Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Similar reasoning is used to avoid carbon dating coal beds, but if dated they show as "young." That's why they were furious at the guy that sent dinosaur soft tissue for dating. It proves the assumptions wrong.

You seem to be replying to another comment. I was talking about the need to use multiple methods, so your comment is unrelated.

 

[marke]

Corporate Esau or personal Esau?

Both. Personal Esau falls under the category of the wicked mentioned in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 139:21-22.

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear Nick M.

Well, I was gone for awhile from my thread and you decided you'd like to post, after all this time. What's it been? Three years; as long as I have been here?? So you like to use childishness to call me names, for example: idiot??

Michael, calm down. He didn't call you an idiot. He said, "How can this idiot thread have 20,000 posts?" I've asked that same question about a couple threads. It's not like this thread has the sanest thought flow and progression out there.

 

[Rosenritter]

Both. Personal Esau falls under the category of the wicked mentioned in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 139:21-22.

Regardless of whether Esau was righteous or wicked, Esau does not bear personal hatred, even if he was the enemy of God. Matthew 5:43, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" and in another place Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Look again at the context of Romans 9:13, "As it is written , Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." It's not talking about individuals, it's talking about lineage and nations. The previous verse 12 reads "It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." Did the person of Esau serve the person of Jacob? It was the other way around, Esau sought to kill Jacob and Jacob eventually soothed his brother. The passage means God favored Jacob's line over Esau's, a favoring that in no way affects personal love or potential of salvation.

Why is this on the Creation vs. Evolution thread?

 

[Rosenritter]

You were shown that was false before GC, yet you repeat it. I showed you that Nature was still using Piltdown as an evidence of evolutionism many years later. Some evolutionists said Piltdown proved Darwins theory!!

Also you were shown a quote admitting the hoax was widely accepted re: Piltdown Man
"More than five hundred articles and memoirs were written about the Piltdown finds before the hoax was exposed; these were all wasted effort. Likewise articles in encyclopedias and sections in text books and popular books of science were simply wrong. It should be recognized that an immense amount of derivative work is based upon a relatively small amount of original finds. For many years the Piltdown finds were a significant percentage of the fossils which were used to reconstruct human ancestry."

Over next day or two, I will post text from textbooks.

Damn. Darwin theory is proved true. It's written in the papers and confirmed by scientists. Time for me to recant.

 

[6days]

That's pathetic. You claim that Piltdown Man was widely taught and imply that is truth was important to the science of evolution, and the only textbook anyone mentions turns out not to mention the fraud.

Not just in textbooks. Even the press got in on the act using Piltdown to sell the lie of evolutionism.

 

[6days]

Gc... 100+ years after the fraud you are still defending it. Your statements are false. (Atheistic Talkorigins calls that lie a "half truth") Piltdown was questioned by some but widely accepted for 40 years within the evolutionary community.

You are misquoting the Talk origins article. The half lie was the claim that...

"The hoax was swallowed uncritically.

This is a half truth; almost no one publicly raised the possibility of a deliberate hoax. There were rumors circulating, however. William Gregory, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History wrote in Natural History in May of 1914:
"It has been suspected by some that geologically [the bones] are not that old at all; that they may even represent a deliberate hoax, a negro or Australian skull and a broken ape jaw, artificially fossilized and planted in the grave bed, to fool scientists."

So, even from 1914 there were dissenting voices. Why did you think you would get away with another deceitful misquote?

We seem to disagree on who is deceitful.

GC..... you are repeating arguments you were proven wrong on long ago. Your claim was that 'Piltdown was questioned almost immediatly and rejected fairly soon'. That is a lie... or at best, according to Talkorigins logic, a "half truth". They are presenting a strawman which you bought into. Nobody claimed the "hoax was swallowed uncritically". (If that is a half truth, then your opposite claim is a half truth). You are trying to sell the opposite claim that Piltdown was questioned almost immediatly and soon rejected. Although a few scientists were skeptical, the hoax was used as a proof of Darwinism for 40 years.. The fraud was perpetrated on the public in the press. The fraud was sold to the scientific community in journals such as Nature as late as 1950. And unfortunately, the hoax was used to sell students on evolutionism...complete histories were fabricated and put into textbooks.

Speaking of being deceitful..... you were shown...you agreed before that Piltdown was used in textbooks....and yet you are repeating same lies. (I imagine last time you just didn't know, so not lying then).

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm trying to figure out what the point of this argument is. We all agree Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax. Therefore......what?

Yeah, so what. Piltdown gave you a fix for forty years, it lasts until the next hoax, and the next, and the one after that. They are disposable.

 

[6days]

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

Like Josefly you seem to forget and reject evidence when it contradicts your beliefs. You were shown textbooks previously...articles in scientific journals...and even by the press. Piltdown was used to help sell Darwinism.
Unfortunately evolutionists have a long history of accepting frauds and shoddy conclusions simply because it fits their belief system.
Here is another science book promoting the fraudulently composed Piltdown as a genuine prehistoric man...even telling us he existed between the 3rd and 4th glacial period.
Elements of Biology
by Ruth A. Dodge
1952 (revision of Smallwood’s Elements of Biology under copyright heading Biology for High Schools)
Pub. Allyn and Bacon
Page 256, 257

 

[Rosenritter]

Like Josefly you seem to forget and reject evidence when it contradicts your beliefs. You were shown textbooks previously...articles in scientific journals...and even by the press. Piltdown was used to help sell Darwinism.
Unfortunately evolutionists have a long history of accepting frauds and shoddy conclusions simply because it fits their belief system.
Here is another science book promoting the fraudulently composed Piltdown as a genuine prehistoric man...even telling us he existed between the 3rd and 4th glacial period.
Elements of Biology
by Ruth A. Dodge
1952 (revision of Smallwood’s Elements of Biology under copyright heading Biology for High Schools)
Pub. Allyn and Bacon
Page 256, 257

Nice work, I was looking for those too but they seem to have been buried rather well, like the way the outdated propaganda was destroyed in 1984 when they were no longer at war with Eurasia.

Here, I'll type that out so others can read it:

"205 - The Piltdown Man." At Piltdown, England, in 1911 and 1912, the bones of a human skull were discovered in a rain-washed pit; in 1913, a tooth and nasal bones were found in the same vicinity. The Piltdown man lived in a fairly warm climate between the third and fourth glacial periods. A sharp-pointed stone, which was probably used as a weapon, and a curved scraper for scraping the hides of prey were to of the types of primitive instruments found."

All written as if Piltdown Man were an accepted fact and truth, and of course it is. It's in the papers and verified by such intelligent scientists!

 

[Tyrathca]

Yeah, so what. Piltdown gave you a fix for forty years, it lasts until the next hoax, and the next, and the one after that. They are disposable.

Are you trying to imply that all the fossils of nonhuman hominids etc are hoaxes? Based on there being a hoax which scientists / evolutionists themselves doubted and disproved?

To be honest I can't really see the point of what everyone has been arguing about for the last few pages.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Nice work, I was looking for those too but they seem to have been buried rather well, like the way the outdated propaganda was destroyed in 1984 when they were no longer at war with Eurasia.

Here, I'll type that out so others can read it:

"205 - The Piltdown Man." At Piltdown, England, in 1911 and 1912, the bones of a human skull were discovered in a rain-washed pit; in 1913, a tooth and nasal bones were found in the same vicinity. The Piltdown man lived in a fairly warm climate between the third and fourth glacial periods. A sharp-pointed stone, which was probably used as a weapon, and a curved scraper for scraping the hides of prey were to of the types of primitive instruments found."

All written as if Piltdown Man were an accepted fact and truth, and of course it is. It's in the papers and verified by such intelligent scientists!

I was after evidence that Piltdown Man was widely used in textbooks as an important piece of evidence for evolution. What you have is one book in four decades that merely describes briefly a description of what was believed to have been found. Tear that page from the book and evolution theory is unaffected. And one book in forty years of widespread teaching doors not look like it had penetrated far into science education, does it?

 

[gcthomas]

Like Josefly you seem to forget and reject evidence when it contradicts your beliefs. You were shown textbooks previously...articles in scientific journals...and even by the press. Piltdown was used to help sell Darwinism.
Unfortunately evolutionists have a long history of accepting frauds and shoddy conclusions simply because it fits their belief system.
Here is another science book promoting the fraudulently composed Piltdown as a genuine prehistoric man...even telling us he existed between the 3rd and 4th glacial period.
Elements of Biology
by Ruth A. Dodge
1952 (revision of Smallwood’s Elements of Biology under copyright heading Biology for High Schools)
Pub. Allyn and Bacon
Page 256, 257

You say "another" text book, but it is the only one you have found. The other book you mentioned had no mention of piltdown.

Honesty isn't your best feature, is it?

And you haven't answered JF's important question: so what? How does a known fraud, that was discovered by scientists, not creationists btw, affect the scientific theory of evolution. It never depended on finding a specific creator and is not affected by its withdrawal. One piece of evidence is unimportant when there are trends of thousands of other pieces of evidence all pointing the same way.

 

[Caino]

You say "another" text book, but it is the only one you have found. The other book you mentioned had no mention of piltdown.

Honesty isn't your best feature, is it?

And you haven't answered JF's important question: so what? How does a known fraud, that was discovered by scientists, not creationists btw, affect the scientific theory of evolution. It never depended on finding a specific creator and is not affected by its withdrawal. One piece of evidence is unimportant when there are trends of thousands of other pieces of evidence all pointing the same way.

They confuse belligerent denial with faith. Imagine if they were also consigned to a first century medical textbook?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, so what. Piltdown gave you a fix for forty years

Um....I'm not sure how old you are, but I can assure you I wasn't alive during those forty years.

it lasts until the next hoax, and the next, and the one after that. They are disposable.

Is your answer to the question, "Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, therefore all subsequent hominid fossils are also hoaxes"?

Also, we're back to one of the discussions we had previously that you bailed on, where you could only establish what we already knew, i.e., that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, and you couldn't name any others among all the other hominid fossils that have been found.

That's not exactly honorable behavior on your part...make a bald assertion, copy and paste a couple of creationist web pages, ignore the replies, bail on the topic, wait a bit, and then make the original bald assertion all over again.

 

[marke]

Regardless of whether Esau was righteous or wicked, Esau does not bear personal hatred, even if he was the enemy of God. Matthew 5:43, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" and in another place Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Look again at the context of Romans 9:13, "As it is written , Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." It's not talking about individuals, it's talking about lineage and nations. The previous verse 12 reads "It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." Did the person of Esau serve the person of Jacob? It was the other way around, Esau sought to kill Jacob and Jacob eventually soothed his brother. The passage means God favored Jacob's line over Esau's, a favoring that in no way affects personal love or potential of salvation.

Why is this on the Creation vs. Evolution thread?

Why would the Bible say God hates all workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5) and that God abhors the covetous (Psalm 10:3) if that is not true?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, calm down. He didn't call you an idiot. He said, "How can this idiot thread have 20,000 posts?" I've asked that same question about a couple threads. It's not like this thread has the sanest thought flow and progression out there.

Dear Rosenritter,

I already know that he called My Thread an 'idiot thread.' I corrected that mistake yesterday. For some reason, you have an older version. Go and check the time in the blue stripe right above your Avatar. It says when I posted it and also it says at the bottom of my thread of the last time that I edited it {yesterday}.

I am sorry if I forgot to contact you. I've been extremely busy the past few days and couldn't get on this Website. Isn't this a Wonderful Thread, we get to enjoy all of the hard work that Knight and his assistants did. I'm so glad we've got the Internet during my lifetime. Not to mention this Excellent Thread in my lifetime, even in the last half of my years. Who would have figured it? God did it!!! I'm joking there, but it's most likely too. It's a good way to communicate with other people in the world.

I do communicate with people in different countries about my testimony. I've heard from them. And I have many close friends that know I'm telling the truth already and my last girlfriend KNOWS I'm telling the truth. She was living with me at the same time that God sent 7 inches of snow on a news reporter which the Lord told me to do. He was a news reporter for the Daily News in New York City. The Lord said He would send 7" of snow on his Manhattan news building within 48 hours of him receiving my letter. Sure enough, I was riding the Staten Island Ferry boat to get from Staten Island to Manhattan, where I worked at ABC-TV. The snow started to fall and I was kind of bummed because I'm not that fond of snow or cold weather. Then the Lord said, "This is the snow I told you would come."

Sure enough, when I got home from work to my flat in Staten Island, Salli started telling me about this reporter who has been calling again and again. The snow that fell on his Daily News Building was seven inches, which I read from their competitor's New York Post. I was going to the phone to call this reporter back, and the phone rang again. He was frantic and said 'What do I want?' and to not pray for a sign from God again. I had contacted this reporter previously that God had given me a testimony {of what I had seen and heard, and perceived} so that he would know that God was with me in these things. I asked the reporter for a three-hour interview and he said Yes!

I can't retype it all here, but I told him about God visiting me and speaking to me, and ten days afterwards, an angel visited me and said, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgement is come and worship Him Who made the Heaven and Earth, and the sea and the fountains of waters {under our oceans and our land}." And the angel's voice was loud, clear, and factual, and commanding; like a proclamation were his words." I was in awe of hearing this and I could not take my eyes away from watching him. He shone like a bright light, like the light of a star, instead of like the light of the sun. After a minute or two, the Lord said to go and call my girlfriend {Salli, a derivative of the name Sarah}. So I rushed to the phone and called her, and asked her to come over.

I also asked my Mom if I could have a meeting with my best friend, Rick and his family at our house. Well, his family came over {his Mom and Dad} and his Mom said she left a note for him to come to our house when he gets home.

Rick did not get home until 3 a.m., so we waited and chatted, and visited with each other. My youngest sister was not among us. She was too young and she slept in her room all night. She didn't hear a thing. Finally Rick came over and I told them about my testimony, as a witness relaying my experiences with God speaking to me and also the angel's visit. We were up all night talking and joyful, and I expected Jesus to return that morning, because the angel said, "hour". Well, we had a good time and some of us went out for breakfast, but I fell to a sweet sleep, knowing that such things actually happened to me. I was exuberant all night, but I fell to sleep at around 6:30 a.m.

Okay, I do not want to keep going into details, and need to end this now, but two angels came to me after that first angel, each exactly a week apart. The two angels visited me during the daytime and they both had loud, commanding, clear voices, so I knew they were angels, but I did not get to see them. But I did hear them. The second one said, "Babylon is fallen" and the third angel I will have to tell you about some other time. This is getting way too long. Thanks for reading all of this, if you have.

You see, I have a lot to relate, or testify as a witness, to others. Lots of other things happened to me also. But I must go for now.

God Be With Each Of You As You Learn!!

Michael

 

[6days]

What you have is one book in four decades that merely describes briefly a description of what was believed to have been found.

Nope..... Not just one book. You have seen that one before...and the others I will show. Next one tomorrow.

And, as you know it wasn't just in textbooks. It was sold as proof of Darwinism in the press and published as real science in the journals.

 

[6days]

Is your answer to the question, "Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, therefore all subsequent hominid fossils are also hoaxes"?

Piltdown was a deliberate fraud to deceive the public into thinking evolutionism was true.
Most 'hominid' fossils are not deliberate frauds...but, instead VERY shoddy interpretations as in the case of Neandertals, 'Lucy', Darwinius masillae, aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, dryopithecus africanus and many more.

Evolutionists lack evidence of human evolution so they fabricate stories, trying to impose humanity on monkey fossils (ida), and trying to dehumanize human fossils (neandertals). Like Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin said of 'hominid' fossils..."... much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork." (People of the Lake, P. 19)

 

[6days]

You say "another" text book, but it is the only one you have found.

Stay tuned..... Textbook 2 will be posted tomorrow.
And..... You implied that even one textbook would prove you wrong. What your challenge was " I claimed that Piltdown Man wasn't widely accepted, so to refute this you need to find a popular textbook". And, you said, "Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools."

The fraud was widely accepted. It was used as proof of Darwinism in newspapers, science journals and multiple textbooks.