---

I can link you articles from creationists that argue almost exactly what you are arguing, that is, using a single forgery that occurred almost 100 years ago to put into question 1) the millions of millions of fossil finds and 2) the massive amount of evidence for evolution. This is clearly a dishonest tactic.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp <--- almost exact same rhetoric as you

---

That you become so offended because I'm putting the human element and the possibility of mistakes into science is laughable. That you reject that idea so vehemently is pathetic. And using logical fallacies is beneath you.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

Quote: from Moridin at 7:35 pm on July 3, 2009

---

I can link you articles from creationists that argue almost exactly what you are arguing, that is, using a single forgery that occurred almost 100 years ago to put into question 1) the millions of millions of fossil finds and 2) the massive amount of evidence for evolution. This is clearly a dishonest tactic.  

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp <--- almost exact same rhetoric as you

---

You haven't read a single thing I've said, have you? I wasn't using the piltdown man to disprove evolution or to even cast doubt on it. I have not mentioned God or religion in any of my posts discussing this. Your single-mindedness (or should I say mindlessness) of purpose is blinding you to the meaning of my posts. That's a sad commentary on your so-called intelligence.  

That you become so offended because I'm putting the human element and the possibility of mistakes into science is laughable. That you reject that idea so vehemently is pathetic. And using logical fallacies is beneath you.

---

I'm not appealing to guilt my association, merely pointing out that you have been taken in and fooled by the creationist agenda.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 1:16 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009

---

I do not believe, I know.

---

This.

Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science.

I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from.

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

Good answer. While Natural Selection is not in doubt, macro-evolution (origin) is not proven and may never be provable. But here we are. Some say God created us...others says life came from the stew...neither position has proof. Let's admit that.

Mitochondrial DNA proves vestigial allels from lower life forms and animals...this is not disputed. God or otherwise? Who knows?

Post edited at 5:22 am on July 4, 2009 by LogicandReason

-------
We have a new son...his name is Joshua...

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:56 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 1:16 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:25 am on June 28, 2009

---

I do not believe, I know.

---

This.  

 Scientific inquiry isn't something that's open to interpretation or else it wouldn't be science.  

 I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I know and accept it based on the process it was derived from.

---

But it is open to being modified and falsified. I simply accept it because it fits what we now know.

---

Good answer.  While Natural Selection is not in doubt, macro-evolution (origin) is not proven and may never be provable.  But here we are.  Some say God created us...others says life came from the stew...neither position has proof.  Let's admit that.

Mitochondrial DNA proves vestigial allels from lower life forms and animals...this is not disputed.  God or otherwise?  Who knows?

---

"Macroevolution" has nothing to do with the origins of life. The distinction between macro and micro evolution is merely something creationists have made up to spread their ignorance of evolution. There is no fundamental difference other than time. Furthermore, there is ample evidence for universal common descent.

Read "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It is over 300 pages.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

I'm not appealing to guilt my association, merely pointing out that you have been taken in and fooled by the creationist agenda.

---

Quote: from Moridin at 2:49 pm on July 1, 2009

---

The fact that you can find a crazed and missguided looney who states otherwise is not impressive to anyone, just like Holocaust deniers pointing to a single historian who agrees with them is evidence that the Holocaust never happened (it isn't).  

Because you are explicitly refusing to understand these arguments you force me to conclude that you have an ideological creationist agenda.

---

---

Holocaust deniers and creationists use the same tactics.  

No one but creationists cite the Piltdown man in their attempts to undermine the evolutionary sciences.  

Yes, all of your posts on livewire represents this data backing my conclusion. I do concede that you have at best an elementary understanding of evolution, but I still think you're a stealthy creationist at heart.

---

---

Why argue in favor of the distorted Piltdown man story creationists love to use if you are not yourself a creationist? Most of your posts in these topic could be written by self-confessed creationists.

---

---

You are avoiding the fact that you are arguing pretty much the same thing as creationists do.

---

---

I can link you articles from creationists that argue almost exactly what you are arguing, that is, using a single forgery that occurred almost 100 years ago to put into question 1) the millions of millions of fossil finds and 2) the massive amount of evidence for evolution. This is clearly a dishonest tactic.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp <--- almost exact same rhetoric as you

---

---

FA: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."  

M: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."  

FA: "Who is he?"  

M: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."  

FA: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"  

M: "Of course."

---

Post edited at 8:31 am on July 4, 2009 by Forever Angel

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

No, it is not guilt by association, it is guilt by evidence, showing that such approaches are invalid. Analogies and comparisons are not invalid arguments.

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:09 am on July 4, 2009

---

No, it is not guilt by association, it is guilt by evidence, showing that such approaches are invalid. Analogies and comparisons are not invalid arguments.

---

Rationalizations are your best defense? You lose. The comparison I just made would be, by your own words, not an invalid argument... refute it if you can.

---

I already have. Comparisons for clarity are not logical fallacies. Again, why perpetuate the Piltdown man hoax as counter to scientific reasoning like creationists do?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 11:25 pm on July 4, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:09 am on July 4, 2009

---

No, it is not guilt by association, it is guilt by evidence, showing that such approaches are invalid. Analogies and comparisons are not invalid arguments.

---

Rationalizations are your best defense? You lose. The comparison I just made would be, by your own words, not an invalid argument... refute it if you can.

---

I already have. Comparisons for clarity are not logical fallacies. Again, why perpetuate the Piltdown man hoax as counter to scientific reasoning like creationists do?

---

If you would learn to read (something I have no confidence in), you'd realize (if you had a functioning brain) that I didn't use it to counter scientific reasoning. I used it to show that erroneous data can be accepted; even if for a "short"(to please your slavish devotion to scientific time scales) period of time, into the "scientific data base". I used it in the same sense that I have brought up the "steady state universe" theory. To show that what we "know" is relative. Humans make mistakes.

Your "absolute certainty" that 'scientific' conclusions cannot be wrong is at least as "ridiculous" as my belief in God. As long as humans are involved in the process, errors can be made and will be.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

Again, arguments that employ comparisons are not invalid. If I point out that a person's argument makes the exact same claims as the arguments of a Holocaust denier, I am fully justified in calling that person a Holocaust denier. After all, they subscribe to the exact same anti-scientific mythology. Similarly, if you make the same sort of arguments and use the same sort of methodology as a creationist, it is eminently fair to label you as a creationist. This is not guilt my association, it is guilt by evidence. Pretty much all of your posts in this topic, especially those perpetrating the creationist mythology about the Piltdown man is almost identical to creationist material.

I have never ever stated that scientific conclusions cannot be wrong, because they can. What you fail to understand is that the Piltdown man was not a scientific conclusion based on consensus or evidence. That forgery was quickly understood to be incompatible with A. africanus and other fossil findings. You completely ignore that and continue to perpetrate the creationist mythology that the Piltdown man was somehow used to advocate evolution for four decades, when this is clearly not the case. The Piltdown man was not accepted as a genuine scientific finding, since it was contrary to the findings from A. africanus and other fossil findings. Please get this into your creationist brain. But I assume that the religious-born close-mindedness that is intrinsic to your position displays will not allow this. Shame. The steady state theory is also not an example of an accepted scientific theory, since it was merely a contender against the big bang and when data was introduced to determine which of these was more accurate compared to the evidence, the steady state theory failed. It was never an accepted scientific theory. This is yet another example of creationist lies that your position uses to distort the process of science

I have provided mountains of evidence, but you just go ahead and ignore everything that is counter to your a priori assumed worldview like that is going to make it go away. It won't. Unlike you, I am open-minded. I am willing to consider arguments and potential evidence that is counter to my worldview. You, however, is not. If you still think you are open-minded, answer me this: what would convince you of the falsehood of your Christian worldview? A failure to state the exact circumstances that would refute Christianity demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that your position is one of close-minded and anti-scientific bigotry.

You claim that your worldview accept evolution and all of its evidence-based implications, but does it really? Do you even know what they are? Can your position accept that the mind, and everything that makes us human is a material byproduct of unintelligent natural processes, and not that of an immaterial soul? There is a massive amount of evidence for this coming from the neurological sciences. I think not. Can your position accept that moral intuitions is just the result of an evolutionary adaptation to regulate prisoner's dilemma style interaction between organisms, rather than a divine inspired occurrence? Hardly. Can your position accept that over 99% of all organisms that has ever lived has gone extinct and still believe in an all-powerful and all-good creator who your position holds to be a super intelligent engineer that fashioned all organism according to his divine plan? I doubt it. Can your position accept that evolution is fundamentally non-teleological and that all genetic changes and environmental effects is a product of unintelligent natural forces? This would mean that there was no guarantee that humans would arrive at the scene at all. This is entirely incompatible with your worldview, which holds that humans are the center of creation, the reason for why everything was created. You cannot accept evolution into your dogmatic worldview, because the evidence-based implications of evolution is contrary to said worldview. I think that you understand that your position is ultimately against science and ultimately both scientifically and rationally untenable and this is your way of acting out in a poor attempt to rationalize your ignorant worldview.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

No, you are the one that is 1) Ignoring what I am arguing and 2) continue to perpetrate creationist mythology against evolutionary sciences even when it has been clearly demonstrated to you that your argument is false. You can continue to ignore this, but it won't make your argument correct. Your position doesn't really accept evolution and all its implications. Your position is just really that of dressed-up creationism unable to understand the methods of science. For this, I am truly sorry.

---

You claim not to have made any personal attacks? The whole tone of your posts here is calling me a liar. It doesn't have be a direct personal attack, the implication is sufficient.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

Quote: from Moridin at 8:56 am on July 6, 2009

---

No, you are the one that is 1) Ignoring what I am arguing and 2) continue to perpetrate creationist mythology against evolutionary sciences even when it has been clearly demonstrated to you that your argument is false. You can continue to ignore this, but it won't make your argument correct. Your position doesn't really accept evolution and all its implications. Your position is just really that of  dressed-up creationism unable to understand the methods of science. For this, I am truly sorry.

---

What you are arguing has nothing to do with my "position". You've made up your closed mind about what you think is my position and that's what your argument is about, without regard to what I've said. How can you claim to have demonstrated my argument is false when you haven't even understood what it is? I have said nothing against 'evolutionary sciences' except that mistakes can be made. Is it your counter argument that there has never been any mistakes?  

---

You have not merely claimed that mistakes can be made, but propagated creationist contrived falsehoods about evolution and how science works. Read the article I linked please. I fully agree that science can make mistakes, but you have to understand that the Piltdown man was almost directly in conflict with proper findings and was never used in debates or textbooks to argue for evolution. Therefore, you cannot use the "science can make mistakes" to undermine the awesome power of science against mythological beliefs.

---

You claim not to have made any personal attacks? The whole tone of your posts here is calling me a liar. It doesn't have be a direct personal attack, the implication is sufficient.

---

What implication? If you think you see an implication where there is none most likely says more about your perspective than mine.

Yes. I assert that I did not make a single personal attack in the angry rhetoric in my above post. I am not calling you as a person a liar, I am simply arguing that your arguments and positions are anti-scientific, irrational, bigoted falsehoods. There is a profound and meaningful difference between the two, one not instantly recognized or appreciated by some. I also find it laughable that your argument is a complaint against the tone of my arguments, instead of trying to undermine the factual basis of them. It is always the tone, rather than content that your perspective finds troublesome, is it not?

Moreover, I find it utterly absurd that no comment on the serious questions about the interaction and conflict between your religious perspective and evolution has been made. Should I interpret this as an ultimate concession to the force of my arguments? Or maybe you are still contemplating how to best refute them? Please get back to this as soon as you are able. I am highly interested in seeing how your perspective could ever handle these sorts of questions.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

Quote: from Moridin at 8:56 am on July 6, 2009

---

"This is yet another example of creationist lies that your position uses to distort the process of science"
"... beyond a shadow of a doubt that your position is one of close-minded and anti-scientific bigotry."
"You cannot accept evolution into your dogmatic worldview, because the evidence-based implications of evolution is contrary to said worldview."

---

Maybe if you told me what your actual definition of a "creationist" is, it would help... what you've described so far certainly does not describe me. And as long as you continue to claim that I'm "guilty by association", I'll continue to use that fallacy against your arguments. (Maybe you don't understand that fallacy?)

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica