Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

The sort of "progress" which led Aldous Huxley to compose Brave New World as a crude metaphor for deliberate inhibition of intelligence which might be said to be at work more subtly and less definitely in our institutions today. Genetic modification could possible produce amoral soldiers. Military training has a tendency in that direction.

It is something of a cop out when politicians wring their hands at the actions of amoral soldiers and supervise the training which helped cause them. And take credit for it even.

The famed "Tree of Life" might be looked at upside down and with the roots visible. Just as the flowers of the intellectual elite might be.

The Holocaust was impossible without technology. The biological and chemical research which has given us longer lives are also capable of producing weapons of mass extermination. And have done so.

First hand??? Leakey interview Teilhard decades after the fact, gets no more than a personal opinion of guilt which he decides nit to write about, evidently for lack of conclusive evidence. He mentions it to Spencer later, who waits for Leakley to die before mentioning it? With Teilhard and Leakey conveniently dead, how do we know Spencer's version of the encounter is not grossly off base ?

All this amounts to speculation. Not terribly honest speculation too, I think.

Sounds like you, for some reason, have a dog in the fight. Ive merely said that, too many people of HONEST reputation have suggested Teilhards involvement in the hoax WAS NOT a "short term or innocent" act as you wish to imply. I think Ill believe the "preponderance" of that evidence.
I m convinced that He fucked up this time. He did help in the analysis of find Peking man where he initially considered that Piltdown and Peking man were both of the same species of Eohominims.
Piltdown was debunked but Peking is, like Java man, an example of H erectus, and where Teilhards lack of knowledge of laminar stratigraphy had shown, his geochemical savvy in preparations shined through.

Im not trashing his whole career as a paleontologist. I think it just goes to show how "band-wagoning" in science and how careful peer review needs to be done in many of these areas. We constantly get bombarded by bullshit science from Creationists who try to show that Triceratops had backs that were bent by saddles or that a fossil footprint of a human in Texas resides right next to a fossil footprint of a Cretaceaous dinosaur.
Im thinking of the "martian meteor" that showed examples of "life" , when any beginning field petrologist could have shown that(if asked) it wasn't life but a particulr "habit" that certain carbonate minerals can take.
Teilhard added an additional bit of "scientific authority" to Dawsons and Woodwards hoax (Woodward , was, after all, a highly respected paleontologist who had, on numerous occasions stated tht he wanted the Directorship of the British Museum). Woodward was, I believe , the recipient of the Lyell medal and he hs a mountain of pubs to his name by 1911. SO, theres almost an air of a "too important finding to fail" sense I get from the team of Dawson, Woodward, Teilhard and (to a limited extent, Sir Arthur Keith)

You are welcome to believe what you want. I believe Teilhard's own version. He has more credibility in my book than you do. You have stated that only Teilhard had the required chemical expertise, but 1) proof of that? and 2) the only expertise needed was how to paint a bone with a dye... You have also stated that Telhard provided the jaw, which is false. You gave credit to hearsay and presented it as "first hand accounts". So you furiously look like someone who want to convict some guy, at any cost and irrespective of the evidence.

Spencer is apparently accusing Dawson and Arthur Keith, not Teilhard, according to this book review: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4984/1162.extract

Be aware that Teilhard, as a French catholic priest, makes for an ideal suspect in the eye of some prejudiced anglo scientists. The Brits got humiliated with this story. They were desperate to "compete" with the Germans (Neanderthal), the French (Cro Magnon) and the Dutch (the Java man) in their race to find the "missing link", and they wanted their own fossil so bad that they got more than they bargained for... Teilhard's involvement in this very British story was minor and he was most probably a victim of the hoax rather than a co-perpetrator.

Until scientists can create life, their evolutionary theories and hunches can't be taken seriously.
It needn't be anything complex, a simple amoeba would do, but although they know all the chemicals and stuff needed to make one, they still can't do it!
It's almost as if God is having a little joke with them by creating all forms of life and saying- "I'm a hard act to follow"..

That's a pathetic argument.

The guys that built ships in the 16th century didn't know how to build a plane either...

I've got a plastic model kit of a Spitfire but it's still in pieces in the box because I haven't got round to putting it together yet.
Likewise below are all the chemical bits of an amoeba, yet scientists still can't even begin to put them together to make a living moving amoeba..

Wiki- "AMOEBA:-The isolated plasma membrane of Acanthamoeba castellanii consists of approximately 27% lipid, 37% phosphoglycan, and 37% protein. About 60% of the protein migrates as a polypeptide of 15,000 daltons in sodium dodecyl sulfate-acrylamide gel electrophoresis. The phosphoglycan is resolved electrophoretically into two components which migrate ahead of the major polypeptide band. These three components are also detectable upon electrophoretic analysis of whole amoebae and they do not change in concentration when amoeba homogenates are incubated for 6 hours at 25o. These and other controls support the conclusion that the apparently simple macromolecular composition of the amoeba plasma membrane is not an artifact of the isolation procedure. In some preparations actin is associated with the plasma membranes as a nonmembranous component"

The biggest hoax, fm, is pretending to have proved that there is no possibility of ID with all these red herrings.

In terms of the thread topic they are meaningless.

One might think that if Dawson's, Woodward's, Teilhard's and Sir Arthur Keith's Moms had slipped the vinegar stroke it would prove there is ID. And even if they didn't it was 100,000,000 to 1 each of them were spawned.

You're no scientist mate. You've got your dick in the fight. i.e, Teleology City.

Tell us about the Dover evidence, under oath, concerning the comparison between the flagella and a mechanical pump. I have forgotten the details.

And while you are at it prove that Dover wasn't a hoax.

So that book review of Spencers book is your evidence?? You should, perhaps read stuff before you post.
The book review stated that Teilhard had been accused most recently by ...GOULD. The book review doesn't exonerate Teilhard at all. It talks about "there were perhaps several 'Others".
Spencers book makes the case on circumstantial evidence of course but the entire case FOR Teilhards innocence is built primarily on nothing but hope and an article by his niece.

I think Ill quote a smattering of the honest inquiry by Oakley.This is in
Spencer (op cit)p183
"Bearing in mind that Teilhrd had been so closely involved with Dawson and the events at Piltdown only served to increase Okley and Weiner's suspicions Had he been Dawsons accomplice?OR had he (Teilhard) duped Dqwson?...Their meetings with Teilhard were unrewarding, the Frenchman now seemed most reluctant to discuss the matter-as shown in Oakley's memo to Weiner re: Teilhards interrogation at the British Museum.
...Teilhard subsequently corrected a number of his earlier mistakes in chronology, he was unable or unwilling to add anything more regarding his dealings with Dawson on the summer of 1913
However, in previous sections Teilhard admitted that he had bee familiar with the sites as early as 1909.

Teilhard had given rather conflicting information and often contradicted his earlier statements on the record. He, for example state (on p215) tht he didn't know Dawson (yet he corresponded with the man in the time between 1909 and 1917).
Im not giving anything of my own so as fqr as "my credibility". I think Ive shown that one can mine quotes from SPencers book and read for yourself.
Hey, I was a student taught by Jesuits in Catlick grade school, However, as far as Im concerned there is no "Semper Fi" required. I think Ive followed objective evidence . and your just trying to patch together an argument from dubious data.

Im not carrying this into an Apisa style interminable "nyah nyah: fest. Im inviting you to read some of Louis Leakeys own thoughts to Philip Tobias (not Spencer as you said). Leakey, in his 1974 book By the Evidence discusses the hoax but not the "jokesters" (with the exception that one of the perpetrators had access to AFrican specimens to add to the physiognomy and had knowledge of geochemistry. (Its "quacking" like a duck)
Leakey wanted to "name names" but his wife, Mary , had wifely advice "Youll only make enemies".
It was only after Leakey's death that Richard (his son , and not a stranger to these kinds of "bone wars") allowed Tobias to write an introduction to Spencers book as a first hand correspondent .
Im thinking that there were a bigger pile of objective "Teilhard critics" involved, each with objective and personally acquired data.

The popular press had stated that "Teilhards involvement had been dismissed by serious workers."
To me that's as disingenuous as gungasnkes views that "evolution has been debunked"

If you want to carry this further, send me a PM cause I don't think Id like to keep this up as a running argument on the board. Im indefatigable but I can drone on and on and on and we will both be called "Assholes " by Edgar .

IT must be a cold day in the UK, eh?

1. Within a radius of 2000 AU around us there is nothing that is even resembling the Earth.
2. The orbit of the Earth in the SS is so precisely adjusted in a safe window in terms of Jupiter and Uranus not to be perturbed that it is highly improbable for this to have happened by chance (the probability for this is less than 10^-12) .
3. The CO2 processing - the Earth is the only known planet that has succeeded to reverse the CO2 accumulation in the air (not for so long, unfortunately).
4. Stochastic events cannot form a long term tendency in one direction. What is the probability to hit 230 million times successively reds in a roulette?
5. The process of photosynthesis is so complex and so sophisticated that it could hardly have emerged by accidental event. It resembles much more precise computational design.
6. You don't have any plausible and convincing explanation - neither for the intelligence of our CNS, nor for the intelligence of the tissues at metabolic level.
7. If we are all originating from worms, why the present-day worms have remained unevolved for decades of million years ... and the other worms evolved by evolution. How does that happen?

That really was necessary for your exposition...

...or did you just get your jollies from doing it?

Sure, let's cut it short. Remember though that "innocent until proven guilty". I don't think you have presented any conclusive evidence of guilt, and I don't need to present evidence of innocence. Indeed any serious researcher who has looked at the matter concluded that Dawson was guilty as charged, but did not conclude that about Teilhard... There's also the analysis of character. Dawson had made other hoaxes, while Teilhard never faked anything. It's a bit late to hang him anyway and as Spendi said, the issue is irrelevant to the thread, so let's agree to disagree.

I needed something to serve as a bad example and your name came up first in my mind--Sorry. I did it with love. Ill buy you a beverage sometime

48 degrees.

Can't answer eh? We all understand I'm sure.

Well hmmm, not too cold,so you, in fact, dont have your head up your ass for the warmth

Nor for comfort--as you have.

Oh, okay.

As for the beverage...Johnny Black...a six pack!

H, an astronomical unit is pretty small, only about one sixty-three thousandth of a light year; while recent studies suggest there might be more planets than stars. Even if there's only one inhabitable planet in each galaxy its's been estimated that there must be at least four quadrillion of us