Scientific hoax: Piltdown man was a fake

[thaumaturgy]

(VIDEO)

here we are

Sounds like maybe the "Jericho version" of the Jerusalem Syndrome?

I liked the one part where the woman says something to the effect of "Tuesday there was, I think 2 or 3 who had deaf ears, one who had never spoken..."

The number of life changing miracles are so many she's LOST COUNT!

It's a miracle when the holy work of God is so overwhelming you lose count at 3.

Can anything more potent be imagined?

 

[FishFace]

That's an awesome film.

 

[speakout]

Sounds like maybe the "Jericho version" of the Jerusalem Syndrome?

I liked the one part where the woman says something to the effect of "Tuesday there was, I think 2 or 3 who had deaf ears, one who had never spoken..."

The number of life changing miracles are so many she's LOST COUNT!

It's a miracle when the holy work of God is so overwhelming you lose count at 3.

Can anything more potent be imagined?

Yes evreything is imagined, do you understand that Muslims are out to kill christians converts all over the middle east?

 

[tcampen]

Yes evreything is imagined, do you understand that Muslims are out to kill christians converts all over the middle east?

Hmmmmm. Sounds oddly familiar of the Crusades and Inquisition. True, Islam is in a very bad place today, as compared with Christianity, I'll give you that. Islam needs a huge revision, and fast - for all of our sake.

And for some Christians, like the one you're pretending to troll as, who believe the universe to be around 6,000 years old, one must be intentionally ignorant to hold such views. Just look up into the sky. See that supernova that is more than 100 million light years away? Under your model, either you should not be able to see any stars more than 6,000 light years away, or God made that starlight "in progress" travelling through space for the benefit of our observation. The problem is, create the light of a star exploding that never actually exploded, and can only be seen with a particular kind of telescope?

Yes, if YEC is true, the God is playing a cruel hoax on all those with a rational and informed mind.

Nice God.

 

[speakout]

Hmmmmm. Sounds oddly familiar of the Crusades and Inquisition. True, Islam is in a very bad place today, as compared with Christianity, I'll give you that. Islam needs a huge revision, and fast - for all of our sake.

And for some Christians, like the one you're pretending to troll as, who believe the universe to be around 6,000 years old, one must be intentionally ignorant to hold such views. Just look up into the sky. See that supernova that is more than 100 million light years away? Under your model, either you should not be able to see any stars more than 6,000 light years away, or God made that starlight "in progress" travelling through space for the benefit of our observation. The problem is, create the light of a star exploding that never actually exploded, and can only be seen with a particular kind of telescope?

Yes, if YEC is true, the God is playing a cruel hoax on all those with a rational and informed mind.

Nice God.

Does evolution tell us how that star came about?

 

[Paulos23]

Does evolution tell us how that star came about?

No, evolution has nothing to say about star formation. That is another theory.

 

[necroforest]

No, evolution has nothing to say about star formation. That is another theory.

Clearly this means that creationism is true!

 

[Paulos23]

Clearly this means that creationism is true!

Ya, case creationism is the default position.

 

[tcampen]

Does evolution tell us how that star came about?

Biological evolution is about the diversity of life on Earth, it has nothing to do with stars. What you're asking about is cosmology, and yes, stars form in nebula. Here's Messier 17 - a real-life star factory:

Now, if you're asking the bigger question of where did the stuff to make the stars come from, or where did the universe come from, that's a very different question altogether.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Yes evreything is imagined, do you understand that Muslims are out to kill christians converts all over the middle east?

Do you understand that Christians have done more than their fair share of killing of not only Muslims but many other faiths throughout the world?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Below is a ten mite video from the very great Megiddo 2 film and it goes into why evolutionist had to lie.

click below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0SGRdbQJ4

Evoluionists let the battle commence, you like to believe a lie.

actually... no one has believed, or even cited, "Piltdown man" as evidence for evolution for many, many years.

Now, come up with evidence that Tiktaalik or archaeopterix is a fake, and THEN we will have something to discuss!

 

[speakout]

No, evolution has nothing to say about star formation. That is another theory.

so ypu agree that you have a series of fake half baked theories standing up on each others foundations.

This is a house of cards waiting for the wind to blow them apart.

 

[UncleHermit]

so ypu agree that you have a series of fake half baked theories standing up on each others foundations.

Where did he say that?

 

[Chalnoth]

so ypu agree that you have a series of fake half baked theories standing up on each others foundations.

This is a house of cards waiting for the wind to blow them apart.

No. Find one theory that was accepted by a majority of scientists in a relevant field as being correct that has been since shown to be false.

Remember, to do this you need to show:
1. The theory was widely-regarded as true.
2. The theory isn't even true to a decent approximation, but is wholly incorrect.

For example, Newtonian mechanics doesn't fit the above because while it has been widely-regarded as true, it's also a highly accurate theory in many situations.

 

[speakout]

No. Find one theory that was accepted by a majority of scientists in a relevant field as being correct that has been since shown to be false.

Remember, to do this you need to show:
1. The theory was widely-regarded as true.
2. The theory isn't even true to a decent approximation, but is wholly incorrect.

For example, Newtonian mechanics doesn't fit the above because while it has been widely-regarded as true, it's also a highly accurate theory in many situations.

Start from the top, and tell me what happened and how did we get to be where we are.

 

[corvus_corax]

Simple challenge presented-

No. Find one theory that was accepted by a majority of scientists in a relevant field as being correct that has been since shown to be false.

Remember, to do this you need to show:
1. The theory was widely-regarded as true.
2. The theory isn't even true to a decent approximation, but is wholly incorrect.

For example, Newtonian mechanics doesn't fit the above because while it has been widely-regarded as true, it's also a highly accurate theory in many situations.

Simple challenge failed-

Start from the top, and tell me what happened and how did we get to be where we are.

Why was it failed? Because the challenged doesn't have the fortitude to admit that he doesn't know enough to meet said challenge. Hence, the challenged sidesteps the issue entirely, proving to one and all that he lacks either the fortitude to be honest or the knowledge to take up the challenge.

The challenged one is a great example of a typical creationist.

 

[MemeBuster]

Give us any proof for you science fiction.

Does biological evolution resemble science fiction any more than the belief that the pain of child birth and the fact that snakes do not have legs are the results of a curse from a merciful god?


MB.

 

[Elduran]

so ypu agree that you have a series of fake half baked theories standing up on each others foundations.

This is a house of cards waiting for the wind to blow them apart.

You know, putting words in people's mouths like that is an awful lot like lying/bearing false witness. You should think twice before doing so.

 

[Chalnoth]

Start from the top, and tell me what happened and how did we get to be where we are.

A detailed examination of what we know on this topic fills many text books. Here's a (very) rough outline of what is known so far:

1. Cosmic Inflation.
2. Reheating.
3. Big Bang.
4. Formation of galaxies.
5. First stars form.
6. Supernovae generate heavy elements.
7. Third generation stars have enough heavy elements to form rocky planets.
8. Earth is one of those planets.
9. Within 100 million years after the Earth has cooled enough for life, it formed.
10. Biological evolution, over about 3.9 billion years, led to us.

Each of these is worthy of text books worth of study, most of all the last one, our knowledge of which fills many tomes.

Now, are you going to even bother to answer my challenge?

 

[truth above all else]

Now, come up with evidence that Tiktaalik or archaeopterix is a fake, and THEN we will have something to discuss!

What the heck is a tiktaalik,fancy arbitrary names impress no-one; indeed the equally absurdly named archaeopterix (Greek for old wing) impresses no one,the use of arbitrary names to make a fossil seem somehow real and mildly scientific is naive in the extreme. Lets just call this fossil an "old wing".In any case what we have is a single solitary example of a possible bird ancestor.The question is whether it constitutes absolute proof of dinosaur to bird evolution,or whether it is simply an odd variant; it requires tremendous imagination to suggest that this old wing could have produced the penguin, the hummingbird and the ostrich through viable intermediate stages. Give me a break