The Hoax of the Missing Link

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have gotten off the subject. Doesn't the Hoax of the Piltdown man,
as the missing link between ape and evolutionists, prove they will resort
to dishonesty in an attempt to prove the failing theory of evolution?

I dont know. I'm not sure who to trust.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have gotten off the subject. Doesn't the Hoax of the Piltdown man,
as the missing link between ape and evolutionists, prove they will resort
to dishonesty in an attempt to prove the failing theory of evolution?

No. It doesn't.
You make a number of serious errors in making such a conclusion.
1. You assume that all people who accept evolution as having taken place are a coherent group sharing common properties and that if one is dishonest then it reflects badly on all of them.
2. You assume that the Hoaxer in question carried out his hoax for the purpose of 'proving a failing theory'. In reality the hoaxer almost certainly had other motivations (fame and fortune for example). And the Theory itself was not 'failing' at the time and is still not 'failing'. For you to describe it as such is either dishonest, or shows gross ignorance on your part as to the standing of the Theory of Evolution in science today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. It doesn't.
You make a number of serious errors in making such a conclusion.
1. You assume that all people who accept evolution as having taken place are a coherent group sharing common properties and that if one is dishonest then it reflects badly on all of them.
2. You assume that the Hoaxer in question carried out his hoax for the purpose of 'pr ...[text shortened]... ss ignorance on your part as to the standing of the Theory of Evolution in science today.

Somebody is ignorant alright. We definitely can't be both right.
So I'm putting my wager on God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Somebody is ignorant alright. We definitely can't be both right.
So I'm putting my wager on God.

Put your wager wherever you like, but if you call the Theory of Evolution 'failing' you are ignorant or lying. God, by the way does not claim the Theory of Evolution is failing so you cant hide behind him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Put your wager wherever you like, but if you call the Theory of Evolution 'failing' you are ignorant or lying. God, by the way does not claim the Theory of Evolution is failing so you cant hide behind him.

All the new discoveries along the past hoax and misrepresentations, like
Piltdown Man and Neanderthal Man has cast a large shadow of doubt on
the validity of the theory of evolution. So we don't even need to add
that the theory is contrary to what God's Word says. I chose to believe,
by logical evaluation of the evidence, that evolution is failing to be a
convincing theory. I may be ignorant of all the facts, but, as yet, I have
not seen any facts, not even one, that proves the theory of evolution .
What are all these proven facts that evolutionist are sure proves
evolution beyond a shaodow of a doubt as they claim?

Originally posted by RJHinds
All the new discoveries along the past hoax and misrepresentations, like
Piltdown Man and Neanderthal Man has cast a large shadow of doubt on
the validity of the theory of evolution.

Those 'discoveries' are hardly new as has already been pointed out to you (so you are being somewhat dishonest here).
They may cast a shadow of doubt for you, but for the majority of scientists, no such doubt has been cast.

So we don't even need to add that the theory is contrary to what God's Word says. I chose to believe, by logical evaluation of the evidence, that evolution is failing to be a
convincing theory.
And you are welcome to believe that. But that does not mean you can accurately call the Theory a 'failing theory'. The statement you made including that phrase implied that the theory was being questioned by scientists which is simply not true.

I may be ignorant of all the facts, but, as yet, I have
not seen any facts, not even one, that proves the theory of evolution .
That is because you are ignorant of the facts, and wilfully so.

What are all these proven facts that evolutionist are sure proves
evolution beyond a shaodow of a doubt as they claim?
Evolution itself is true by definition, as I have pointed out many times. The theory of evolution is supported by a very large number of facts including much of Biology, and Geology. We have discussed much of the evidence here on this forum, but you have shown little interest in learning about any of it and mostly resort to you favourite escape clauses such as simply saying "The Bible is true" or "It makes an ass out of u and me"

But if you opened your eyes and read a biology book on evolution you would learn a lot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Those 'discoveries' are hardly new as has already been pointed out to you (so you are being somewhat dishonest here).
They may cast a shadow of doubt for you, but for the majority of scientists, no such doubt has been cast.

[b]So we don't even need to add that the theory is contrary to what God's Word says. I chose to believe, by logical evaluation o ...[text shortened]... ut if you opened your eyes and read a biology book on evolution you would learn a lot.

Everything you guys have discussed has turned out to be nothing more
than speculation along with some adaptations and mutations, but I have
been unable to see any facts of evolution in that. And Dawkins the
British expert in both atheism and evolution has admitted that man
did not evolve from apes, because both are modern creatures. So we
are left only with his assertion that there was once upon a time a
imaginary creature that was the ancestor of both modern ape and man.
What kind of proof is that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Everything you guys have discussed has turned out to be nothing more
than speculation along with some adaptations and mutations, but I have
been unable to see any facts of evolution in that.

You haven't tried to see any facts in it. Instead, you have deliberately blocked up your ears and refused to hear - even to the extent of insisting on your own unique definition of the word 'evolution'.

And Dawkins the British expert in both atheism and evolution has admitted that man did not evolve from apes, because both are modern creatures.
And as you well know, Man is an ape - by definition.

So we are left only with his assertion that there was once upon a time a
imaginary creature that was the ancestor of both modern ape and man.
Now you are suggesting that somehow you formerly believed that because other apes exist today that they were somehow evidence of evolution and now that you have been enlightened that they are not our ancestors, that evidence no longer exists. This portrayal by you is dishonest.

What kind of proof is that?
It isn't proof and nobody is claiming it is. It is a strawman on your part either because you are dishonest or because you are ignorant. Probably both.
The fact that you didn't know that we are not descended from Gorillas or Chimpanzees or any other currently living great ape until Richard Dawkins enlightened you shows that your education on the subject is extremely lacking.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You haven't tried to see any facts in it. Instead, you have deliberately blocked up your ears and refused to hear - even to the extent of insisting on your own unique definition of the word 'evolution'.

[b]And Dawkins the British expert in both atheism and evolution has admitted that man did not evolve from apes, because both are modern creatures. ...[text shortened]... hard Dawkins enlightened you shows that your education on the subject is extremely lacking.[/b]

You must be looking at a special dictionary made by evolutionist if
it defines man as an ape. It may be true thought that evolutionist
are about as intelligent as an ape.

And now just as Dawkins was forced to admit that we did not evolve
from apes, you are now admitting that there is no proof for evolution,
just as I have been saying. So now we truly know that you are the
dishonest and ignorant one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must be looking at a special dictionary made by evolutionist if
it defines man as an ape. It may be true thought that evolutionist
are about as intelligent as an ape.

And now just as Dawkins was forced to admit that we did not evolve
from apes, you are now admitting that there is no proof for evolution,
just as I have been saying. So now we truly know that you are the
dishonest and ignorant one.

So Neandertal's were made up, a hoax? What evidence do you have for that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]You must be looking at a special dictionary made by evolutionist if
it defines man as an ape.

It may be true thought that evolutionist are about as intelligent as an ape.
Can you find me a dictionary that doesn't?

And now just as Dawkins was forced to admit that we did not evolve
from apes, you are now admitting that there is no proof for evolution,
just as I have been saying.
Where did I admit any such thing?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must be looking at a special dictionary made by evolutionist if
it defines man as an ape. It may be true thought that evolutionist
are about as intelligent as an ape.

And now just as Dawkins was forced to admit that we did not evolve
from apes, you are now admitting that there is no proof for evolution,
just as I have been saying. So now we truly know that you are the
dishonest and ignorant one.

The level of chromosomal and genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees or bonobos is comparable to that between horses and donkeys or that between lions and tigers (both of which I believe you consider to be of the same 'type' after the bible).

Humans are classified within the family 'hominidae' for which the term 'great apes' is generally used. From a taxonomic perspective therefore, a human being is indeed an ape.

Why do you persist in questioning the intellect of anybody who disagrees with your position? Do you honestly believe that your uninformed views mark you as more intelligent than those with whom you disagree?

Originally posted by rwingett
The scientists got it wrong. They admitted it, learned from it, and moved on. When has a religion ever admitted it got something wrong? When has new evidence ever caused an old religious orthodoxy to be overturned?

What new evidence might you you be referring to?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Neandertal's were made up, a hoax? What evidence do you have for that?

When the Neanderthal Man was first discovered he was portrayed as a
semi-erect man and an intermediary link between man and apes.
But with the discovery of other neanderthal skeletons, it was found
that the Neanderthal Man was fully erect and fully human with a cranial
capacity that even exceeded modern man. The particular individual
that the initial evaluation was made was found to be crippled with osteo-
arthis an rickets. That is why his skeleton appeared to be that of a
hunched over ape-man.

See the following on both Piltdown Man and Neanderthal Man:

http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
When the Neanderthal Man was first discovered he was portrayed as a
semi-erect man and an intermediary link between man and apes.
But with the discovery of other neanderthal skeletons, it was found
that the Neanderthal Man was fully erect and fully human with a cranial
capacity that even exceeded modern man. The particular individual
that the initia ...[text shortened]...
See the following on both Piltdown Man and Neanderthal Man:

http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html

Nothing like linking to a 12 year old post that refuted itself about the rickets thing in the last paragraph. The next link is dead. Maybe you could find evidence actually from the 20th or 21st century. All the stuff they talked about in that link was in the 1800's. Did you actually read that piece?