Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE

Posted on 03/31/2007 1:09:59 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode

DARWIN THEORY IS PROVED TRUE!

That headline is from the New York Times. Have you seen similar headlines? I have. Many. "New Fossil Find Bolsters Evolution"... "DNA Proves Camels took to the Seas"... "Darwin Vindicated: Top Scientist evolves Yeast into Yeast", and so on.

I have seen many such headlines in the media, in the last few years alone. But this is, to the best of my knowledge, the original "Darwin Proved True" headline. One can say, in a sense, that all subsequent "Darwin Proved True" articles evolved from this one, the common ancestor of them all, dated (by carbon dating) to Sept 22, 1912.

This is an important fossil find. You will note the similarities to modern-day "Darwin Proved True!" reports, clearly indicating common descent with little modification. The ingredients of a fine modern "Darwin Proved True" tale are all here, of course - the waffling, the exaggeration, the impressive buzz-words, the fantastical embellishments, the self-contradictions, the fairytales. Such as...

A race of ape-like and speechless man, inhabiting England hundreds of thousands of years ago, when they had for their neighbors the mastodon and other animals now extinct is the missing link in the chain in man's evolution, which leading scientists say they have discovered in what is generally described as "the Sussex skull." To this Dr. Woodward proposes to give the name of "eoanthropus," or "man of dawn."

Yes sir, upon this fairytale, the New York Times put the headline "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE", even though the article ends with the lines

There is, he thinks, a point of doubt as to the jawbone. It was not found in the same place as the skull, and he holds it possible that it does not belong to the skull. It is unquestionable apelike and it is not impossible that further examination may show that it does not fit the skull at all.

In other words, it is all nonsense, but nevertheless, DARWIN PROVED TRUE!! And thus began the classic genre of reporting on evolutionary matters, a trend which continues to this day.

This is an important archeological find, of special interest to participants and spectators of the ever-entertaining Darwin wars. But in case you are not familiar with this news article (you should be), I'll tell you what the punchline is. Scroll down to the end of the article...

And this great discovery, upon which it was announced that "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE"! is also affectionally known as...

PILTDOWN MAN !

Before you reply to this, ponder carefully this quote from Scott "Dilbert" Adams:

I should add that the first person to explain that science continuously revises itself -- and that’s what makes it so great! -- has no free will.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: darwinian; darwinism; evolution; fsmdidit; uselessvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
what curious mechanistic process compells you to post those comments?

What's curious about it? The Piltdown hoax is rather well known. Creationists tart it up all the time in order to pretend that it somehow discredits science. Usually they *know* that *scientists* figured it was a fraud from the getgo and proved as much rather quickly, yet they insist on telling the story as if it somehow *discredits* science when in fact it does exactly the opposite. It's not the least bit "curious" that freepers would know this. You think you're the first person to try to pull this stunt here? Not even close.

21 posted on 03/31/2007 2:34:28 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dread78645; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Zeroisanumber; Oztrich Boy
Apparently, neither you nor Darkwolf377 has any free will.

The ablity of some folks to simply cook up a non-issue like this when confronted with an opinion not one's own is always amusing. But to stick to the point of the thread instead of dodging it, using scientific evidence to "prove" how flawed science is is pretty funny.

22 posted on 03/31/2007 2:35:49 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Anti-socialist Bostonian, Anti-Illegal Immigration Bush supporter, Pro-Life Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I'm not Anti-intellectual..on the contrary, some of my best neurons are dependent on it. And like many, I make a very nice living off the sciences.
23 posted on 03/31/2007 2:39:08 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

If you noticed I just included you with others who made comments which were pinged to me; that wasn't addressed to you, but to the author of the quoted line.


24 posted on 03/31/2007 2:40:31 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Anti-socialist Bostonian, Anti-Illegal Immigration Bush supporter, Pro-Life Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
Isn't it amusing how one man's opinion becomes another man's theory...and a fact is born?

Huh? Facts aren't born from theories. Theories are born from facts. Amusingly, you have it exactly backwards.

25 posted on 03/31/2007 2:43:08 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I just find it funny when someone uses the progress of accumulated knowledge, leading to an inevitable discarding of something proved untrue, as "proof" that science is somehow invalid as a field of endeavor.

What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the article? Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?

26 posted on 03/31/2007 2:48:00 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

And how where these "facts" confirmed as facts?...Anyone who spends any real time in the sciences knows that facts are just long accepted theories.


27 posted on 03/31/2007 2:50:24 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the article?

Uh, obviously you didn't even read the article--I was making reference to the comments ABOUT the article in the original posting.

Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?

Wow, you really are damning Darwin with that stunning intellectual debate-thing. Really making your point--what's next, "Sez you!" or "I know evolution's false, God told me so"?

28 posted on 03/31/2007 2:53:00 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Anti-socialist Bostonian, Anti-Illegal Immigration Bush supporter, Pro-Life Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
And this great discovery, upon which it was announced that "DARWIN THEORY PROVED TRUE"! is also affectionally known as... PILTDOWN MAN !

Your post is a giant straw man argument. Completely useless and logically flawed.

29 posted on 03/31/2007 2:55:08 AM PDT by killjoy (Life sucks, wear a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I was making reference to the comments ABOUT the article in the original posting.

What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the "comments ABOUT the article in the original posting"? Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?

30 posted on 03/31/2007 2:57:21 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
What other inane hallucinations occured to you as you read the "comments ABOUT the article in the original posting"? Did you see, fleeting amid the words and sentences, fairies, elves and little blue trolls too?

You're the one who believes in unseen forces, not me.

It's really funny watching your complete inability to back up your silly posting. All whining and anger, no facts, no intelligent debate, just childish insults at those who have called you on your embarassing use OF science to "disprove" science.

Please, continue, it's fun watching a fantasist like yourself try to paddle to shore in his sinking dinghy.

31 posted on 03/31/2007 3:03:08 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Anti-socialist Bostonian, Anti-Illegal Immigration Bush supporter, Pro-Life Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Because Scott "Dilbert" Adams says so.

So a faux-engineer from PacBell decides who has 'free will' and who does not?
Maybe he has to reject free will in order to promote his own argument? An argument that postulates a marginal cost to every decision we make.
It's not surprising coming from a MBA economist (which is what Scott Adam is), but it's not very satisfying in either a teleological nor a etiological sense.

Do you guys read posted articles before commenting? It's a good habit. Try it.

Always do. Top-to-bottom, --even when it's creationist garbage.

32 posted on 03/31/2007 3:20:32 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Please, continue

Very well.

1. use OF science to "disprove" science

2. science is somehow invalid as a field of endeavor

I would ask you to point out where both these peculiar figments of your imagination occur in the original posting. But anyone with common sense can see that the original posting contains nothing of the sort. It is clear, then, that you experienced more than one hallucination after all. Is that it, or is there more? Perhaps a whole pantheon of little devils, gnomes, and nimble sprites, sprinkled with a few bible-quotes, flew by your eyes.

33 posted on 03/31/2007 3:22:23 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
The ablity of some folks to simply cook up a non-issue like this when confronted with an opinion not one's own is always amusing.

Hey, the accountant said so, so it must be true.

34 posted on 03/31/2007 3:30:32 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

I'm not going to pile on except to state, "Ask your Medical Doctor about Evolution. Please!".


35 posted on 03/31/2007 3:33:31 AM PDT by Eclectica (Ask your MD about Evolution. Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

I often find it humorous when the anti-science crowd pulls out Piltdown Man from the dusty past to "prove" that science is wrong and only their pastor is right.
Piltdown proves the validity of science. Even in those earliest days of science - nearly a century ago - it was questioned. That is was proven a fraud is the beauty of science. Scientists are now not only allowed to question, but are expected to question. It is their duty.
When was the last time a religionist was encouraged or even allowed to question the Biblical account of creation?


36 posted on 03/31/2007 3:56:57 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Very well. 1. use OF science to "disprove" science 2. science is somehow invalid as a field of endeavor I would ask you to point out where both these peculiar figments of your imagination occur in the original posting. But anyone with common sense can see that the original posting contains nothing of the sort. It is clear, then, that you experienced more than one hallucination after all. Is that it, or is there more? Perhaps a whole pantheon of little devils, gnomes, and nimble sprites, sprinkled with a few bible-quotes, flew by your eyes.

Please, you're making this so easy for me, it's embarassing.

Your whole point is that Piltdown Man was reported as proof of Darwin's position.

But we all know Piltdown Man was a fraud.

Now, seeing how it was accepted as "fact" for years, what field of endeavor exposed the truth? What was used to show that these remains couldn't possibly be what they were claimed?

Was it the arts? Was it religion, or...was it science?

Endeavor to answer, Fairyman.

37 posted on 03/31/2007 3:58:19 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Anti-socialist Bostonian, Anti-Illegal Immigration Bush supporter, Pro-Life Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Cavemen are still around today, I see them all the time on Geico commercials. And it`s not PC to call them "Cavemen", they don`t appreciate that.


38 posted on 03/31/2007 4:33:22 AM PDT by Screamname (The only reason time exists is so everything doesn`t happen all at once - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
Scientists are now not only allowed to question, but are expected to question. It is their duty. When was the last time a religionist was encouraged or even allowed to question the Biblical account of creation?

One tends to lead to cult following.

39 posted on 03/31/2007 4:40:35 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Science isn't invalid as a field of endeavor.

But scientists are often smug and wrong. This article represents one small example.

And not only "science" disproved "science" in the piltdown man saga. Wisdom, which knows the usual outcome of exagerating claims--which understands "pride before the fall"--provides valuable insight into WHY this story occured, and why the claims enumerated in the article might well be destined for "scientific revision".

The hubris of scientists--which runs counter to the explicit caution of the "scientific method"--is, at some level, a mythical elevation of science. There are limits to scientific knowledge that scientists would do well to admit and remember. Specifically, the human spirit, and the existence of God, will always remain beyond the capacity of scientific inquiry to explain.

Scientists should practice fidelity to the modesty of the scientif method. But many don't. The current "scientific consensus" on human-caused global warming, complete with apocalyptic scenarios, is the latest example of "mythic" scientific over-reach.

The problem with scientists usually begins when they come to believe that their field is capable of validating or disqualifying all other areas of human experience and understanding.


40 posted on 03/31/2007 4:45:49 AM PDT by olderwiser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson