Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9011 total)
62 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,622 Year: 13,370/23,288 Month: 300/795 Week: 1/95 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of Creationism
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4352
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 21 of 60 (461752)
03-27-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by helena
03-27-2008 2:48 PM


Re: Creationism evolving in response to...
First, we don't allow bare links. If you have something to say, then say it. You may present a link to the source of what you say, but that does not release you from the obligation to make your statement and then to support it.

Second, you posted this a few minutes after proposing it as a new topic, thus attempting to bypass the system. I'm sure that a moderator will have a heart-to-heart discussion with you about such unethical behavior.

Third, the claim is not only pure bullshit, but it's also a PRATT ("point refuted a thousand times" -- though I keep forgetting exactly what the "P" stands for, could be "previously"). Creationist claims consist almost completely of PRATTs. Most new creationists here start out immediately by posting PRATTs and usually leave very soon afterwards after being informed by most other members here that their claims are wrong, they were shown to be wrong decades ago, and OBTW here is precisely what's wrong with those claims.

Basically, yes, Piltdown Man was a hoax, though we don't know exactly who had perpetrated. It was finally revealed by scientists to be a hoax, whereupon it was immediately dropped and used no more. Compare that with the conduct creationists whose main-stay are PRATTs -- ie, their claims are demonstrated to be false and yet they keep on using those same false claims, even in those cases where they acknowledged that their claims were false.

Nebraska Man was not a hoax, but rather a mistake. The tooth had unusual wear patterns from having been rotated in its socket, so that make it looked like it could be an anthropoid tooth. Not everybody was convinced, so it was not accepted by all. Within a few years, the original researchers discovered that was a peccary tooth and published a notice to that effect and that was that. The drawing reconstructing Nebraska Man was made by an artist in London now connected to the research and the only ones still circulating it are creationists.

The Talk.Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/) is an excellent source of information and it discusses almost all known creationist PRATTs. A couple pages dicussing the true story of Piltdown Man are http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html. And for Nebraska Man there's http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html (from the creationist-claim index project, with which you should make yourself familiar). For that matter, go to the home page (first link given) and select "Search the archive" enter a keyword and it will Google through the site for you.

Bottom line is that both Piltdown and Nebraska are examples of science's success at detecting and correcting hoaxes and mistakes. OTOH, creationism's record in that regard is abysmal failure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by helena, posted 03-27-2008 2:48 PM helena has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020