EVOLUTION FORGERIES
Harun Yahya
which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist
academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce
imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching
fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting
methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the
fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the
history of science, is a typical example of this method.
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
A well-known doctor and also an amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles
Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a
cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though the
jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s.
These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500
thousand years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human
evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific
articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and
drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important
evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses
were written on the subject.(55) The famous American
paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be
reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this
is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting the
British Museum in 1935.(56)
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s paleontology
department attempted to try the method of "fluorine testing", a new
test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was
made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding.
During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man
did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained
buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a
small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years
old.
The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have
revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was
determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had
been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered
with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with
steel implements.(57)
In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed
to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and
the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were
thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the
joints were filled in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these
pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated
appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery, could not
hide his astonishment at this situation and said that "the evidences of
artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious
did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that they had escaped
notice before?"(58)
In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the
British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the manager of the American Museum of
Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth in
West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This
tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape.
Deep scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth to
be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to
human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate, was called
the "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific name":
Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth,
reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn.
Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and
children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist
circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a
researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying
on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor
to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of
wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his
article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault
as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59) Then all
the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that
man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to
support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed
that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the
fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the
early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led
to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of
a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the
Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and
two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA
where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St
Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him
as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took
him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the
denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few
chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr
William T. Hornaday, the zoo’s evolutionist director gave long speeches
on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his
zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal.
Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually
committed suicide.(60)
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind,
when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution"
legend, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional
story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this
story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
55 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1980, p. 59.
56 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist,
February 5, 1979, p. 44.
57 Kenneth Oakley, William Le Gros Clark & J. S, "Piltdown", Meydan
Larousse, vol 10, p. 133.
58 Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly", New Scientist, April
5, 1979, p. 44.
59 W. K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Man",
Science, Vol 66, December 1927, p. 579.
60 Philips Verner Bradford, Harvey Blume, Ota Benga: The Pygmy in The
Zoo, New York: Delta Books, 1992.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image,
>which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist
>academic circles.
OOOHHHH!!!!!....evolution and media
circles....yessirree...indeedee...yep, the big networks routinely
phone up the 'evolutionist/atheist' headquarters to get the latest
party line...happens all the time...
my undergrad alma mater, pittsburgh, had a researcher accused of
falsifying data on breast cancer research (fortunately he was
cleared)...but by creationist logic, this means neither breast cancer,
nor breasts exist...after all...there was supposedly fraud about the
whole matter...
ghos...@my-deja.com
Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Overselling reality?
> One of the interesting
> methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the
> fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the
> history of science, is a typical example of this method.
> Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
Piltdown was suspected from the start and it was evolutionists who
uncovered the truth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html#uncritically
> A well-known doctor and also an amateur paleoanthropologist, Charles
> Dawson came out with an assertion that he had found a jawbone and a
> cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England in 1912. Even though
the
> jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man’s.
> These specimens were labelled the "Piltdown Man". Alleged to be 500
> thousand years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human
> evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific
> articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and
> drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important
> evidence of human evolution.
Please support this: What scientific articles.
> No less than five hundred doctoral
theses
> were written on the subject.(55)
List these theses.
"500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man
This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet
"Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981)
makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of
Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral
dissertations but does not give a source. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html#doctoral_theses
[...]
> In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the
> British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
More on Piltdown
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Sad to see that the poster seems unable to address the vaste evidence
that are not forgeries
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
ghos...@my-deja.com
> Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth
> In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the manager of the American Museum of
> Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth in
> West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This
> tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape.
> Deep scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth
to
> be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to
> human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate, was called
> the "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific name":
> Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
>
> Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single
tooth,
> reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn.
Now the rest of the story
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
Creationists often ridicule the Nebraska Man illustration, of two
humanlike but extremely bestial creatures, done by Amedee Forestier for
the Illustrated London News (Smith 1922). They rightly point out that an
animal cannot be reconstructed from one tooth. But the drawing was not a
reconstruction and was never intended, or claimed, to be accurate or
scientific, being based more on the Java Man fossil than on the tooth.
Smith emphasized (the following quote was in both the main text and
below the drawing) its speculative nature:
"Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some
idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know
nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the
expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the
peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive
forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr.
Forestier has depicted." (Smith 1922, emphasis added)
also
Osborn, who had named Hesperopithecus, was less impressed with
Forestier's artistic efforts, and remarked that
"such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of
the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."
(quoted in Wolf and Mellett (1984))
> Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and
> children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
> All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth.
Evolutionist
> circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a
> researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying
> on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
> In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
> these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor
> to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of
> wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his
> article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault
> as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59) Then all
> the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
> hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what
was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy
dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the
Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to
which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well
preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet
been generally accepted."
It seems that the story about Nebraska man is somewhat different...
> Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
> that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind,
Nice strawman. First of all the real story of Piltdown and Nebraska man
seems somewhat different. Secondly if such logic can be used then we can
refer to the witch burnings and other atrocities performed in name of
religion.
> when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution"
> legend, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional
> story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this
> story.
And yet these volunteers have done nothing to address the vaste amount
of evidence of humanoid fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
In all these years, creationists seem to have come up with little more
than the Piltdown man and Nebraska man and even in those examples, they
seem to be overselling their case.
ghos...@my-deja.com
With so many good examples of fossils describing hominid evolution
focusing on a few 'hoaxes' seems not very useful.
I would look forward to a description of what is wrong with our present
knowledge on hominid evolution? The vaste amount of fossils surely need
an explanation. If the argument is that evolution is wrong then surely
there is an alternative explanation for these observations that explains
better the observations?
I encourage people who doubt the evolutionary scenarios to focus on what
is known to be good data rather than focusing on what is known to be
hoaxes.
One cannot dismiss these data by extrapolating from a few hoaxes and/or
misunderstandings.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
> which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist
> academic circles.
Snip the same old same old
If the fossils were concrete they would all be forgeries.
Harun, you have to deal with all of the fossils that have not been shown
to be forgeries. If you are trying to say that they are all forgeries
you have to come up with some evidence to back you up. It would help
your cause quite a lot if it was creationist and not other scientists
that exposed these frauds.
Why do you even try to link human behavior with beliefs about origins?
There is an enclave of Christians not more than 70 miles down the highway
from here that claim non whites are mud people that can be killed in the
name of their god because they aren't really human. I have little doubt
that most of them are YEC creationists to boot, but I doubt that their
beliefs about the origin of the universe has anything to do with their
other beliefs and behavior. With a name like Yahya you would likely be
considered one of the mud people by this group and they would have very
similar views of origins that you do. Looks like there must be more to
trying to pin some tag on any group of people than you want others to
believe.
Ron Okimoto
ghos...@my-deja.com
As pointed out by Wesley Elsberry, Nebraska man was also not a forgery
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/wre_arch/wre00023.htm
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/nebraska.html
SOme more info on fossil hominids
http://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm
Mark VandeWettering
> Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> One of the interesting
>> methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the
>> fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the
>> history of science, is a typical example of this method.
>> Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
[ piggybacking ]
One wonders if this is such a typical example, why creationists are forced
to retell this story again and again, rather than producing all the other
instances of rampant fraud.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Joe Cummings
mistaken extrapolation. Let's look at the Piltdown hoax as written by
Harun
Some snippage.
>. For more than 40 years, many scientific
>articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and
>drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important
>evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral theses
>were written on the subject.(55) The famous American
>paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be
>reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and this
>is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting the
>British Museum in 1935.(56)
>In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum’s paleontology
>department attempted to try the method of "fluorine testing", a new
>test used for determining the date of some old fossils. A trial was
>made on the fossil of the Piltdown Man. The result was astounding.
>During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man
>did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained
>buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a
>small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years
>old.
>
>The latest chronological studies made with the fluorine method have
>revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was
>determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had
>been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered
>with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with
>steel implements.(57)
This fluorine dating is interesting. Do creationists accept
its reliability in dating bones? If this method showed bones or
fossils to be over 6,000 years old, that is, predating the Biblical
creation, would this be accepted by creationists?
>
>In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed
>to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and
>the mandibular bone belonged to a recently dead ape! The teeth were
>thereafter specially arranged in an array and added to the jaw and the
>joints were filled in order to resemble that of a man. Then all these
>pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them a dated
>appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
>Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
> could not
>hide his astonishment at this situation and said that "the evidences of
>artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious
>did they seem it may well be asked - how was it that they had escaped
>notice before?"(58)
>
>In the wake of all this, "Piltdown Man" was hurriedly removed from the
>British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.
>Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth
>In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the manager of the American Museum of
>Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth in
>West Nebraska near Snake Brook belonging to the Pliocene period. This
>tooth allegedly bore the common characteristics of both man and ape.
>Deep scientific arguments began in which some interpreted this tooth to
>be of Pithecanthropus erectus while others claimed it was closer to
>human beings. This fossil, which aroused extensive debate,
Would this be a debate between creationists and scientists or
a debate among scientists?
> was called
>the "Nebraska Man". It was also immediately given a "scientific name":
>Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.
>
>Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth,
>reconstructions of the Nebraska Man’s head and body were drawn.
>Moreover, the Nebraska Man was even pictured along with his wife and
>children, as a whole family in a natural setting.
>All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist
>circles accredited this "ghost man" to such an extent that when a
>researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased decisions relying
>on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
>
>In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
>these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor
>to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of
>wild American pig called prosthennops.
Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How old
was the fossil?
>William Gregory entitled his
>article published in Science magazine
Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
>where he announced this fault
>as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59) Then all
>the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
>hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
>
>
>Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage
snips
>Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually
>committed suicide.(60)
This was inhuman treatment.
>
>Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
>that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
>unscientific method to prove their theory.
Whoa there.
The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists would
cast doubt on in other circumstances. Creationists simply don't have
the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
accept the validity of fluorine dating?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Joe Cummings
wf...@ptd.net
Cummings) wrote:
>On 27 Jan 2001 14:50:48 -0500, Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>Harun gives examples of scientists discovering a forgery and a
>mistaken extrapolation. Let's look at the Piltdown hoax as written by
>Harun
>
>
> This fluorine dating is interesting. Do creationists accept
>its reliability in dating bones? If this method showed bones or
>fossils to be over 6,000 years old, that is, predating the Biblical
>creation, would this be accepted by creationists?
i like the part where creationists tell us how accurate the bible is
because many biblical sites have been dated by science to eras
specified in the bible...
>>
maff91
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
Digging up Darwin
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=690201038
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Creationism and Pseudo Science
http://members.home.net/fsteiger/creation.htm
IS CREATIONISM FOR REAL?
http://www.enconnect.net/rjtolle/
Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution Page
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
--
"It is said that science will dehumanize people and
turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically
false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration
camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where
people were turned into numbers. Into this pond
were flushed the ashes of some four million people.
And that was not done by gas. It was done by
ignorance. When people believe that they have
absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is
how they behave. This is what men do when they
aspire to the knowledge of gods (374)."
http://skepdic.com/theories.html
Boikat
>
> There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image,
> which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist
> academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce
> imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching
> fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting
> methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the
> fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the
> history of science, is a typical example of this method.
[remainder of drivel snipped]
Piltdown man was never universally accepted by
paleontologists.
You want to talk about dishonest "science"?
Good, let's talk about "scientific" creationism.
Boikat
Boikat
No
Robert Carroll
"Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the "ape-man" image,
How many concrete fossils are there? Well, maybe a few in New Jersey.
Ape-man image? Sense-free wordage?
> which is unceasingly indoctrinated by the media and evolutionist
> academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce
> imaginary creatures, yet the fact that these drawings have no matching
> fossils
Oh, shucks! We've got no fossils!
constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting
> methods they employ to overcome this problem is to "produce" the
> fossils they cannot find. The Piltdown Man, the biggest scandal in the
> history of science, is a typical example of this method.
> Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
How amazing. People are occasionally fooled by hoaxes. There is hope for
you yet, Harun Yahya. Or slavish quote-snipper.
<snip boring garbage copied from the YECs >
> During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of the Piltdown Man
> did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained
> buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a
> small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years
> old.
]
A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish propagandist,
do not really object to a distant age of the earth.
>
> The latest chronological studies
Done when?
Why not use radiocarbon dating. It works really well.
made with the fluorine method have
> revealed that the skull is only a few thousand years old. It was
> determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orang-utan had
> been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered
> with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with
> steel implements.(57)
>
> In the detailed analysis completed by Weiner, this forgery was revealed
> to the public in 1953.
No doubt by the proto-creationists.
Researcher? What was his middle name?
opposed these biased decisions relying
> on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
>
> In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
> these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor
> to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of
> wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his
> article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault
> as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59)
Then all
> the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
> hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
References to this?
>
<snip even more moronic blathering>
I love these one-way posts.
Bob
and...@my-deja.com
j...@cummings98.fsnet.co.uk (Joe Cummings) wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2001 14:50:48 -0500, Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> Some snippage.
> >. For more than 40 years, many scientific
> >articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and
> >drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important
> >evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral
theses
> >were written on the subject.(55) The famous American
> >paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be
> >reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and
this
> >is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting
the
> >British Museum in 1935.(56)
<...>
> >appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
> >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
>
> It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
> hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access to
the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
<...>
> Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
> a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
> creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How old
> was the fossil?
>
> >William Gregory entitled his
> >article published in Science magazine
>
> Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
the fraud by evolutionists.
<...>
> >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
> >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> >unscientific method to prove their theory.
>
> Whoa there.
>
> The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
> were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists would
> cast doubt on in other circumstances.
No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
> Creationists simply don't have
> the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
> one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
> accept the validity of fluorine dating?
There you go with your referrals to "creationists" again. Newton was a
creationist. So were many other famous scientists, depending on how
you define your term.
Andy
and...@my-deja.com
"Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<...>
> A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
propagandist,
> do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
derogatory manner. Agreed?
Something about Darwinism seems to encourage such an approach.
Andy
Adam Marczyk
> In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> > "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> <...>
> > A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
> propagandist,
> > do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
>
> I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
> derogatory manner. Agreed?
Ah, so mentioning someone's ethnicity is derogatory now? I think you've been
corrupted by the forces of left-wing multiculturalism and pluralism, Andy.
> Something about Darwinism seems to encourage such an approach.
You can stop now. No one's disputing that you're the champion at making
false, slanderous and irrelevant assertions.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
> In article <3a733a0c...@news.freeserve.net>,
> j...@cummings98.fsnet.co.uk (Joe Cummings) wrote:
> > On 27 Jan 2001 14:50:48 -0500, Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Some snippage.
> > >. For more than 40 years, many scientific
> > >articles were written on the "Piltdown Man", many interpretations and
> > >drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as an important
> > >evidence of human evolution. No less than five hundred doctoral
> theses
> > >were written on the subject.(55) The famous American
> > >paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said "...we have to be
> > >reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes and
> this
> > >is an astonishing finding about early man..." while he was visiting
> the
> > >British Museum in 1935.(56)
> <...>
> > >appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
> > >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
> >
> > It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
> > hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
>
> No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
I'd love to know what you think the difference is.
> Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
> disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access to
> the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
Have any evidence for this? Or do you just like making unsupported
assertions?
> <...>
> > Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
> > a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
> > creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How old
> > was the fossil?
> >
> > >William Gregory entitled his
> > >article published in Science magazine
> >
> > Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
>
> You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
> repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
> the fraud by evolutionists.
The relevance is that evolutionists are the ones who found the evidence was
flawed and rejected it, thereby deflating the creationists' assertions that
proponents of evolution unquestioningly accept any evidence that supports
the theory.
> <...>
> > >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
> > >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> > >unscientific method to prove their theory.
> >
> > Whoa there.
> >
> > The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
> > were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists would
> > cast doubt on in other circumstances.
>
> No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
> became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
So who "admitted" to the hoax of Piltdown Man? No one, of course; the truth
was discovered by scientific inquiry. Maybe not as quick as it possibly
could have been, but that's hardly the point. But, of course, this is Andy
talking here, and as we all know Andy never lets inconvenient facts get in
the way of a really good rhetorical argument.
> > Creationists simply don't have
> > the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
> > one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
> > accept the validity of fluorine dating?
>
> There you go with your referrals to "creationists" again. Newton was a
> creationist. So were many other famous scientists, depending on how
> you define your term.
Hmm. How about if I define my term as "scientists who lived before Darwin?"
Once again, Andy sees an argument he likes and doesn't hesitate to employ
it, just brushing aside those bothersome facts that tend to invalidate it or
point out how ridiculous it is. As Andy (indeed, most creationists) well
know, the truth is to be employed only when it helps your argument (and it
never helps the creationists'), and ignored when it doesn't.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Harun Yahya <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > No less than five hundred doctoral
> theses
> > were written on the subject.(55)
>
> List these theses.
>
> "500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man
Maybe creationists have written 500 doctoral theses about the hoax?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Pavil Natanovich
William Bryan--if it is the same I'm thinking of, was not a researcher
but a lawyer. William Jennings Bryan, I reckon. Fairfield had
published a paper two years prior to the discovery of the tooth on the
necessity of taking care not to confuse peccary teeth with those of
humans (which are remarkably similar).
The misidentification of the tooth was a mistake, one which Fairfield
later acknowledged. Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was an outright
fraud. There is a clear distinction, which the author fails to note.
It is possible Fairfield was rushed into the identification of the
tooth so as to have evidence that could be used in the trial
popularized in the movie, "Inherit the Wind." The trial was not truly
a big victory for evolutionists. The teacher was found guilty and
fined. The fine was later overturned on appeal, as prior Tennessee law
prohibited such large fines. Although the trial took place in the
1960s, the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was not
stricken until 1967. That was about 40 years of idiocy.
> opposed these biased decisions relying
> > on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
> >
> > In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
> > these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man
nor
> > to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species
of
> > wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his
> > article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault
> > as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59)
>
> Then all
> > the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
> > hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
> References to this?
It turns out to be true. But it does nothing to detract from the many
specimens we DO have, often fully articulated skeletons of hominid
species other than our own. Ask the author if he can explain the
neandertal fossils.
--
"Useless laws weaken necessary laws" -Baron de Montesquieu
Joe Cummings
Here we have an interesting example of the ideological
"reworder." In order to maintain a discussion he has to continually
misrepresent what his perceived opponent says. He hasn't the ability
to deal with the actual statements made.
snips (the rest of the posting can be seen above in the thread.)
Re "Piltdown Man."
>> >. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
>> >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
>>
>> It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
>> hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
>
>No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
It was exposed, as I say, by Clark. If Andy sees some subtle
difference between "exposure" and "disclosure," in this instance, then
I think he should take us into his confidence.
>
>Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
>disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access to
>the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
Preventing access by whom?? It was access by scientists.
There are hardly any creationists in the UK.
>
><...>
>> Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
>> a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
>> creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How old
>> was the fossil?
>>
>> >William Gregory entitled his
>> >article published in Science magazine
>>
>> Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
>
>You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
>repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
>the fraud by evolutionists.
Sure, I'll define it: Creationism is an anti-scientific dogma
based on a literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
It is a dogma shared by a vanishingly small number of
Christian fundamentalists, mainly in the United States. It is a
dogma that makes unsupported claims and criticisms of any scientiific
activity. It has a small number of examples of dishonest behaviour by
scientists which are endlessly recycled, and a very large number of
distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific position, which
are never, ever corrected no matter how many times attention is drawn
to them.
><...>
>> >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
>> >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
>> >unscientific method to prove their theory.
>>
>> Whoa there.
>>
>> The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
>> were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists would
>> cast doubt on in other circumstances.
>
>No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
>became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
This last statement gives me cause to strongly suspect that
you are becoming increasingly detached from reality. I said above
that Clark exposed the Piltdown forgery. Andy doesn't seem to want to
accept this, because it doesn't fit into his dogmatic picture of what
"really" happened. He's so obsessed by the creationist literature
that he'll accept whatever is written as revealed truth. It probably
never occurs to him to look outside this rather shoddily written
literature.
The biggest shock to his system will be when he finds a piece
of scientific literature that has not been "interpreted" by
creationists.
>> Creationists simply don't have
>> the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
>> one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
>> accept the validity of fluorine dating?
>
>There you go with your referrals to "creationists" again. Newton was a
>creationist. So were many other famous scientists, depending on how
>you define your term.
More importantly, how do you define it?? There are many
Christian evolutionists in this newsgroup who find no problem with a
theistic interpretation of evolution.
Theistic evolution, I should explain to Andy, who'll never
find the term in his favourite literature, is the view that god was
the ultimate prime mover, the first cause, who at some moment of
creation gave matter all the properties that were able to lead to the
development of life.
There you are, Andy. Some free education for you, and
education that, unlike the creationist literature, invites you not to
believe fervently, but to go and investigate. Can you do it, son?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
bud...@aol.com
[Snipped Archaic Rant]
If that's the best you've got then you are more worthless than your
arguments. These are *ancient, ancient* arguments. BTW, was it the
creationists who revealed these mistakes or was it the scientists?
That's right it was the...*scientists*!!! Just checking.
Now you seek to shore up the creaking foundations of creationism by
dredging up stories that most evolutionists have long ago forgotten and
moved on from? Are you unaware of the huge number of hominid fossil
discoveries in the last twenty years alone? Try taking the plank from
your own eye before you seek to search for dust motes in ours.
Budikka - creationism: demonstrably the science of lying
wf...@ptd.net
that aint nuthin'. you shudda seen what some christians, under the
'hamitic hypothesis' used to say about blacks...and still do. it'll
curl your hair.
wf...@ptd.net
'likely critics'?? doesnt that contradict your assessment that all
evolutionists are liars? if there were critics, they were
evolutionists. so not all were involved in the cover up
but thanks, we already knew that.
><...>
>> The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
>> were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists would
>> cast doubt on in other circumstances.
>
>No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
>became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
why WASNT it possible to continue 'lying'?? if we scientists are
involved, as part of our 'theology' in cover up why wouldnt it
continue??
>
>> Creationists simply don't have
>> the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
>> one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
>> accept the validity of fluorine dating?
>
>There you go with your referrals to "creationists" again. Newton was a
>creationist. So were many other famous scientists, depending on how
>you define your term.
>
you have yet to prove where newton rejected a theory developed 2
centuries after he was born. that would certainly prove he was a
creationist.
ghos...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
> > hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
>
> No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
>
> Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
> disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access
to
> the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
Could you give a reference to this? Who were the evolution scientists
who concealed the forgery and who were the critics?
> <...>
> > Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
> > a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
> > creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How
old
> > was the fossil?
> >
> > >William Gregory entitled his
> > >article published in Science magazine
> >
> > Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
>
> You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
> repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
> the fraud by evolutionists.
> <...>
> > >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate
> > >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> > >unscientific method to prove their theory.
> >
> > Whoa there.
> >
> > The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that they
> > were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists
would
> > cast doubt on in other circumstances.
>
> No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
> became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
The piltdown man was a hoax which was suspicious from the start,
Nebraska man was not a hoax but a misclassifiction that was corrected.
What about the unsupported claims of 500 theses and other articles? Is
it not time to support these?
ghos...@my-deja.com
Some good articles on Piltdown
Richard Harter
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html#doctoral_theses
Lindsay
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/piltdown.html
David John
http://www.autopen.com/piltdown.shtml
Unveiling Piltdown Man
L. S. B. Leakey and Vanne Morris Goodall
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_receptionnotfav/unveilingpilt.html
The story of the Piltdown man
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm
Misconceptions
500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man
Reality seems quite different.
British museum protected fossils from being observed
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html#museum
Jon Fleming
You're probably aware of this, but for the benefit of anyone who is
not, from
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html#doctoral_theses>:
"This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet
"Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers
(1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's
Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500
doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.
This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of
PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller
number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses
a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were
none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were
about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire
US on ANY topic.
Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of
The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman,
Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The
Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity
of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have
extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research
literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations.
Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral
dissertation.
It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether
it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the
introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated
that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]".
This estimate is credible, the 1920 edition of H.G. Wells' The Outline
of History remarks "more than a hundred books, pamphlets, and papers
have been written [about Piltdown Man]". W. & A. Quenstedt listed over
300 references in 1936 in Hominidae fossiles. Fossilium Catalogus I:
Animalia, 74: 191-197.
Millar gives no source, evidently not considering the matter to be
important enough to document. However it probably was the
editorial in the 10 July 1954 issue of Nature (vol. 274, # 4419,
pp. 61-62) which describes a meeting of the Geological Society (30
June 1954) devoted to the exposure of the hoax. The editorial
(unsigned) says
"It is agreed that the skull fragments are human and not of
great antiquity; that the jawbone is ape; that they have no
important evolutionary significance. More than five hundred
articles and memoirs are said to have been written about
Piltdown man. His rise and fall are a salutary example of human
motives, mischief and mistake."
By coincidence, Spencer's The Piltdown Papers (1990) contains 500
letters, i.e. 500 items of correspondence between Piltdown principals.
However this cannot be the source of the number 500 since The Piltdown
Papers appeared well after Parker's pamphlet and Millar's book.
The most plausible explanation for this myth is that Millar and Parker
both used the same source, the Nature editorial, and that Parker
assumed that papers and memoirs were dissertations. In turn Lubenow's
source was probably the Parker pamphlet. The truth, however, is
unknown."
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Aleister Crowley's Cat
Why do YECs think they're exempt from the eighth (? - "thou shalt not
bear false witness) commandment?
Regards
Dave
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
>
"Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!" - Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law
E-mail: dave AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
WWW: http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk OR http://www.kharne.net
and...@my-deja.com
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9507vo$r7
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> > "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > <...>
> > > A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
> > propagandist,
> > > do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
> >
> > I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
> > derogatory manner. Agreed?
>
No, but emphasizing one's ethnicity in a derogatory manner is. Do you
agree or not?
> > Something about Darwinism seems to encourage such an approach.
>
> You can stop now. <...>
Will you criticize the derogatory ethnic statement above or not?
and...@my-deja.com
j...@cummings98.fsnet.co.uk (Joe Cummings) wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2001 23:32:04 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Here we have an interesting example of the ideological
> "reworder." In order to maintain a discussion he has to continually
> misrepresent what his perceived opponent says. He hasn't the ability
> to deal with the actual statements made.
Boilerplate bluster here, signifying nothing.
> snips (the rest of the posting can be seen above in the thread.)
>
> Re "Piltdown Man."
> >> >. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
> >> >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
> >>
> >> It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
> >> hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
> >
> >No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
>
> It was exposed, as I say, by Clark. If Andy sees some subtle
> difference between "exposure" and "disclosure," in this instance, then
> I think he should take us into his confidence.
There is a key difference -- use a dictionary if you need to. Many
critics of the Piltdown Man refused to accept it during the 40+ year
period while many evolutionists defended it. Clark merely admitted
what many evolution critics already knew.
> >Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
> >disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access
to
> >the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
>
> Preventing access by whom?? It was access by scientists.
> There are hardly any creationists in the UK.
You're wrong. See the prior threads in t.o on this issue. Historians
have written about how access to the Piltdown Man was severely and
unjustifiably restricted.
> ><...>
> >> Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
> >> a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
> >> creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How
old
> >> was the fossil?
> >>
> >> >William Gregory entitled his
> >> >article published in Science magazine
> >>
> >> Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
> >
> >You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
> >repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
> >the fraud by evolutionists.
>
> Sure, I'll define it: Creationism is an anti-scientific dogma
> based on a literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How about
Isaac Newton?
> It is a dogma shared by a vanishingly small number of
> Christian fundamentalists, mainly in the United States. It is a
> dogma that makes unsupported claims and criticisms of any scientiific
> activity. It has a small number of examples of dishonest behaviour by
> scientists which are endlessly recycled, and a very large number of
> distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific position, which
> are never, ever corrected no matter how many times attention is drawn
> to them.
Whew! Now you invoke the United States, "dishonest behaviour" (note
British spelling), "distortions and misrepresentations", and "never,
ever corrected"!
Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
> ><...>
> >> >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals
demonstrate
> >> >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> >> >unscientific method to prove their theory.
> >>
> >> Whoa there.
> >>
> >> The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that
they
> >> were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists
would
> >> cast doubt on in other circumstances.
> >
> >No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
> >became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
>
> This last statement gives me cause to strongly suspect that
> you are becoming increasingly detached from reality. I said above
> that Clark exposed the Piltdown forgery. Andy doesn't seem to want to
> accept this, because it doesn't fit into his dogmatic picture of what
> "really" happened. He's so obsessed by the creationist literature
> that he'll accept whatever is written as revealed truth. It probably
> never occurs to him to look outside this rather shoddily written
> literature.
And as I said above, Clark did not "expose" the Piltdown forgery. He
merely admitted it -- 40 years later than evolutionists should have
admitted it and allowed independent access.
> The biggest shock to his system will be when he finds a piece
> of scientific literature that has not been "interpreted" by
> creationists.
> >> Creationists simply don't have
> >> the expertise to investigate these types of claims. In fact, that's
> >> one of the reasons creationists don't do science. Harun, do you
> >> accept the validity of fluorine dating?
> >
> >There you go with your referrals to "creationists" again. Newton
was a
> >creationist. So were many other famous scientists, depending on how
> >you define your term.
>
> More importantly, how do you define it?? There are many
> Christian evolutionists in this newsgroup who find no problem with a
> theistic interpretation of evolution.
So you duck the issue of whether Newton was a "creationist". He was.
"Creationism", before the language mangling needed by desperate
evolutionists, simply connoted belief in creation. Trouble is, far too
many believe in creation for evolutionists to work with that term. So
the distortions began.
> Theistic evolution, I should explain to Andy, who'll never
> find the term in his favourite literature, is the view that god was
> the ultimate prime mover, the first cause, who at some moment of
> creation gave matter all the properties that were able to lead to the
> development of life.
Your lowercase "g" for God is a giveaway. I don't think you're
qualified to give an objective account of theism.
> There you are, Andy. Some free education for you, and
> education that, unlike the creationist literature, invites you not to
> believe fervently, but to go and investigate. Can you do it, son?
I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
wf...@ptd.net
>
>"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
>example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How about
>Isaac Newton?
isaac newton was not a creationist. nowhere did he ever reject
darwin's theory of evolution. not once. anywhere.
>
>> It is a dogma shared by a vanishingly small number of
>> Christian fundamentalists, mainly in the United States. It is a
>> dogma that makes unsupported claims and criticisms of any scientiific
>> activity. It has a small number of examples of dishonest behaviour by
>> scientists which are endlessly recycled, and a very large number of
>> distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific position, which
>> are never, ever corrected no matter how many times attention is drawn
>> to them.
>
>Whew! Now you invoke the United States, "dishonest behaviour" (note
>British spelling), "distortions and misrepresentations", and "never,
>ever corrected"!
if you can tell us where, outside of inbred hillbillies in the US,
creationism exists, please do so.
>
>Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
no, he wasnt. if he was, please tell us where he rejected darwin's
theory of evolution.
>
>So you duck the issue of whether Newton was a "creationist". He was.
really? if he was, then he must have written about why darwin's theory
was wrong.
please tell us where we can find newton's view of darwin. thanks.
>
>"Creationism", before the language mangling needed by desperate
>evolutionists, simply connoted belief in creation. Trouble is, far too
>many believe in creation for evolutionists to work with that term. So
>the distortions began.
whatever andy, the linquistic street whore, means by this. who
believes in 'creation'?? no one and everyone. its a meaningless
concept.
>
>
>I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
>
>Andy
they werent. and until you cite an example of their rejection of
darwin, you're simply wrong.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <3a73dddf...@news.freeserve.net>,
> j...@cummings98.fsnet.co.uk (Joe Cummings) wrote:
> > On 27 Jan 2001 23:32:04 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Here we have an interesting example of the ideological
> > "reworder." In order to maintain a discussion he has to continually
> > misrepresent what his perceived opponent says. He hasn't the ability
> > to deal with the actual statements made.
>
> Boilerplate bluster here, signifying nothing.
Bluster? From what I've seen of you, it's a perfectly true statement. I have
never once seen you respond to any evidence presented against your argument
in any substantive way.
> > snips (the rest of the posting can be seen above in the thread.)
> >
> > Re "Piltdown Man."
> > >> >. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
> > >> >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
> > >>
> > >> It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
> > >> hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
> > >
> > >No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
> >
> > It was exposed, as I say, by Clark. If Andy sees some subtle
> > difference between "exposure" and "disclosure," in this instance, then
> > I think he should take us into his confidence.
>
> There is a key difference -- use a dictionary if you need to. Many
> critics of the Piltdown Man refused to accept it during the 40+ year
> period while many evolutionists defended it.
Cite? Piltdown Man was thought to be genuine early on simply because
anthropologists hadn't the tools or the evidence to learn otherwise. The
more evidence accumulated, the more it was shown to not fit into the
picture, and it was virtually ignored as proof of evolution long before the
hoax was discovered.
> Clark merely admitted
> what many evolution critics already knew.
Which evolution critics would these be? Since you'd never dare make
unsubstantiated claims, I'm sure you can point to the creationists who
argued that Piltdown Man was a fraud all along, and why.
> > >Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
> > >disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access
> to
> > >the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
> >
> > Preventing access by whom?? It was access by scientists.
> > There are hardly any creationists in the UK.
>
> You're wrong. See the prior threads in t.o on this issue. Historians
> have written about how access to the Piltdown Man was severely and
> unjustifiably restricted.
Then I'm sure you'd have no trouble presenting this evidence all over again.
I seem to have missed it.
> > ><...>
> > >> Again, we have a problem: do creationists accept that it was
> > >> a fossil of an extinct pig? Is the fossil problem-free for
> > >> creationists? Can creationists accept fluorine dating here? How
> old
> > >> was the fossil?
> > >>
> > >> >William Gregory entitled his
> > >> >article published in Science magazine
> > >>
> > >> Oh, it wasn't in a creationist magazine?
> > >
> > >You seem to be obsessed with "creationists", invoking the term
> > >repeatedly. How about defining it -- and explaining its relevance to
> > >the fraud by evolutionists.
> >
> > Sure, I'll define it: Creationism is an anti-scientific dogma
> > based on a literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
>
> "Anti-scientific dogma"???
Yes.
> Limited to Christians???
No, it's limited to ignorant religious fundamentalists of all stripes, but
the majority of them are Protestant Christians.
> Give me an example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"?
How about
> Isaac Newton?
Living before Darwin hardly qualifies one as a creationist. The term, at
least in my mind, carries with it an implication of a knowing and deliberate
rejection of the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view.
> > It is a dogma shared by a vanishingly small number of
> > Christian fundamentalists, mainly in the United States. It is a
> > dogma that makes unsupported claims and criticisms of any scientiific
> > activity. It has a small number of examples of dishonest behaviour by
> > scientists which are endlessly recycled, and a very large number of
> > distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific position, which
> > are never, ever corrected no matter how many times attention is drawn
> > to them.
>
> Whew! Now you invoke the United States, "dishonest behaviour" (note
> British spelling), "distortions and misrepresentations", and "never,
> ever corrected"!
Indeed he does. And he's correct on all counts.
> Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
Since he lived before Darwin, no, not in the sense I used above.
> > ><...>
> > >> >Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals
> demonstrate
> > >> >that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of
> > >> >unscientific method to prove their theory.
> > >>
> > >> Whoa there.
> > >>
> > >> The striking thing about Piltdown man and Nebraska man was that
> they
> > >> were shot down by scientists, and by methods which creationists
> would
> > >> cast doubt on in other circumstances.
> > >
> > >No. Evolution scientists ultimately admitted their hoaxes, when it
> > >became no longer possible to claim otherwise.
> >
> > This last statement gives me cause to strongly suspect that
> > you are becoming increasingly detached from reality. I said above
> > that Clark exposed the Piltdown forgery. Andy doesn't seem to want to
> > accept this, because it doesn't fit into his dogmatic picture of what
> > "really" happened. He's so obsessed by the creationist literature
> > that he'll accept whatever is written as revealed truth. It probably
> > never occurs to him to look outside this rather shoddily written
> > literature.
>
> And as I said above, Clark did not "expose" the Piltdown forgery. He
> merely admitted it -- 40 years later than evolutionists should have
> admitted it and allowed independent access.
Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. How exactly did Andy determine when
scientists "should" have admitted the hoax? It was thought to be anomalous
for some time before its exposure, but no one thought of the possibility of
deliberate fraud.
How patently ridiculous of you, Andy. But in any case, an atheist such as
myself _is_ the best qualified person to give objective accounts of
religion. After all, people who believe in a particular religion can hardly
be trusted to be honest about what its faults and failings are.
> > There you are, Andy. Some free education for you, and
> > education that, unlike the creationist literature, invites you not to
> > believe fervently, but to go and investigate. Can you do it, son?
>
> I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
If you define "creationist" as "anyone who lived before Darwin," you've
stripped the term of all meaning. Then again, as we all know, quibbling
pointlessly over semantics is what Andy does best.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <950c04$1hm0$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9507vo$r7
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> > > "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > <...>
> > > > A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
> > > propagandist,
> > > > do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
> > >
> > > I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
> > > derogatory manner. Agreed?
> >
> > Ah, so mentioning someone's ethnicity is derogatory now? <...>
>
> No, but emphasizing one's ethnicity in a derogatory manner is. Do you
> agree or not?
Yes, I do. Making derogatory statements about ethnicity is wrong. Simply
mentioning ethnicity is not. What exactly about it led you to believe that
it was derogatory?
> > > Something about Darwinism seems to encourage such an approach.
> >
> > You can stop now. <...>
>
> Will you criticize the derogatory ethnic statement above or not?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
and...@my-deja.com
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2001 22:08:22 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
> >example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How
about
> >Isaac Newton?
>
> isaac newton was not a creationist. nowhere did he ever reject
> darwin's theory of evolution. not once. anywhere.
And nowhere does the definition of "creationist" logically involve
Darwinism.
But wf3h uses "creationist" to mean anti-Darwinism. If that's what you
mean, why not be precise about it and say "anti-Darwinism"?
<...>
> if you can tell us where, outside of inbred hillbillies in the US,
> creationism exists, please do so.
Under your working definition of "creationism", it exists all over the
world. Wherever critics of Darwinism can be found -- which is
virtually everywhere.
> >Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
>
> no, he wasnt. if he was, please tell us where he rejected darwin's
> theory of evolution.
Another example of your meaning of "creationist" -- someone who rejects
Darwinism.
> >So you duck the issue of whether Newton was a "creationist". He was.
>
> really? if he was, then he must have written about why darwin's theory
> was wrong.
>
> please tell us where we can find newton's view of darwin. thanks.
Yet another example of your meaning of "creationist".
> >"Creationism", before the language mangling needed by desperate
> >evolutionists, simply connoted belief in creation. Trouble is, far
too
> >many believe in creation for evolutionists to work with that term.
So
> >the distortions began.
>
> whatever andy, the linquistic street whore, means by this. who
> believes in 'creation'?? no one and everyone. its a meaningless
> concept.
"Creation" is a meaningless concept??? Hardly. I guess you think that
the Declaration of Independence's reference to it is meaningless!!!
> >I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
> >
> >Andy
>
> they werent. and until you cite an example of their rejection of
> darwin, you're simply wrong.
You've thoroughly demonstrated that you view "creationist" to be as
broad as "anti-Darwinist". How do you derive that from the linguistic
roots?
Adam Marczyk
> In article <3a74dfff...@news.ptdprolog.net>,
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
> > On 28 Jan 2001 22:08:22 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
> > >example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How
> about
> > >Isaac Newton?
> >
> > isaac newton was not a creationist. nowhere did he ever reject
> > darwin's theory of evolution. not once. anywhere.
>
> And nowhere does the definition of "creationist" logically involve
> Darwinism.
If you say so, but it becomes a vacuous term if you define it any other way.
Do you honestly think "Isaac Newton was a creationist!" helps your case at
all?
> But wf3h uses "creationist" to mean anti-Darwinism. If that's what you
> mean, why not be precise about it and say "anti-Darwinism"?
Why not? One term is as good as another... although "anti-evolutionist"
would be more appropriate since the modern synthesis is in some respects
different from Darwin's original theory.
> <...>
> > if you can tell us where, outside of inbred hillbillies in the US,
> > creationism exists, please do so.
>
> Under your working definition of "creationism", it exists all over the
> world. Wherever critics of Darwinism can be found -- which is
> virtually everywhere.
As you well know, Andy, creationism is virtually unheard of outside the
U.S., and in other nations where it does exist, it doesn't have nearly the
pull it does here -- and even that isn't much. Witness the recent crushing
defeat of the anti-evolutionists in Kansas.
> > >Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
> >
> > no, he wasnt. if he was, please tell us where he rejected darwin's
> > theory of evolution.
>
> Another example of your meaning of "creationist" -- someone who rejects
> Darwinism.
How else do you define creationist? Someone who lived before Darwin? It's
not a very useful term then. Someone who believes God had a role in creating
life? Then you have to include all the theistic evolutionists who reject a
literal reading of Genesis.
> > >So you duck the issue of whether Newton was a "creationist". He was.
> >
> > really? if he was, then he must have written about why darwin's theory
> > was wrong.
> >
> > please tell us where we can find newton's view of darwin. thanks.
>
> Yet another example of your meaning of "creationist".
It seems like a fair one to me. What problem do you have with it?
> > >"Creationism", before the language mangling needed by desperate
> > >evolutionists, simply connoted belief in creation. Trouble is, far
> too
> > >many believe in creation for evolutionists to work with that term.
> So
> > >the distortions began.
> >
> > whatever andy, the linquistic street whore, means by this. who
> > believes in 'creation'?? no one and everyone. its a meaningless
> > concept.
>
> "Creation" is a meaningless concept??? Hardly. I guess you think that
> the Declaration of Independence's reference to it is meaningless!!!
>
> > >I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
> > >
> > >Andy
> >
> > they werent. and until you cite an example of their rejection of
> > darwin, you're simply wrong.
>
> You've thoroughly demonstrated that you view "creationist" to be as
> broad as "anti-Darwinist". How do you derive that from the linguistic
> roots?
It has nothing to do with linguistic roots, but rather is a function of the
way the term is defined today, and who applies it to themself and who
doesn't. AFAIK, very few people who accept the theory of evolution to any
degree refer to themselves as creationists.
Joe Cummings
One of the most recognisable features of ideologues is their
tendency to abandon substantive discussion of a subject and move to a
rhetorical-political style of argumentation. That is, if, indeed their
discussion ever had anything of substance in it.
Apart from that, Andy's postings are pretty lightweight;
little more than a rehash of creationist attacks on science. I have a
strong suspicion that our hero limits himself to creationist
literature. I very much doubt whether he has read a science book
since leaving school, and even there I'll bet he crossed his fingers
whilst reading. Unlike Andy, I'll give reasons for my suspicion in
the proper places.
Unwittingly, he does raise one issue of interest from which he
could learn something.
But let's pause here for a moment to examine the consequences
of the foolish policy of limiting oneself to the literature of one
ideology like creationism. It is an openly ackowledged fact the most
creationist literature is shoddily written, badly researched, and full
of error.
Unlike Andy, I'll give chapter and verse.
You will find cited many times in the creationist literature a
partial quote from Darwin on the complexity of the eye. I doubt if
you will ever find in the creationist literature the complete
quotation. Now here's a chance for Andy to prove me wrong. Let him
find the full quotation in his literature..
Another example of the slovenliness of creationist writing is
invocation of "world-famous" scientists in their polemics. Ronald L.
Numbers gives a few instances of this in his useful book: "Darwinism
Comes To America," Harvard, 1998. The practice, evidently originated
with Luther T. Townsend, in the 1900s, who was quite prepared to
recruit the dead to his list of creationists as well as
"Dr.R.Etheridge, of the British Museum, one of England's most famous
experts in fossilology." After much research and enquiries Etheridge
was identified as an assistant keeper of geology at the British
Museum.
There is also a body of direct lies, such as, for instance,
the statement by Henry Morris that Richard Lewontin "has rejected the
Darwinist concept of struggle and survival, even at the genetic
level."(H.Morris, Impact, no 77 quoted by D.J.Futuyma in "Science on
Trial," Sinauer, 1982).
Now the problems associated with reliance on one's own
ideological sources is that you can only repeat them as assertions; if
you haven't been given the context of a misrepresentation, how can you
develop an argument?
This is, I think, why many contributors post a procreationist
argument here and then promptly disappear. There is nothing but the
creationist literature to rely on. And, of course, it is profoundly
unreliable.
Now we come to what Andy fondly believes to be his xclinching
argument: were Newton, etc., creationists? I'll link this question,
to which he insists I givbe an answer, to the question which he
ignored, that of theistic evolution. He assumes that "creationism" is
a monolithic term, capable of being understood in only one sense.
This is far from the truth. I can collapse his case straight away by
asking "What type of creationism do you mean?"
It is evident that by far the greater number of Christians
accept the evidence for evolution that science has yielded. They also
accept the concept of theistic evolution. It is quite possible that
theistic evolution has been examined and rejected by the creationist
movement. It is equally possible, given the level of scholarship of
the creationists, that they have never come across theistic evolution.
I'll accept one correction from Andy. It would be correct to
accept that creationism is not a monolith: that there are conflicting
interpretations of creationism. In future, I'll make clear that I am
examining creation "science," not theistic evolution, which is also a
kind of creationism, but of a far more honest kind than creation
"science"
I'll now examine Andy's riposte:
>3a73dddf...@news.freeserve.net>,
> j...@cummings98.fsnet.co.uk (Joe Cummings) wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2001 23:32:04 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Snip
>
>> snips (the rest of the posting can be seen above in the thread.)
>>
>> Re "Piltdown Man."
>> >> >. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Le
>> >> >Gros Clark, who was in the team that disclosed the forgery,
>> >>
>> >> It's a melancholy fact that Clark wasn't a creationist.This
>> >> hoax was exposed by evolution scientists.
>> >
>> >No. Clark merely "disclosed" the forgery.
>>
>> It was exposed, as I say, by Clark. If Andy sees some subtle
>> difference between "exposure" and "disclosure," in this instance, then
>> I think he should take us into his confidence.
>
>There is a key difference -- use a dictionary if you need to. Many
>critics of the Piltdown Man refused to accept it during the 40+ year
>period while many evolutionists defended it. Clark merely admitted
>what many evolution critics already knew.
Aha! So evolutionists knew! But, of course, no creationists.
If, however, Andy is saying that there were some creation "scientists"
calling Dawson's bluff, he should say so. Do like I've been doing,
Andy, give chapter and verde.
>
>> >Evolution scientists concealed the forgery for over 40 years prior to
>> >disclosure. The concealment included tactics like preventing access
>to
>> >the Piltdown Man by likely critics.
He has no evidence whatsoever for saying that evolutionists
concealed the evidence for forty years. It is possible that Dawson
wanted to stop other evolution scientists who were not convinced by
him from examining the bones. Andy seems to think that there were
crowds of creationists hammering on the doors of the Natural History
Museum trying to expose Dawson. A charming conceit.
>>
>
>>
>> Sure, I'll define it: Creationism is an anti-scientific dogma
>> based on a literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.
>
>"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
>example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How about
>Isaac Newton?
>
>> It is a dogma shared by a vanishingly small number of
>> Christian fundamentalists, mainly in the United States. It is a
>> dogma that makes unsupported claims and criticisms of any scientiific
>> activity. It has a small number of examples of dishonest behaviour by
>> scientists which are endlessly recycled, and a very large number of
>> distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific position, which
>> are never, ever corrected no matter how many times attention is drawn
>> to them.
>
>Whew! Now you invoke the United States, "dishonest behaviour" (note
>British spelling), "distortions and misrepresentations", and "never,
>ever corrected"!
>
>Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
See my point above: what kind of creationist do you mean???
Not quite: there were always differing ideas about Creation,
even as far back as Origen. (Bet he isn't in the creation "science"
literature, either.) The new thing is "Scientific Creationism", which
is science content free and consist solely of attacks on science.
What I expect in response to this posting is a huge balloon of
hot rhetoric and nothing in the way of substance Anyone like to place
a bet?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings.
Derek Stevenson
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> Whew! Now you invoke the United States, "dishonest behaviour" (note
> British spelling), "distortions and misrepresentations", and "never,
> ever corrected"!
So the conspiracy is now a
"Darwinian-Gouldian-Freudian-Kuhnian-Marxist-Atheist-Leftist-British"
(do any of the official scorekeepers want to jump in and point out any
I've missed?) one?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
><and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:952q3e$u0v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <3a74dfff...@news.ptdprolog.net>,
>> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> > On 28 Jan 2001 22:08:22 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
>> > >example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How
>> about
>> > >Isaac Newton?
>> >
>> > isaac newton was not a creationist. nowhere did he ever reject
>> > darwin's theory of evolution. not once. anywhere.
>>
>> And nowhere does the definition of "creationist" logically involve
>> Darwinism.
>
>If you say so, but it becomes a vacuous term if you define it any other way.
>Do you honestly think "Isaac Newton was a creationist!" helps your case at
>all?
>
>> But wf3h uses "creationist" to mean anti-Darwinism. If that's what you
>> mean, why not be precise about it and say "anti-Darwinism"?
>
>Why not? One term is as good as another... although "anti-evolutionist"
>would be more appropriate since the modern synthesis is in some respects
>different from Darwin's original theory.
actually im trying to get andy to recognize that creationists who say
evolution is baloney, and include newton in their number, are playing
the whore, just like andy's doing now.
>>
>> Another example of your meaning of "creationist" -- someone who rejects
>> Darwinism.
>
>How else do you define creationist? Someone who lived before Darwin? It's
>not a very useful term then. Someone who believes God had a role in creating
>life? Then you have to include all the theistic evolutionists who reject a
>literal reading of Genesis.
absolutely correct. if andy thinks newton was a creationist, why not
cite einstein as well? einstein accepted evolution, and believed in
'god'.
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <3a74dfff...@news.ptdprolog.net>,
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2001 22:08:22 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Anti-scientific dogma"??? Limited to Christians??? Give me an
>> >example -- e.g., was William Jennings Bryan a "creationist"? How
>about
>> >Isaac Newton?
>>
>> isaac newton was not a creationist. nowhere did he ever reject
>> darwin's theory of evolution. not once. anywhere.
>
>And nowhere does the definition of "creationist" logically involve
>Darwinism.
who says? how do you know that? prove it.
>
>But wf3h uses "creationist" to mean anti-Darwinism. If that's what you
>mean, why not be precise about it and say "anti-Darwinism"?
you yourself provided the definition when you say evolution is wrong.
if your 'current' definition is correct, then evolution is just fine,
because alot of christians accept evolution. so ultimately the idea of
'creationist' is meaningless...which, to tell the truth, is true about
ALL your statements.
>
><...>
>> if you can tell us where, outside of inbred hillbillies in the US,
>> creationism exists, please do so.
>
>Under your working definition of "creationism", it exists all over the
>world. Wherever critics of Darwinism can be found -- which is
>virtually everywhere.
really? cite me any university in the world that has a creationist on
its bio staff, outside of fringe cult groups in america.
go ahead, andy...
>
>> >Help me out here: was British Bishop Ussher a "creationist"?
>>
>> no, he wasnt. if he was, please tell us where he rejected darwin's
>> theory of evolution.
>
>Another example of your meaning of "creationist" -- someone who rejects
>Darwinism.
see above.
>
>> >So you duck the issue of whether Newton was a "creationist". He was.
>>
>> really? if he was, then he must have written about why darwin's theory
>> was wrong.
>>
>> please tell us where we can find newton's view of darwin. thanks.
>
>Yet another example of your meaning of "creationist".
see above
>
>> >"Creationism", before the language mangling needed by desperate
>> >evolutionists, simply connoted belief in creation. Trouble is, far
>too
>> >many believe in creation for evolutionists to work with that term.
>So
>> >the distortions began.
>>
>> whatever andy, the linquistic street whore, means by this. who
>> believes in 'creation'?? no one and everyone. its a meaningless
>> concept.
>
>"Creation" is a meaningless concept??? Hardly. I guess you think that
>the Declaration of Independence's reference to it is meaningless!!!
see above. if your definition is true, then you're an evolutionist.
welcome to the fold!
>
>> >I await your views on whether Newton and Ussher were "creationists".
>> >
>> >Andy
>>
>> they werent. and until you cite an example of their rejection of
>> darwin, you're simply wrong.
>
>You've thoroughly demonstrated that you view "creationist" to be as
>broad as "anti-Darwinist". How do you derive that from the linguistic
>roots?
>
>Andy
i dont have to. you've told me what creationism is. you creationists
have all the integrity of a $5 whore when it comes to language,
however.
WickedDyno
Royalist? (Remeber Brian O'Neil?)
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Robert Carroll
"Pavil Natanovich" <crysan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:950nhk$cc7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Pavel's post seems to credit me (Bob Carroll) with authoring Yahya's words,
God forbid. It sure is difficult following all of those blinking >>>>s.
One of my statements is seen next:
>
> > Researcher? What was his middle name?
I (Bob again) was trying to point out a ridiculous error in H. Y.'s original
post.
>
> William Bryan--if it is the same I'm thinking of, was not a researcher
> but a lawyer. William Jennings Bryan, I reckon. Fairfield had
> published a paper two years prior to the discovery of the tooth on the
> necessity of taking care not to confuse peccary teeth with those of
> humans (which are remarkably similar).
>
> The misidentification of the tooth was a mistake, one which Fairfield
> later acknowledged. Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was an outright
> fraud. There is a clear distinction, which the author fails to note.
>
> It is possible Fairfield was rushed into the identification of the
> tooth so as to have evidence that could be used in the trial
> popularized in the movie, "Inherit the Wind." The trial was not truly
> a big victory for evolutionists. The teacher was found guilty and
> fined. The fine was later overturned on appeal, as prior Tennessee law
> prohibited such large fines. Although the trial took place in the
> 1960s, the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was not
> stricken until 1967. That was about 40 years of idiocy.
>
> Again, it's Bob: ther below is H. Y. again, I think:
> > opposed these biased decisions relying
> > > on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.
> > >
> > > In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to
> > > these newly-discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man
> nor
> > > to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species
> of
> > > wild American pig called prosthennops. William Gregory entitled his
> > > article published in Science magazine where he announced this fault
> > > as: "Hesperopithecus: Apparently not an ape nor a man".(59)
> >
> > Then all
> > > the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and "his family" were
> > > hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.
Below, my comment again (Bob C)
> > References to this?
Bob again: My reaction to removing something from the literature is, "How?"
Little guys with erasers going around to all the libraries? I believe a
retraction was published by the original author, who discovered his error..
The implication of something done surreptitiously is ridiculous--basically
propaganda for the seriously misinformed. H. Y.'s minion who pasted this
message is out of his league.
Bob says the following may be Pavel:
> It turns out to be true. But it does nothing to detract from the many
> specimens we DO have, often fully articulated skeletons of hominid
> species other than our own. Ask the author if he can explain the
> neandertal fossils.
>
> Bob, signing off.
stev...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> You've thoroughly demonstrated that you view "creationist" to be as
> broad as "anti-Darwinist". How do you derive that from the linguistic
> roots?
>
mean what their historic roots mean; "lord" does not mean the guy who
brings bread to your table, nor does "cybernetics" have much to do with
steering boats. Rather, the meanings of words change over time, and
end up being whatever educated speakers of a language use them to mean.
Look up websites which present themselves as "creationist", or writers
who call themselves "creationists." I'm sure, if you look hard enough,
you can find a few who are not anti-Darwinian, but virtually all those
who call themselves creationists are (a) propagandists against
Darwinism in particular, and (b) opponents of what Mike Goodrich calls
the "materialistic/reductionist/naturalistic" worldview, and attempts
to explain the diversity of life in terms of natural processes, in
general. People who believe in creation but do not oppose Darwinism do
not, as a general rule, use the term "creationist" do describe
themselves. Indeed, many who oppose Darwinism and insist that science
is incomplete as long as it limits itself to naturalistic explanations
will not call themselves creationists, as that word is especially
applicable to supporters of a young earth created in six 24-hour days,
and who support this belief by systematically attacking all aspects of
conventional science which support an old earth, an old universe, and a
succession of life forms throughout geological history.
By this standard use (supported by the overwhelming majority of those
who call either themselves or others "creationists), Ussher was most
likely not a creationist -- he did not devise his chronology as a
substitute for "secularist" or "materialist" chronologies. Newton also
was probably not a creationist, although I've read that he had
religious motives for preferring energy to be equal to mass times
velocity, rather than mass times velocity squared (the latter is
correct; the former requires divine intervention to keep the amount of
energy in the cosmos constant). Newton certainly did not, however,
devote his career to attempts to reconcile a literal reading of the
Bible to the data of science (had he done so, he might have gone down
as the most famous geocentrist in history), or to refuting ideas (not
yet proposed) for scientifically explaining the diversity of life.
>
> Andy
>
-- Steven J.
Robert Carroll
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3a742b34....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> On 27 Jan 2001 23:42:29 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> > "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ><...>
> >> A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
> >propagandist,
> >> do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
Bob Carroll here. I wrote the above statement. I can't tell who wrote the
one following:
> >
> >I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
> >derogatory manner. Agreed?
Bob again: The author of the above doesn't seem to be WF3H. Again with the
>>>>>s. I believe that my comment is reasonable. Harun Yahya is Turkish,
that is, he is a citizen of Turkey. The above statement was not an ethnic
reference, but an identification of his country. He (who, as far as I can
tell, may be a committee) spreads inaccurate propaganda within his nation
and now internationally. His writings have been much influenced by American
creationists. He copies many of their antievolution arguments, with
noticably less sophistication. For more details, refer to Reports of the
National Center for Science Education, Nov/Dec 1999.
Bob
Adam Marczyk
news:fNod6.1426$9q6.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> <wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:3a742b34....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> > On 27 Jan 2001 23:42:29 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
> > > "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > ><...>
> > >> A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
> > >propagandist,
> > >> do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
>
> Bob Carroll here. I wrote the above statement. I can't tell who wrote
the
> one following:
That was Andy Schlafly, of course. Yes, the same Andy Schlafly who rejects
everything Gould wrote, and by extension all of evolution, because he thinks
Gould made a grammatical error in an editorial article that wasn't even
about biology.
[snip]
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:3a742b34....@news.ptdprolog.net...
>> On 27 Jan 2001 23:42:29 -0500, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <F3Kc6.1887$CQ4.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
>> > "Robert Carroll" <rcar...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Harun Yahya" <kill_y...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:94v8qk$8g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> ><...>
>> >> A reminder: the Islamic fundamentalists, such as this Turkish
>> >propagandist,
>> >> do not really object to a distant age of the earth. <snip>
>
>Bob Carroll here. I wrote the above statement. I can't tell who wrote the
>one following:
>> >
>> >I think you're out of bounds to emphasize one's ethnicity in this
>> >derogatory manner. Agreed?
>
>Bob again: The author of the above doesn't seem to be WF3H.
thats true; i never use caps...
Ken Cox
> That was Andy Schlafly, of course. Yes, the same Andy Schlafly who rejects
> everything Gould wrote, and by extension all of evolution, because he thinks
> Gould made a grammatical error in an editorial article that wasn't even
> about biology.
You mean the same Andy Schlafly who said that the transcript of
John Ashcroft's commencement address, as released by Bob Jones
University, could not be possibly be accurate, because Ashcroft
would never say "Or Jesus, which is called the Christ", nor
would Ashcroft quote Pilate as saying that?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Walter Bushell
<SNIP>
> in the Although the trial took place in the
>1960s, the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was not
>stricken until 1967.
1960s,
pendantic correction -- I 'm sure you mean the 1860's.
>
<SNIP>
wilkins
I'm not so sure. Most of the American states' anti-evolution laws
remained on the statutes until the 1960s... The Scopes trial itself took
place in 1925. See <
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm>
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Pavil Natanovich
The trial took place in the 1920s. Thanks for pointing out my typo.
--
"Useless laws weaken necessary laws" -Baron de Montesquieu
Pavil Natanovich
I sincerely apologize for any semblance of such appearance. I simply
used your post as a sounding board to answer Yahya's comments. I
acknowledge, upon rereading this post, that not all of my comments may
have been entirely clear. (One correction--the trial occurred in 1925,
NOT the 1960s).
>>>>s.
> One of my statements is seen next:
> >
> > > Researcher? What was his middle name?
>
> I (Bob again) was trying to point out a ridiculous error in H. Y.'s
original
> post.
I took your question to mean that you questioned whether Bryan was a
researcher--a legitimate question. Yahya asserted Bryan was a
researcher--he was NOT.
> > William Bryan--if it is the same I'm thinking of, was not a
researcher
> > but a lawyer. William Jennings Bryan, I reckon. Fairfield had
> > published a paper two years prior to the discovery of the tooth on
the
> > necessity of taking care not to confuse peccary teeth with those of
> > humans (which are remarkably similar).
> >
> > The misidentification of the tooth was a mistake, one which
Fairfield
> > later acknowledged. Piltdown Man, on the other hand, was an
outright
> > fraud. There is a clear distinction, which the author fails to
note.
> >
> > It is possible Fairfield was rushed into the identification of the
> > tooth so as to have evidence that could be used in the trial
> > popularized in the movie, "Inherit the Wind." The trial was not
truly
> > a big victory for evolutionists. The teacher was found guilty and
> > fined. The fine was later overturned on appeal, as prior Tennessee
law
> > prohibited such large fines. Although the trial took place in the
> > 1920s, the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was
I agree completely. I've read several accounts of this story--it does
not sound like a cover up to me. I suspect Yahya's complaint is that
the error is not still reproduced in modern biology textbooks, so he
can continue to ridicule it.
> Bob says the following may be Pavel:
>
> > It turns out to be true. But it does nothing to detract from the
many
> > specimens we DO have, often fully articulated skeletons of hominid
> > species other than our own. Ask the author if he can explain the
> > neandertal fossils.
I did write that.
> > Bob, signing off.
I did NOT write the live above, even though the number of '>' would
indicate so!
Robert Carroll
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:952pir$j1a$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
Hey, I'm all in favor of that statement, since I made it in the first place.
Referring to someone as a citizen of Turkey is in no way derogatory. This
Yahya is either a propagandist or an organization of them. His (or its)
behavior deserves condemnation.
Bob
Robert Carroll
I'm adding to my above comments. Thanks, Pavel, for clarifying things.
Yahya is an outright liar on the subject of evolution, in a country where
sectarian violence is always a worry. He copies the arguments of American
creationists when it suits him and adds his own prevarications. Quoting
Umit Sayin and Aykut Kence inReports of the NCSE, Nov/Dec 1999, "BAV
[translated as the Science Research Foundation] has also published several
books under the pen name Harun Yahya ... It is generally believed that
Harun Yahya is actually a commission formed by BAV ...." I recommend the
article and others on the same topic in this issue of Reports of NCSE.
Bob