I’ve just re-read a book about Piltdown Man, the second-biggest scientific hoax in history (the biggest being Man-made Global Warming, by a long shot). For those of you too young to have heard of Piltdown Man, it was supposedly a “missing link” ape-man fossil discovered in England in 1912. Scientists were overjoyed–this was just the kind of missing link they were looking for and fully expected to find. Into the textbooks it went; but by the mid-1950s it was conclusively proved to be a hoax. Some mischievous soul took a modern cranium from a medieval graveyard, an orang-utan jaw, filed down the ape teeth to make them look more human, stained the bones, and planted other fossils around the site to make it look convincing.
How can you write a whole book about the Piltdown hoax and conclude with words like this? “…We are in no doubt about the reality of the transformation which has brought Man from a simian status to his sapiens form and capability.” But when one of your prime exhibits is revealed to be a big fat phoney, I’d say that opens up some room for doubt–wouldn’t you?
Creating fantasy is fun, and can be put to constructive uses. It’s when you start believing in your own fantasies, that you created, that you get in trouble. The fact that the Piltdown Hoax (the perpetrator has never been identified) made fools of the whole scientific establishment never shakes the author’s faith in the Darwinist fantasy.
What would we think of some Tolkien enthusiast who said, “We are in no doubt of the existence of Dragons, Hobbits, and Ents”? But Tolkien never tried to pass off his fantasies as reality.
If only they’d tried a little harder with the Cardiff Giant, they probably could’ve gotten him into the science textbooks, too.
How about the guy who drew the picture of a series of animal figures beginning with a crawling ape and progressing to an upright human? That picture is still be used today in Science books. And what about the fossil record that disproves macro-evolution but is still being used to prove macro-evolution?
To say nothing of DNA, which decrees that what you see is what you get: hence the need for innumerable beneficial mutations.
It’s a religion. At one time, I believed that the planets and stars “evolved” from a Big Bang, but the more I looked into it, the more convinced I became that they were making up their timeline as they went along. I’m willing to accept a young earth approach, at this point.
I NEVER believed that biological evolution was even possible.
Recently I became cognizant of the time-honored fallacy concerning the meaning and misuse of the words old and young by evolutionists and their fellow believers, the OEC. In their attempt to lead us astray, they advocate that something 6,000 years old (the earth), is in reality very young. Nevertheless, the account of creation is true, and the record of history going back to the beginning is a true chronicle of events occurring since that time. The earth is not young as many suggest, that’s a misconception.
I think most everyone would agree, anything 1,000 years old or older (most certainly 6,000 years), is old indeed, ancient in fact, be it an artifact or relic, Stone Age structure, coin, civilization, or a redwood tree. Sadly, we have been seduced by evolutionary notions of “deep time,” pronouncements of billions of years, etc. By contrast, 6,000 years, which denotes antiquity, is supposed to represent a minuscule period. However, a 6,000-year-old Earth cannot in any way or fashion, be considered young! I believe in an old Earth, ours, which has been around for an exceedingly long time, 6,000 – 7,000 years. Anything that old is not new or young.
But OEC would say that compared to the billions of years of Earth’s history, wouldn’t a mere 6,000 years be a very young Earth? It would be, if you first swallowed the lie of billions of years. You cannot compare imaginary billions of years of evolutionary history with actual history. Thus, 6,000 years would be ancient, and retain the meaning as Webster defined it: “Having lived or existed for a long time … not new.”
Very true. I have no problem believing in a very rapid creation, because we’re talking about God, and He does not have the limitations we have. There was a period of time; well, let me back up, I was raised to believe in the Day:Age approach, that creative days represented long periods of time. This left room for a Big Bang and the accretion theory, but I no longer believe this.
There is no evidence of any history, before roughly 4,500 years ago, which coincides nicely with the Flood, as having wiped the surface of the earth clean. There is no reason to believe a deep time approach, and the dating methods used by atheistic scientists tend to be self referential. An object is dated by the strata it is found in, and the strata are dated according to what is found in those strata. With such a system, you can assign any date you want, to anything you happen to dig up.
My approach has become to accept the Bible at face value, unless it is made obvious that a certain passage can only be symbolic.
Some people would rather believe in a theory-no matter how outlandish than believe in
God.
And that’s the point. They want to set their own standards as regards right or wrong.
They shall be as gods. Patty
Exactly.