Sure; why not throw in Piltdown Man too? - that one even lasted a while. Bad science is almost exclusively exposed and debunked by… other scientists, or the scientific process itself. I can’t think of an example where bad science has been exposed and debunked by creation science; I can think of plenty of examples where the reverse is true.
[QUOTE=qcomdrjeither Java man or Peking man (or both, I don’t exactly remember) turned out to be a pig’s jaw. However, this was found out and thrown out of the record, but for the short term false science does occur. [/QUOTE]
Neither, actually. Both are the genuine article, although Java-man was thought to bea forgery for a while .
I think you mean the Piltdown forgery?
Java and Peking are both authentic examples of Homo erectus. You might be thinking of Piltdown Man which was a fake using modern primate parts. The hoax was uncovered, and probably not perpetrated, by proponents of evolution.
The Peking/Java man thing sounds to me more like something from Chick’s Big Daddy tract.
Thanks to all for correcting my lack of simply looking it up. Recall, where are you today. Piltdown man is what I was referring to. And yes, it was debunked. And no, Creation Science hasn’t proved any evolutionary science wrong . At least not since the Inquisition. (yes I know it wasn’t a theory then). Sometimes, as a bad cop, it does make science have to find more evidence to support their theories. In a perfect world, one wouldn’t need such a thing, but religion didn’t argue against some fields (physics, math), and mistruths were held onto for a very long time. Einstein’s relativity comes to mind, except that it was only on the order of 40 years or so.
On preview, I see several people beat me to the Piltdown punch, but I don’t think qcomdrj was talking about Piltdown:
Actually, it was Nebraska man, a pig’s tooth, and mostly non-scientists. Nebraska man would have thrown a huge wrench in the theories of hominid evolution were it a human ancestor.
Another example we should mention at the same time as Nebraska man is Piltdown man. Creationists like to bring out the Piltdown man hoax as evidence that the scientists are wrong–but, again, Piltdown (an intentional hoax) would have thrown us off the path of understanding the descent of man. It was not “the missing link”; it was an erroneous link which made the other evidence no longer make sense. Thankfully, the hoax was discovered. Modern methods (radiodating, genetic analyses, etc) make such hoaxes far more difficult, btw.
Thanks, that’s pretty funny. I suppose that’s what happens when people like this only read the headlines. I guess he heard about Jurassic Park, so he thought the asteroid hit during the Jurassic. I guess that Satan’s clothes were made of iridium or something also.
I don’t think science needs creationists to encourage the finding of more evidence. The rush to publish, and competition among scientists, do that job quite well.
BTW, what do you mean about relativity being wrong?
(Tries to fit the lyric “Devil in iridium tighty-whities” to the music from "Devil in a Blue Dress, fails, and walks off)
-Joe
If you reread that post, it’s clear that what (s)he means is that no religious authorites argued against the Theory of Relativity. But the larger claim in that post (that religion has left physics alone) is false unless one considers the orbits of planets to be outside he realm of physics.
Relativity wasn’t wrong. People of that time didn’t like it, and therefore didn’t try to disprove their current incorrect notions about physics. Now, some were, but most didn’t like probability included into anything (including Einstein). So it took awhile before anyone was able determine a more correct view of physics. Similar to how the Earth was the center of the universe, so no one bothered to figure out how it wasn’t. I just was.
Specifically I am referring to Einstein’s inclusion of the cosmological constant into the equation so as to fit into the prevailing view of a non-expanding universe. Although some people say it may need to be their in some way.
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/lambda.html
I guess I should read all things I’m going to reply to first. Religion argued against physics as pertaining to planetary motion. But not particle physics. Or Newtonian physics not applying to planets. Or chemistry. That’s all.
Strange loop theory (term coined by Robert Anton Wilson). Ask yourself which would be easier for Satan to create: the massive amounts of evidence pointing toward evolution, or the Bible itself?
Obviously, writing a single lying book (with plenty of internal inconsistencies) is far easier than creating huge quantities of vastly detailed evidence all over the world, often in the form of DNA patterns, often buried deep within the planet, and all of which is extremely consistent with itself.
So if you believe Satan is powerful enough to create the evidence for evolution, then he’s certainly powerful enough to have written the very book that makes you doubt evolution; indeed, he’s powerful enough to have manufactured just about any evidence for anything. How can you believe any evidence for anything if you believe in such a powerful liar?
You get in a strange loop if you believe in such a Satan.
Daniel
Got you. Relativity in general got accepted quite quickly. I was thinking about the popular perception of physics, which hasn’t gotten a lot of resistance (unless you count the random Big Bang deniers, of course)
You left an out by not including the fact that the earth has had life on it for billions of years. One might very well believe all 7 of your statements and still believe that God created life on earth only recently.
True. Add this to the list:
8) Fossil evidence indicates that life has existed on Earth for billions of years.
I’ll repeat my original 7, so they’re all in one place:
-
In any given generation of an organism, more than one individual is born.
-
Those individuals are not identical. Even if they have the same parent or parents, there are differences in chromosomal segregation, crossover, mutation, the movement of transposons, etc. Even “identical” twins are not truly identical.
-
There usually aren’t enough resources available for all of them to reproduce before they die. Some will starve to death while young. Some will be eaten. Some simply won’t be able to attract a mate (in the case of sexual reproduction, a partner is a “resource” in this sense).
-
Those individuals with genes that give them an advantage are more likely to reproduce. This advantage can be a slightly better ability to find food, a slightly better way to avoid being eaten, a slightly better way to attract a mate–pretty much anything.
-
The individuals who survive will have a chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. The individuals who do not survive will not.
-
Over a long enough time period, the “better chance of surviving” will add up, meaning there will be more of the individuals with the advantage than individuals without the advantage.
-
The Earth is billions of years old.
-
Fossil evidence indicates that life has existed on Earth for billions of years.
How about:
9) When similarities in DNA are used to construct hypothetical family trees, they closely resemble what the fossil record seems to tell us about relatedness of the animals.
I wrote this yesterday afternoon (HK time), but once again there were problems with transmission. So my first task this morning is to send it once again:
Priceguy, isn’t it possible, given that Australopithecus species had long curved fingers and long curved toes, that they were apes? A species (or more than one species) that is now extinct.
Jon (the Geek), off the bat I’m not sure if I would disagree with any of your points. Isla, I find your point a tad more hypothetical and therefore more difficult to take a stand on.
Didn’t you argue against arbitrary relationships defined by man at some point (I’ll go back through the 7 pages of this thread to find your reference, if necessary; but I admit I might be mistaken, since a lot of people have been involved in this thread)? What’s the difference whether we call them man-like apes or ape-like men? Or are you saying they weren’t at all man-like?
You left yourself an out (“Oh, I didn’t realize you meant THAT”), but assuming you decide you would agree with my points. If you do, you believe in evolution.
I think we need you to define what you mean by evolution. My points were basically the “evolution for dummies” version of the theory (without going into the great mass of other evidence and proposed mechanisms–which, mind you, work with those points; they don’t change or dismiss those points). When you say “I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution”, I can’t fathom what you mean, since you just said you weren’t sure you would disagree with the tenets of Darwinian evolution.
Jon, one of my main concerns with evolution centres on intermediate forms. In terms of Isla’s family tree, it would appear that most of the tree is missing.
This has been debated already on previous pages and seems to me to cast doubt of at least a reasonable kind on the theory/theories.