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

[BobRyan]

I want to thank the one atheist darwinist with text in this thread - that actually had something to say.

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Thank you Dr Patterson -- senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History -- (dead Darwin's memorial-in-museum).

You insights are honest and objective as compared to the blind orthodoxy of many of the atheist darwinist devotees posting recently.

Patterson elabarates a bit more on his summation of the problem he mentions in the quote above.

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:




about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Wow - blind darwinist orthodoxy is being addressed by Patterson in an open honest and objective way. Who could have guessed that an atheist darwinist believer was capable of such honesty!


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since our atheist darwinist devotee posters on this thread are clearly no "reading" the posts --

One for the "readers" -

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:ab571]
"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:ab571]

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

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I need to organize everything here. Your support to discredit ToE:

1. The Patterson quotes
2. Piltdown hoax

Anything else that I am missing?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Ooops missed one:

3. Simpson's Horse

anymore?

 

[Deep Thought]

4. Those evil atheist darwinist scientists behind a global conspiracy to indoctrinate everyone with the thoroughly discredited theory of evolution.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

O yeah forgot that one ;)