Don't look too
deeply into the mirror.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
UC
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> filed down to look human.
>
> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
The real hoax is that he is actually Edgar...
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Edgar_Buchanan.jpg
UC
So what? There is no 'normal' climate!!!!!
I saw a film about the 'distress' that Austrian Alpine people were
going through because there is less snow. Well, as one of the
narrators clambered over a glacial, pointing out (he said) how much
smaller it had become, he added "now thousands of years ago there were
no glaciers here at all....and of course man had nothing to do with
that..."
It's all bullshit!
John Harshman
You have no clue. Nobody knows who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud. Could
have been a Darwinist, but we don't know. Nebraska man, on the other
hand, was an honest mistake, corrected very soon after the initial
announcement. Of course you wouldn't learn any of that from Buchanan,
because he neither knows nor is interested in the facts. Rather like you
in that regard.
hersheyh
> On Mar 2, 1:08�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> evidence.
Do you see no difference between "crafting and lying about crucial
evidence" and "getting fooled by a hoax" or "making a
misidentification on limited evidence"?
> (2) The fraud lasted many years.
Except in England, Piltdown was immediately considered suspect. It
was *never* regarded as pivotal. And Nebraska man didn't last long
before it was correctly interpreted.
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html
Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. Look up the meaning of
the two words. Nebraska Man was neither a hoax nor a fraud; it was a
misidentification from limited data.
If you want to talk about *real* intentional frauds, there are many
examples of pieces of the true Cross and assorted body parts of saints
in many European churches.
Desertphile
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Shall we take a historical count of "duped by science" vs "duped by
> > religion"?
> The fact that there is any scientific shennaningans going on (and
> there are in the case of so-called "global warming") is a disgrace.
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
Humans evolved from proto-humans. Funny how cult lunatics,
pandering to the ignorant, call themselves "conservatives" and yet
they cannot take even three minutes to look up junior-high-school-
level science.
> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
And the world's entire scientific body, barring about six men,
rejected the "discovery" because it was contrary to evolutionary
theory.
> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
There was no such thing as "Darwinm theory." And no theory is ever
proved. Gods, where the bloody fuck did Buchanan go to school?
> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> taught about Piltdown Man
Two generations of biology students were taught that "Piltdown
Man" was probably a hoax.
> that closer inspection discovered that the
"Closer inpection" meaning the hoaxer finally let scientists look
at the cast of the "discovery," and they immediately recognized it
at as hoax.
Stephen J. Gould wrote an excellent essay on the subject. At most
six scientists tentatively accepted the "find." The rest of the
world's scientists rejected it since if it were real, it would
have invalidated evolutionary theory.
> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> filed down to look human.
Yes, and the very hour that scientists were finally allowed to
view the bones they discovered it was a hoax.
> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
Proof that "conservatives" in the USA really do believe their
living ATM machines (i.e., campaign contributors) are too stupid
to be told the truth.
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:08�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > From the article:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
> >
> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
> >
> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
> >
> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
> >
> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > filed down to look human.
> >
> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
> >
> > Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
> (1) Darwinists were caught red-handed crafting and lying about crucial
> evidence.
Yes, Darwinists (Fundamentalist Christians) constantly lie. Glad
you admit it.
> (2) The fraud lasted many years.
What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax,
perpetrated by a Christian (apparently) which deceived maybe three
scientists in the world, with another three giving the hoax
tentative acceptance. The world's entire scientific body rejected
Piltdown Man because if Piltdown Man had been real, evolutionary
theory would have been proven WRONG.
> (3) A generation of deniers has also appeared.
Huh?
> Honest and intelligent people see a grave
> credibility problem in these facts.
Yea: the Christian who perpetrated the Piltdown Man hoax refused
to let scientists examine it.
> To make it even more simple for you: review the story about the boy
> who cried wolf.
Where's your science paper proving most of science wrong? You were
going to stop posting to talk.origins in April or May 2006 until
you were finished writting it. So--- WHERE IS IT?
> Ray
Desertphile
Ah, thank you. That was SJ Gould's metatheme as well. If Piltdown
Man had been real, evolutionary tyheory would have been proven
wrong.
UC
wrote:
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> "Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Phrenologist.
Desertphile
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 3:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
> >
> > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
> >
> > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
> >
> > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
> >
> > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > filed down to look human.
> >
> > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
> >
> > J. Spaceman
>
> But Buchanan does bring up some valid points.
No.
--
UC
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Your link is a caricature of the facts, also known more commonly as
> > > propaganda.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > I find it fascinating that one's political-religious leanings have
> > more to do with what one accepts than any objective assessment of
> > 'facts'. The problem with "global warming" is hardly something that is
> > even remotely 'scientific'. How are the temperatures measured? How
> > long have the temperatures been measured? There has been as of yet
> > nothing but smoke and mirrors, not science presented. Hysterical
> > pronouncements, mostly by politicians, hardly do justice to any claims
> > that may be true.
>
> Funny thing that nearly all climatologists -- you know, the people who
> actually study the climate -- agree on it.
So what? Are there good reasons for that or not? I'm sure all Hitler's
doctors agreed Jews were inferior beings too. Meaningless bullshit
answer.
> Yes, I agree with you that
> "one's political-religious leanings have more to do with what one
> accepts than any objective assessment of the 'facts.'" Don't look too
> deeply into the mirror.
I am a sceptic. I demand rational answers unsullied by political or
religious leanings.
>
> Baron Bodissey
> When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
> � � � � Amazon Women on the Moon
bpuharic
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>From the article:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
a few years ago i was in barcelona, where i happened to meet daniel
bell the harvard sociologist and author. there was a raging debate at
that time over whether buchanan was an antisemitie. bell's assessment
was that he was....a sentiment shared by william f. buckley in
national review.
seems buchanan hasn't made much progress in the last few years.
bpuharic
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>(1) Darwinists were caught red-handed crafting and lying about crucial
>evidence. (2) The fraud lasted many years. (3) A generation of deniers
>has also appeared. Honest and intelligent people see a grave
>credibility problem in these facts.
>
>To make it even more simple for you: review the story about the boy
>who cried wolf.
>
>Ray
you should note, ray, that buchanan is an unrepentent christian
reconstructionist, along the lines of r. j. rushdoony. his hatred of
jews has been discussed for a number of years in publications like
'commentary' and national review'
his view of evolution is filtered through his christianist mindset.
he, like you, is unable to be objective. although i've not seen
antisemitism from you, i've certainly seen enough to convince me over
the years that buchanan can not think of anything in the world without
viewing it through his christianist view of reality, so to speak
not everyone who agrees with you is your ally.
Ray Martinez
Lying for Charlie.
It was a Darwinist just like yourself.
Like I said upthread: a generation of deniers is now among us,
attempting damage control.
If Darwinists would attempt to caricature the undisputed and
uncomplicated facts of the infamous Piltdown fraud and hoax, then they
have lied and will lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is
why I am not an evolutionist.
Ray
Eric Root
> On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:21 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > > He continues on with global warming:
> > > "Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
> > > hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
> > > nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
> > > brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
> > > warmers said this validated their theory.
>
> > > You can't have it both ways."
>
> > > Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
> > > were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
> > > twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
> > > year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
> > > that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
> > > chemicals".
>
> > Nor was he watching the Olympics
>
> > Stuart
>
> Selective interpretation of evidence. The eastern part of the country
> has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
Really? For 5 years in a row? If all you're talking about is this
year, then you are the one playing stupid.
Eric Root
UC
The comment was made: "he didn't watch the Olympics". IF you want to
play stupid, keep going. You're doing a good job.
Robert Camp
> On Mar 2, 4:19 pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> From the article:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>>>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>>>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>>>> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>>>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>>>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>>>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>>>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>>>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>>>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>>>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>>>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>>>> filed down to look human.
>>
>>>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>>>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>
>>> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>>
>>> .
>>
>> Shall we take a historical count of "duped by science" vs "duped by
>> religion"?
>
> The fact that there is any scientific shennaningans going on (and
> there are in the case of so-called "global warming") is a disgrace.
I guarantee you that there are shenanigans (is it that hard to use a
spell-checker?) going on in virtually every arena of human activity and
inquiry. To expect something different of science is to hold the
institution to a standard its practitioners cannot meet, humans being
humans.
If you think that the existence of human frailty in the study of
climate change is something surprising, then you are hopelessly naive.
If you think the existence of human frailty in the study of climate
change is cause to deny global warming then you are a fool. And if your
use of "so-called" is an indication you think climate change is hype or
hoax, then you are either inexcusably ignorant or a politically
motivated denialist.
RLC
Desertphile
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 11:21 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
> >
> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
> >
> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
> >
> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
> >
> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > filed down to look human.
> >
> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
> >
> > > > J. Spaceman
> >
> > > He continues on with global warming:
> > > "Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
> > > hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
> > > nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
> > > brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
> > > warmers said this validated their theory.
> >
> > > You can't have it both ways."
> >
> > > Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
> > > were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
> > > twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
> > > year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
> > > that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
> > > chemicals".
> >
> > Nor was he watching the Olympics
> >
> > Stuart
>
> Selective interpretation of evidence. The eastern part of the country
> has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
You win at being stupid.
Desertphile
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > From the article:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
> >
> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
> >
> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
> >
> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
> >
> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > filed down to look human.
> >
> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
> >
> > > J. Spaceman
> >
> > I am more interested in evolution that I am in climatology. But the
> > latter is probably more important. Sigh. It's all part of the battle
> > against determined ignorance. Here's where to start for us amateurs:
> >
> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
> >
> > Kermit
> "Global Warming is a leftist-inspired crock of lies."
Yeah, ah... why was it hyper-conservatives in the earkly 1950s who
started warning people about global warming?
guscubed
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Your link is a caricature of the facts, also known more commonly as
> > > > propaganda.
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > I find it fascinating that one's political-religious leanings have
> > > more to do with what one accepts than any objective assessment of
> > > 'facts'. The problem with "global warming" is hardly something that is
> > > even remotely 'scientific'. How are the temperatures measured? How
> > > long have the temperatures been measured? There has been as of yet
> > > nothing but smoke and mirrors, not science presented. Hysterical
> > > pronouncements, mostly by politicians, hardly do justice to any claims
> > > that may be true.
>
> > Funny thing that nearly all climatologists -- you know, the people who
> > actually study the climate -- agree on it.
>
> So what? Are there good reasons for that or not? I'm sure all Hitler's
> doctors agreed Jews were inferior beings too. Meaningless bullshit
> answer.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a Godwinner!
>
> > Yes, I agree with you that
> > "one's political-religious leanings have more to do with what one
> > accepts than any objective assessment of the 'facts.'" Don't look too
> > deeply into the mirror.
>
> I am a sceptic. I demand rational answers unsullied by political or
> religious leanings.
>
You should be more sceptical about your own sources/prejudices/wishful
thinking. What exactly is the political agenda of the vast majority of
climatologists? The Great Atheist Conspiracy is a frequent parody on
talk.origins, are you saying there is a Great Warming Conspiracy? How
does it work?
Baron Bodissey
No, your political and religious leanings are sullying your acceptance
of the evidence, which I suspect you have not examined with an open
mind. You are accusing those who accept global warming as fact of
being swayed by their political-religious leanings. My question is,
"And the denialists aren't? YOU aren't?"
My son-in-law, a rabid libertarian (family dinners are FUN), is
convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a socialist plot to
take away his liberties, and no amount of evidence will change his
mind. His arguments boil down to, "The Earth is so big and we're so
small there's no way we can affect the climate." Argument from
personal incredulity, anyone?
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
UC
Government grants. Show us what we want to see and we'll continue to
fund you.
Baron Bodissey
Ray, what is so hard to understand about: "No one knows who
perpetrated the Piltdown Man hoax."? It seems crystal clear to me, NO
ONE KNOWS! Where did your information come from, voices in your head
again?
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
Paul J Gans
>On Mar 2, 3:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>> filed down to look human.
>>
>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>
>But Buchanan does bring up some valid points.
What? That it took a long while to expose the hoax? Science
isn't omniscient, but it grinds exceeding fine (to mix metaphors).
Errors are eventually caught, just as this was.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>> filed down to look human.
>>
>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>He continues on with global warming:
>"Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
>hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
>nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
>brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
>warmers said this validated their theory.
>You can't have it both ways."
>Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
>were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
>twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
>year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
>that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
>chemicals".
>But he's assuming, probably correctly, that anyone reading his columns
>and nodding their head in agreement won't be double-checking his
>claims.
Plus the fact that as fare as I know, NO climate scientists
claimed that the warm years individually proved anything.
UC
> On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> No, your political and religious leanings are sullying your acceptance
> of the evidence, which I suspect you have not examined with an open
> mind. You are accusing those who accept global warming as fact of
> being swayed by their political-religious leanings. My question is,
> "And the denialists aren't? YOU aren't?"
>
> My son-in-law, a rabid libertarian (family dinners are FUN), is
> convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a socialist plot to
> take away his liberties, and no amount of evidence will change his
> mind. His arguments boil down to, "The Earth is so big and we're so
> small there's no way we can affect the climate." Argument from
> personal incredulity, anyone?
>
> Baron Bodissey
> When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
Are you unfamiliar with Earth's history? EVEN if it were true (it
ISN'T) SO FUCKING WHAT? Earth has seen worse before...
There is no 'normal' or 'proper' climate! See all thos varieties of
species out there. How the hell did they get that way?
Baron Bodissey
> On Mar 2, 8:19�pm, guscubed <james.prenderg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:50�am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Government grants. Show us what we want to see and we'll continue to
> fund you.
Interesting claim. Up until a year or two ago, the government denied
that anthropogenic global warming existed and stuck its Republican
head in the sand. It muzzled and censored government scientists who
tried to speak out about it.
Get your facts straight, at least.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
Paul J Gans
>On Mar 2, 4:19 pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 1:08 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > From the article:
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>> > > filed down to look human.
>>
>> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>
>> > Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>>
>>
>> Shall we take a historical count of "duped by science" vs "duped by
>> religion"?
>The fact that there is any scientific shennaningans going on (and
>there are in the case of so-called "global warming") is a disgrace.
Why? Must scientists be purer than (name your own purity symbol here)?
The point isn't that scientists don't screw up, they do. The point
is that the work is eventually checked and screw-ups are exposed.
Do you know a better way to get at reality?
UC
There isn't the slightest doubt that there are political motives
behind this. It is conveniently almost impossible to quantify anything
about climate, and the most outrageous claims are made on behalf of
"global warming". Trying to question them results in a curt arrogant
dismissal "What? Don't you believe in the scientific method?"
The data can be interpreted, and must be interpreted. What data do you
gather? Do you presuppose the answer? Do you have expectations?
Scientists are notorious for NOT being objective at times. They often
see what the 'culture' wants them to see. Remember Pasteur? he was
laughed at by the medical men of his day. Medicine in particular has a
horrible record....for being completely unscientific...
Paul J Gans
>On Mar 2, 2:44 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>> > > > filed down to look human.
>>
>> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>
>>
>> > > He continues on with global warming:
>> > > "Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
>> > > hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
>> > > nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
>> > > brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
>> > > warmers said this validated their theory.
>>
>> > > You can't have it both ways."
>>
>> > > Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
>> > > were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
>> > > twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
>> > > year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
>> > > that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
>> > > chemicals".
>>
>>
>> > Stuart
>>
>> Selective interpretation of evidence. The eastern part of the country
>> has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
>Lessee -- eight of the ten warmest years is "selective
>interpretation",
>but a single snowy winter is not?
>How does that work exactly?
But not snowy everywhere. Nor were records set everywhere.
If I wished I could point out that normally it does not
snow enormously in the northeast of the US in February.
The air is too cold to hold too much moisture.
And I could point out that warmer air than normal was needed
in order to provide record snowfalls -- witness the very low
snowfall totals in the Antarctic during its winters.
But I won't point out those things because they will just
confuse folks with limited comprehension ability.
Baron Bodissey
Nobody's denying that the climate has changed. I suspect I know more
about Earth's history than you do and I'm most definitely NOT a
climatologist. The point is -- and I'm really surprised somebody with
your towering intellect can't see it -- that our civilization is based
on a constant climate. Climate change doesn't just mean warmer
everywhere; it means drier here, wetter there, colder here, hotter
there, higher sea levels (most of the earth's population lives in
coastal areas), worse storms, etc., etc.
Still don't get it? Try imagining that the U.S. Midwest -- the
breadbasket of the world, dude -- becomes a desert. That would tend to
cause problems. We're not talking about namby-pamby stuff like the
extinction of whole faunas (evolution'll fill them up eventually),
we're talking about serious inconveniences to US.
Try fucking learning something.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
� Amazon Women on the Moon
UC
When I was 1 year old there was a huge snowstorm around November 24,
1950.
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/OSUvsMichigan/snowbowl.html
There were not many cars in 1950...
When I was a kid in the 1950s I remember it snowed a lot, then there
was less snow for a few years in the early 1970s. Then there was
1977-78 when we had a very severe winter. Weather changes. It's normal
for it to vary from year to year.
chris thompson
> On Mar 2, 6:34 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 5:11 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 5:00 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > climate which we are obliged to maintain. It's constantly subject to
> > > > > change, as any geologist understands.
>
> > > > Sure. And Snowball Earth is part of the normal climatological
> > > > course of things too.
>
> > > > But I'd rather it not happen to us. You?
>
> > > > Haiku Jones
>
> > > I like warmer better. Don't you?
>
> > How do you feel about increasing storm severity?
>
> Compared to what? When?
Compared the 50 years ago.
>
> > Do you know what
> > that's going to do to things like the prices of goods that are shipped
> > overseas? What do you think is going to happen to all those oil rigs?
> > What's going to happen to all the low-lying areas along the coasts-
> > say, most of Florida, Louisiana, the Texas coast. What are you going
> > to do with all the people moving inland because their homes were
> > destroyed by ever-more severe storms and tidal surges?
>
> > That's not to mention the human suffering that will happen in places
> > like Bangladesh, and southeast Asia.
>
> The Eskimos will love it though.
You don't know an awful lot, do you? Their towns are washing away as
the permafrost thaws.
>
> > Remember the typhoon not long ago
> > that hit Vietnam and Cambodia- the damage was so extensive rice prices
> > surged worldwide.
>
> > So does all that sound like just another weather forecast to you?
>
> > Chris
>
> How was the weather 20,000 tears ago, bubba?
No one knows. What we do know is that was the beginning of the end of
the Wisconsin glaciation. What that has to do with anything is beyond
me, since there were no offshore oil rigs, there were no cargo ships
traversing the oceans, and the sea level rise that took place then-
although probably of greater magnitude than what we will experience-
happened over a period of about 7000 years, rather than a couple
hundred.
Your attempt at misdirection failed, bubba.
Chris
UC
So fucking what? The climate and weather are beyond our control!
Earthquakes! Asteroids! Hurricanes! Get used to Life On Earth!
chris thompson
Poor sad little troll. I know you cannot help being stupid, but don't
be so stupid that you mistake everyone else to be as stupid as you.
Chris
Reddfrogg
> On Mar 2, 1:08�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jason Spaceman" <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > .- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> (1) Darwinists were caught red-handed crafting and lying about crucial
> evidence.
No, Piltdown was most likely the work of one person, trying to get
personal recognition. It wasn't a conspiracy, and ultimately was
discovered by scientists who accepted evolutionary theory.
> (2) The fraud lasted many years.
It wasn't discovered for many years, due to a number of factors. It
was found because it didn't match the genuine evidence.
>(3) A generation of deniers
> has also appeared. Honest and intelligent people see a grave
> credibility problem in these facts.
Deniers of course deny the fact of evolution, despite the evidence.
Since Ray knows nothing about honest and intelligent behavior, he's
hardly the one to comment on the credibility of real scientists.
> To make it even more simple for you: review the story about the boy
> who cried wolf.
The story of the "boy who cried wolf" doesn't really apply here.
Piltdown was a hoax, but there is a much larger amount of genuine
evidence for evolution. Deal with the real evidence, not the one
hoax.
DJT
>
> Ray
Reddfrogg
> On Mar 2, 2:48 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > has also appeared. Honest and intelligent people see a grave
> > > credibility problem in these facts.
>
> > > who cried wolf.
>
>
> > Right. So who was that always unnamed "creatorist" who exposed the
> > hoax? And while you're evading yet another question, read this:
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> propaganda.
Care to provide any information that the link above was a caricature?
Also, Ray, since we are talking about hominid fossils, are you still
afraid to discuss the fossil KNM WT 15000? It's a quite genuine
fossil, and is a great example of a transitional human fossil. It's
exactly the kind of evidence for evolution you deny exists.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Mar 2, 3:16�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> of fraud by Darwinists.
Do you have any evidence that John is upset with the "messenger" or
that the Piltdown hoax was done by "Darwinists"?
DJT
Reddfrogg
What "lie" do you feel John has said, and why would anyone lie for
Darwin?
>
> It was a Darwinist just like yourself.
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
>
> Like I said upthread: a generation of deniers is now among us,
> attempting damage control.
The "deniers" base their denial on ignorance and religious bias.
Piltdown had nothing to do with it.
>
> If Darwinists would attempt to caricature the undisputed and
> uncomplicated facts of the infamous Piltdown fraud and hoax, then they
> have lied and will lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is
> why I am not an evolutionist.
Once again, Ray, your personal fantasies are not "undisputed facts".
Your lying about scientists, and your own reason for denying the
reality of evolution does nothing but make you a liar.
DJT
Reddfrogg
> On Mar 2, 1:38�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:30 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > > I am more interested in evolution that I am in climatology. But the
> > > latter is probably more important. Sigh. It's all part of the battle
> > > against determined ignorance. Here's where to start for us amateurs:
>
> > >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
>
> > > Kermit
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> the masses to become Amish-like, serving the elite who make no
> sacrifices.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The Amish, by the
way, are not adverse to using technology, they simply use it in
different ways.
>
> No one disputes global warming. What is in dispute is the cause. Since
> the polar ice cap is not ancient, warming is a natural cycle. I
Polar ice caps are quite ancient. Where do you get the idea they are
not?
> It is
> funny to see secularists frantically running around, marching, holding
> up signs, engaging in civil disobedience, all because "the sky is
> falling" (LOL!). Global warming: the secular apocalypse!
Again, where do you get that idea? Global warming, if it is indeed
correct, is a genuine problem for everyone "secularlists" and
theocrats alilke.
>
> Global warming is the latest Piltdown Man hoax.
In what way? Piltdown was most likely the act of one person seeking
personal fame, and attention. It was, ultimately a fairly clumsy
hoax, that was quickly discovered when the scientists who had access
to it started looking at it closely.
Global warming on the other hand is a potential threat to our
civilization. I'm not convinced that global warming is as bad as
some claim, but there's no reason to suggest it's a hoax.
>This is what happens
> when your starting assumptions deny God a place in reality.
That's not an assumption that scientists make. God's "place in
reality" is not a discussion that scientists engage in.
Methodological naturalism doesn't address at all the question of God's
existence, or how he affects reality.
DJT
Mitchell Coffey
<johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:33�pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:15�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 3:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
> > > > J. Spaceman
>
>
> > with his assertion that the Nebraska Man was a hoax. � (His absurdity
> > that in 1922 Williams Jennings Bryan was "newly elected to Congress"
> > only gives further discredit, if any more were needed, to his claim to
> > be a political historian.)
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Nobody with a grain of sense would expect anything but lies, usually
> very stupid ones, from Buchanan.
For the record, Byran was in the House of Representatives, his only
elective office, from 1891-1895. I know it's irrelevant to the issues
at hand, but it was as if Buchanan was going for getting everything
wrong.
Mitchell Coffey
R. Dean
> "Jason Spaceman" <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
> news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>
>> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>
>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>
>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>
>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>> filed down to look human.
>>
>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>
prove a theory.
>
> .
>
Paul J Gans
>http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/OSUvsMichigan/snowbowl.html
And so it is.
Are you sitting down? Because I'm going to give you a shock.
Climate scientists don't look out the window and say "my, it
is warm, must be global warming."
Local stuff is weather. Global stuff, averaged over a time
period, is climate. Two different groups with the same global data
may pick two different time periods -- and so get slightly
different results. Some folks look at that and claim fraud.
But it isn't. It does not mean that either or both are wrong.
Both are, in fact correct.
And when whole bunches of different groups do this with all sorts
of data and they *all* say that it is getting warmer faster, guess
what? It ain't weather, it's climate.
The graphs you've seen and hated generally show temperature figures
averaged over the entire world for an entire year. Individually
the data points don't mean much. Put them all together and you
get a picture.
You don't like the picture, therefore something must be wrong with
it. That's childish.
Paul J Gans
You know this how?
We can mitigate earthquakes and hurricanes by smart building
codes and zoning regulations. We may even be able to do
something about asteroids.
And since we have a fairly good grip on what causes global
warming, it is very likely that we can do something about
it.
Of course if you wish to simply wring your hands while claiming
that it is all beyond you, get out of the way because the rest
of us want to get moving.
chris thompson
And as far as Nebraska Man goes, Osborn expressed doubts as to the
validity of the find from the outset. In fact, the molars of Suids and
the molars of Primates are very similar, and the original
classification was based on one extremely worn sample. Osborn was a
careful, meticulous scientist and he gave it his best shot, in the
absence of context and other pieces of the skeleton. And when more
information became available, Osborn was the first to retract his
claims and say the tooth came from an extinct peccary. (How often have
you seen a creationist retract a position?) Science journalism was
the same then as it is now- heralding every discovery as the most
earth-shattering, theory-overturning thing to come down the pike.
That's what sells papers.
Nebraska Man was not a hoax, it was an error, and one that was
corrected almost immediately.
Chris
chris thompson
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
> And when whole bunches of different groups do this with all sorts
> of data and they *all* say that it is getting warmer faster, guess
> what? It ain't weather, it's climate.
>
> The graphs you've seen and hated generally show temperature figures
> averaged over the entire world for an entire year. Individually
> the data points don't mean much. Put them all together and you
> get a picture.
>
> You don't like the picture, therefore something must be wrong with
> it. That's childish.
No, it is idiotic. And in this case (and some others) UC is, sorry to
say, an idiot.
Chris
chris thompson
> >news:e6886de1-311c-4c6f...@v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >> From the article:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> >> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> >> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> >> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> >> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> >> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> >> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> >> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> >> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> >> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> >> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> >> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> >> filed down to look human.
>
> >> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> >> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Obviously this means that ALL hominoid fossils are frauds, right?
>
> Didn't say that. Only that some scientist will do whatever necessary to
> prove a theory.
If you say that, you don't know what science is about, you don't know
how scientists work, and you don't know what a theory is.
Free clue: you cannot "prove" a theory.
Chris
Ron O
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> filed down to look human.
>
> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
You'd think that anyone with half a brain wouldn't trust creationist
sources of information and, at least, check out the story before they
repeated the claptrap.
Ron Okimoto
Stuart
The Earth won't have a problem douche bag.
It is civilization that will have a problem.
>
> There is no 'normal' or 'proper' climate! See all thos varieties of
> species out there. How the hell did they get that way?
Great. Douche bag here thinks humanity going through a bottleneck is a
fine thing.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:21 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > From the article:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > > He continues on with global warming:
> > > "Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
> > > hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
> > > nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
> > > brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
> > > warmers said this validated their theory.
>
> > > You can't have it both ways."
>
> > > Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
> > > were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
> > > twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
> > > year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
> > > that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
> > > chemicals".
>
> > Nor was he watching the Olympics
>
> > Stuart
>
> has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
You're a douche bag who thinks the world revolves around the east
coast of the US. Asshole here, thinks
talking about 60F in Vancouver is selective while concentrating on the
east coast is not.
Learn the difference between *weather* and *climate* you bumptious
moron.
Stuart
jillery
In one sense that would be considered optimistic. It's possible
humanity doesn't get through the bottleneck.
Stuart
> On Mar 2, 7:59�pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 1:44�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 2, 11:21 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > > > > > on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > > > > > found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> > > > > > In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > > > > > was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>
> > > > > > "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>
> > > > > > Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > > > > > knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>
> > > > > > It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > > > > > taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > > > > > cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > > > > > look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > > > > > filed down to look human.
>
> > > > > > The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > > > > > century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > > Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
>
> > > > > He continues on with global warming:
> > > > > "Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009
> > > > > hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves
> > > > > nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season
> > > > > brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the
> > > > > warmers said this validated their theory.
>
> > > > > You can't have it both ways."
>
> > > > > Of course he doesn't mention that 8 of the warmest years on record
> > > > > were in the last ten, and fifteen of the warmest were in the last
> > > > > twenty. No climate scientist would say that the weather in any one
> > > > > year would validate their theory, anymore than a biologist would say
> > > > > that "humans assembled bu accident from a random combination of
> > > > > chemicals".
>
> > > > Nor was he watching the Olympics
>
> > > > Stuart
>
> > > Selective interpretation of evidence. The eastern part of the country
> > > has been hit hard by snow all winter. Don't play stupid with me.
>
> > year, then you are the one playing stupid.
>
> > Eric Root
>
> The comment was made: "he didn't watch the Olympics". IF you want to
> play stupid, keep going. You're doing a good job.
My point you silly sot is that one can't judge global warming by
selecting a single region
and remark gee.. what a whole lot of snow and cold!
Vancouver was a counter example and why you can't judge trends in
global temps by looking
at a single region.
What a hopeless sap you are.
Stuart
Jeffrey Turner
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
RAM
> On Mar 2, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 3:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>> From the article:
> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> > >>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> > >>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
> > >>> In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there
> > >>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
> > >>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
> > >>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
> > >>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
> > >>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
> > >>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
> > >>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
> > >>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
> > >>> filed down to look human.
> > >>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
> > >>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > of fraud by Darwinists.
>
> > You have no clue. Nobody knows who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud. Could
> > have been a Darwinist,....
>
> Lying for Charlie.
>
>
> attempting damage control.
>
> uncomplicated facts of the infamous Piltdown fraud and hoax, then they
> have lied and will lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is
> why I am not an evolutionist.
>
The single reason you are not an evolutionist is because of your
dogmatic religious bigotry toward any science that contradicts your
religious beliefs.
It is the elephant you refuse to acknowledge in all your posts. It is
the elephant you deny exists when you post your religiously bigoted
tripe about evolution. You offer nothing but an example of the moral
hypocrisy of extreme religious antievolution bigotry!
An empty life with empty morality and empty results. Someone had to
play this extreme religious role of what it means to have a negative
view of scientific reality and it is you - the empty vessel for Jesus.
RAM
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>
> <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> >From the article:
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
> >on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
> >found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>
> bell the harvard sociologist and author. �there was a raging debate at
> that time over whether buchanan was an antisemitie. �bell's assessment
> was that he was....a sentiment shared by william f. buckley in
> national review.
>
> seems buchanan hasn't made much progress in the last few years.
Buchanan is also a racist. This is something he will dismiss but he
constantly acts like all southern racists I have known who also deny
being racists. This involves the support of flying the rebel flag,
being against any affirmative action program while supporting legacy
scholarships, participating in and/or supporting racists organizations
such as the Sons of the Confederacy, Conservative Citizens Councils
and the sentiments and views in his books where it is clear to this
one time Southern racists that he still is.
John Harshman
> On Mar 2, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 3:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> From the article:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> With publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, the hunt was
>>>>> on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who
>>>>> found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.
>>>>> was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.
>>>>> "Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.
>>>>> Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were
>>>>> knighted for validating Piltdown Man.
>>>>> It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been
>>>>> taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the
>>>>> cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to
>>>>> look older, and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been
>>>>> filed down to look human.
>>>>> The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the
>>>>> century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Read it athttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661
>>>> Buchanan is truly a vile person. But we knew that.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Harshman is more upset with the messenger than he is with the report
>>> of fraud by Darwinists.
>> You have no clue. Nobody knows who perpetrated the Piltdown fraud. Could
>> have been a Darwinist,....
>
> Lying for Charlie.
>
> It was a Darwinist just like yourself.
How do you know that for sure unless you know who did it?
> Like I said upthread: a generation of deniers is now among us,
> attempting damage control.
>
> If Darwinists would attempt to caricature the undisputed and
> uncomplicated facts of the infamous Piltdown fraud and hoax, then they
> have lied and will lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is
> why I am not an evolutionist.
No, that isn't why. You're not an evolutionist because Gene Scott told
you not to be.