Harding Place -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 10, 11:42:02am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Harding Place

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08/15/04 11:56am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "You old softy." on 08/12/04 5:43pm

>
>But this is a tad different. We have direct
>empirical knowledge of the fossil at hand. My
>point is that if this were really a hard
>science, they should have known right away (not
>decades later) once it was examined that Piltdown man
>was a hoax (a combination of ape and human parts).

When new discoveries are made, be they genuine or not, there is often a considerable time that it takes to analyze them and figure them out.

Setting up a contingency such as "if this was really science then they should have immediately known" is not a realistic condition. Hard sciences encounter things daily that they don't immeadiately recognize as true or false. It doesn't somehow make it a "weaker" science because of that, nor does Piltdown man hovering around for many years before finally being repudiated make evolutionary science "weak." In fact, the strength and credit to showing that it is a legitimate hard science is admitting to the fact that it WASN'T a legitimate finding.

>You betcha. And I have little doubt that if the
>research continues, those alleged intermediate forms
>will eventually be renounced as well.

Because you are not exactly half of your mom in features, and half your dad in features, you must not be their son.

Intermediates, like every child, are a fact.

>
>That's not true at all. It has changed quite a bit.

So what claims has creationism rejected? What exactly has changed about it?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
A rock...quite a bit more stable than hominid fossils	Wade A. Tisthamjmer	09/13/04 12:09am