[_ Old Earth _] Kenneth R. Miller on the Colbert Report!

[Bryce]

I'm a big fan of the Colbert report, I noticed this the other night and thought it might make an interesting discussion
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrep ... eId=173099
They bring in Miller about 11:30.

 

[BobRyan]

Colbert is a great characterization of how liberals "imagine conservatives" --- he does such a good job of being vaccuous in efforts to pander to liberals. A show FOR liberals BY liberals - tells you a whole lot -- about liberals.

I think liberals actually wished they "lived in that world".

but as for ID - there was not ONE SCIENCE FACT that was discussed about ID in that interview -- just pejorative summations. (Kinda like telling the liberals "don't worry your pretty little head about this topic -- we figured it out for you and it is "anathema" so don't need to look at it)

contrast that to when evolutionism's confirmed junk-science frauds are mentioned.

Piltdown fraud -- peddled as truth for 40 years (until debunked) to prop up darwinism
Simpsons horse series -- peddled as truth - AND denbunked as "never happened in nature"
Neanderthal dating methods - peddled as truth for 30 years until debunked
Earnst Haekcle's Ontogeny claims - peddled as truth in favor of darwinism for over 40 years until debunked.

These are cases where CONFIRMED science FRRAUD was practiced TO prop up darwinist "story telling".

The contrast IN CONTENT of "when darwinism is discussed" and debunked to the pablum they gave you on that interview -- is "instructive to the unbiased objective mind".

Bob

 

[Patashu]

contrast that to when evolutionism's confirmed junk-science frauds are mentioned.

Piltdown fraud -- peddled as truth for 40 years (until debunked) to prop up darwinism

Calling your bluff. What percentage of biologists at the time were convinced of piltdown man's existence?

 

[therealsuperman64]

Colbert is junk

 

[jmm9683]

Colbert is junk

Stephen Colbert > Me > You

"Once again, scientists are telling us what 'may' have happened. If they had any balls, they'd just say this is what 'did' happen. with or without evidence. That's what the bible does." - Stephen Colbert

 

[BobRyan]

contrast that to when evolutionism's confirmed junk-science frauds are mentioned.

Piltdown fraud -- peddled as truth for 40 years (until debunked) to prop up darwinism

Calling your bluff. What percentage of biologists at the time were convinced of piltdown man's existence?

Is this the "If I close my eyes the 40 year Piltdown hoax never happened" solution?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Colbert is junk

Yes but funny and very helpful in knowing how liberals think (or more precisely -- how they don't)

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

What? You mean Colbert is just pretending?

 

[Snidey]

contrast that to when evolutionism's confirmed junk-science frauds are mentioned.

Piltdown fraud -- peddled as truth for 40 years (until debunked) to prop up darwinism

Calling your bluff. What percentage of biologists at the time were convinced of piltdown man's existence?

Is this the "If I close my eyes the 40 year Piltdown hoax never happened" solution?

Bob

No, it is the "what is the percenatage of biologists at the time that were convinced of Piltdown man's existence?" question, which, if you answered correctly, would make you look foolish.

 

[BobRyan]

What? You mean Colbert is just pretending?

WOW! How could THAT be ??? Surely Liberals would not script something that was... LIBERAL mischaracterizing and yes even defaming of conservative points of view!!

Why that... would.. would .. just NEVER happen! ;-)

Even funnier!!

 

[BobRyan]

contrast that to when evolutionism's confirmed junk-science frauds are mentioned.

Piltdown fraud -- peddled as truth for 40 years (until debunked) to prop up darwinism

Calling your bluff. What percentage of biologists at the time were convinced of piltdown man's existence?

Does the term "Generally accepted" mean anything for you?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No, it is the "what is the percenatage of biologists at the time that were convinced of Piltdown man's existence?" question, which, if you answered correctly, would make you look foolish.

Am I supposed to be feeling "foolish" that blind sighted atheist darwinists were able to hoodwink their fellow atheist darwinist into "generally ACCEPTING" the Piltdown hoax??

This is supposed to make "me" look bad?

I don't see how that can possibly be a well reasoned argument.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

As usual, you're missing something. Namely, the actual percentage of scientists who were fooled. Hint: it was not substantial.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint - you apparently don't have a clue on this one.

While it would be "nicely conflicted and contradictory" for atheist darwinist believers to slink away from the Piltdown hoax by claiming that they all let it continue for 40 years while KNOWING they were comitting fraud --

The fact is that the historic record shows the opposite. Even Gould speculating on WHY darwinist true believers were so fully duped - suggested that maybe it was that they did not have free "enough" access to the bones during that 40 years of "darwinist duping".

EVEN the VERY FEW who did question it at first and then who all caved in within 3 years when more bones were found "supposedly" supporting Piltdown ("more frauds obviously") even THEY admit that NOBODY doubted the bones.

Let's hear from one of those very very FEW doubters that existed at first but then later as they all caved -- they indeed caved.

William Gregory, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History wrote in Natural History in May of 1914:

[quote:8528b]
"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."

He went on, however, to vigorously deny the charge, concluding

"None of the experts who have scrutinized the specimens and the gravel pit and its surroundings has doubted the genuineness of the discovery."

[/quote:8528b]

Hmm - but NOW we have devotees to darwinism trying to slink behind Piltdown hoax idea as "not a 40 year hoax --" ?

How -- "instructive" their methods and tactics when it comes to revisionis history and revisionist truth.

With few exceptions nobody suggested that the finds were a hoax until the very end.
...
The fossils were available for examination. The tests that exposed the hoax could have been performed at any time. The single most important thing that protected the hoax from exposure was that nobody thought of the possibility.


http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

2003 BBC report on the history of Piltdown:

Then in 1915 Dawson claimed to have found another molar tooth, and some skull pieces, just two miles from the original Piltdown dig site. These looked similar to those of Piltdown Man, and the find was dubbed Piltdown Man II. With two family members and the backing of the Natural History Museum, Piltdown Man thus became generally accepted.

By Kate Bartlett
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeolog ... n_01.shtml

Print Version - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeolog ... print.html

What the reports show is that THERE WAS NO majority doubting NOR even any minority opposing it -- rather ALL the experts who actually LOOKED -- approved it and even the early doubters caved in once "Piltdown Man II" came up.

As usual - the imaginist history, revisionist history, revisionist-truth of devoted darwinian believers on this thread - is a testimony to the "Sacrifice all - compromise-all" solution many darwinists take in promoting their darwinist orthodoxy

Bob

 

[Snidey]

You're correct in saying that it was bought into by many people. However, the gradual exposure of the hoax over time by <strike>creationists</strike> scientists was a result of the fact that it didn't fit into the evolutionary model at the time. Rather than some kind of trick to perpetuate the idea of evolution, it was a thorn in the side of scientists trying to outline human history. The scientists that ACTUALLY STUDIED IT generally left very skeptical - which would be my primary point here.

The initial reaction of the scientific community was acceptance. Then new discoveries, along with scientists examining it and similarly dated specimens changed the perception. Good science is the solution to bad science.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I looked into this.

Piltdown was discovered in 1908, and in 1953 it was discovered, by science, to be a hoax.

You realize that it was over 50 years ago right? What is the relevance to today? Why expose the weakness of your arguments by grasping at this straw?

 

[BobRyan]

I looked into this.

really? All you had to do was click on the links I gave -- and... you actually did it? clicked?

Piltdown was discovered in 1908, and in 1953

True enough - 40+ years of fraud used to prop up the junk-science religion we call today "atheist darwinism".

it was discovered, by science, to be a hoax.

Funny how science has a way of debunking the junk-science claims of atheist darwinism.

EVEN if it is a 40-year-fraud that is being debunked.

You realize that it was over 50 years ago right?

Is it your claim that this is the only 40 year fraud in the junk-science religion we call atheist darwinism?

Is it your claim "no frauds SINCE then"???

Or are you simply saying that the ENTIRE PILE OF FRAUDS should be mentioned whenever we speak of the junk-science religion called atheist darwinism -- we dare not only pick ONE?

Which one is "your point"??

Or hace you just "epoxed the weakness of your arguments by grasping at that straw?"

Or better yet -- in all the snide comments about how LOOKING at the facts of the Piltdown hoax and how many scientists "fell for it" would be a shocking embarrassment for Christians who doubted the hoax all along -- perhaps the "new strategy" is to start "admitting to history" and claiming no matter the pile of hoaxes it matters not to atheist darwinist believers!!


Hint for the objective unbiased reader -- darwinist devotees almost ALWAYS tell you the fallacy they are practicing IN THEIR OWN WORDS as they try to find reasons to prop up atheist darwinism.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

From what I was sourcing there wasn't a consensus on an agreement.

Know what? There are a lot of trans. fossils even today that some think show this and some say are that instead.

Get into this millenia. Its the year 2008. Try bringing relevant data instead of your straws.

You gloss over all of the genetic evidence people show to you and come back with----

A hoax that was brought to light over 55 years ago.............

 

[BobRyan]

From what I was sourcing there wasn't a consensus on an agreement.

I see so "click" was what you used?

Know what? There are a lot of trans. fossils even today that some think show this and some say are that instead.

Clearly you need to try that "click" you are embarrassing yourself if you are saying that as "defense" for pildown fraud.

Get into this millenia. Its the year 2008. Try bringing relevant data instead of your straws.

Is this the emptly "straw" claim that "we have no 30 or 40 year darwinist frauds being debunked in the 21's century"??

Kinda like the previous factless "straw" argument about "if you knew the great precentage of objecters to Piltdown DURING the era of Pildown-Fraud you would feel foolish" vaccuous argument already debunked here?

So which is it ? More "straw" arguments from our Atheist Darwinist contributors?

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Straws :-D