Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mark kennedy" data-source="post: 70368935" data-attributes="member: 29337"><p>Not everyone who buys into Darwinian evolution is an atheist, never suggested they were. What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry can be traced back to Charles Darwin who credited Lamarck for unholding:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>It is all too typical that the opening response would be an ad hominem attack on credibility. I never equivocate Darwinian evolution with atheistic materialism only point out that God as cause of anything, 'organic or inorganic' is categorically rejected.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>First of all Creationism as we know it hardly existed at the time this hoax was perpetrated. The fact is that this was a very famous transitional fossil in a time when there were few such finds. Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not above using hyperbole in one of these debates, I also readily admit I enjoy a little satire from time to time. Calling this the great hoax perpetrated in paleontology is not only not an exaggeration, the investigating scientists said the same thing in no uncertain terms:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum"...On November 20, 1953, they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum. The scientists of 40 years before, they explained, had been victims of "a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. The faking of the mandible [jawbone]," they wrote, "is so extraordinarily skillful and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable as to find no parallel in the history of paleontological discovery." (<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html" target="_blank">Piltdown Man is revealed as fake 1953 A Science Odyssey, PBS</a>)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>The Washington Post listed it a one of the five most Scientific famous hoaxes of all time, along with The Cardiff Giant and an archaeoraptor fraud, See <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html?postshare=3251470920720635&tid=ss_tw" target="_blank">Five of the most famous scientific hoaxes Washington Post 2015</a></p><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html?postshare=3251470920720635&tid=ss_tw" target="_blank"></a></p><p>You shouldn't have needed a scientist to figure this out, it was a human skull taken from a mass grave site in Sussex England that had been a mass grave site during the Black Plague. Even Louis Leaky looked at it and said the jaw didn't belong with that skull yet from 1912 to 1953 it was considered a transitional fossil, there was even a Piltdown Man exhibit at the Smithsonian.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have a non-sequitur argument since who discovered the hoax is irrelevant. But at the heart of the emphasis the fallacy in play is clearly ad hominem. Congratulations, you introduced the first fallacious rhetoric, in dramatic fashion to the discussion. I appreciate that, it is one of the most important points I want to make with the thread.</p><p></p><p>Grace and peace,</p><p>Mark</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mark kennedy, post: 70368935, member: 29337"] Not everyone who buys into Darwinian evolution is an atheist, never suggested they were. What is painfully obvious is that anyone who suggests, much less argues, that God is the cause of life or even credits him as designer is branded ignorant, or a perpetrator of falsehoods. The a priori assumption of universal common ancestry can be traced back to Charles Darwin who credited Lamarck for unholding: [INDENT]'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.' (Darwin, On the Origin of Species) [/INDENT] It is all too typical that the opening response would be an ad hominem attack on credibility. I never equivocate Darwinian evolution with atheistic materialism only point out that God as cause of anything, 'organic or inorganic' is categorically rejected. First of all Creationism as we know it hardly existed at the time this hoax was perpetrated. The fact is that this was a very famous transitional fossil in a time when there were few such finds. Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not above using hyperbole in one of these debates, I also readily admit I enjoy a little satire from time to time. Calling this the great hoax perpetrated in paleontology is not only not an exaggeration, the investigating scientists said the same thing in no uncertain terms: [INDENT]"Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed," announced the New York Times on November 21, 1953. "Part of the skull of the Piltdown man, one of the most famous fossil skulls in the world, has been declared a hoax by authorities at the British Natural History Museum"...On November 20, 1953, they reported their findings in the bulletin of the Natural History Museum. The scientists of 40 years before, they explained, had been victims of "a most elaborate and carefully prepared hoax. The faking of the mandible [jawbone]," they wrote, "is so extraordinarily skillful and the perpetration of the hoax appears to have been so entirely unscrupulous and inexplicable as to find no parallel in the history of paleontological discovery." ([URL='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html']Piltdown Man is revealed as fake 1953 A Science Odyssey, PBS[/URL]) [/INDENT] The Washington Post listed it a one of the five most Scientific famous hoaxes of all time, along with The Cardiff Giant and an archaeoraptor fraud, See [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/five-of-the-most-famous-scientific-hoaxes/2015/03/02/a0b64f9e-b6cd-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html?postshare=3251470920720635&tid=ss_tw']Five of the most famous scientific hoaxes Washington Post 2015 [/URL] You shouldn't have needed a scientist to figure this out, it was a human skull taken from a mass grave site in Sussex England that had been a mass grave site during the Black Plague. Even Louis Leaky looked at it and said the jaw didn't belong with that skull yet from 1912 to 1953 it was considered a transitional fossil, there was even a Piltdown Man exhibit at the Smithsonian. You have a non-sequitur argument since who discovered the hoax is irrelevant. But at the heart of the emphasis the fallacy in play is clearly ad hominem. Congratulations, you introduced the first fallacious rhetoric, in dramatic fashion to the discussion. I appreciate that, it is one of the most important points I want to make with the thread. Grace and peace, Mark [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
Top
Bottom