Friday, January 14, 2005 of the highest authorities on the human brain....finds that while it bears a similarity to the brain-cases of Gibraltar and La Quina, both paleolithic and supposedly feminine, the Piltdown brain-case is smaller and more primitive in form than these. The most striking feature is the “pronounced gorilla-like drooping of the temporal region, due to the extreme narrowing of its posterior part, which causes a deep excavation of its under surface.” This feeble development of that portion of the brain which is known to control the power of articulate speech is most significant. To Professor Smith the association of a simian jaw with a cranium more distinctly human is not surprising. The evolution of the human brain from the simian type involves a tripling of the superficial area of the cerebral cortex; and “this expansion was not like the mere growth of a muscle with exercise, but the gradual building-up of the most complex mechanism in existence. The growth of the brain preceded the refinement of the features and the somatic characters in general.”

(Ancestor Hunting: The Significance of the Piltdown Skull
By George Grant MacCurdy
American Anthropologist, New Series,
Vol. 15, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1913), pp. 248-256)

Why is this actually significant? Note the amount of speculation and mythological narratives of naturalism you can get out of a bone fragment, not to mention a fraud. (The skull was actually a human skull.) Also, it is important to remember that people modified their philosophy and theology based on this and other frauds, just as they still do. And it is important to take whatever opportunities there are to check up on the testy testers that write the mythological narratives of naturalism, as well, in order to see what their mythological narratives can be based on.

A maverick geologist (like the maverick biologist Michael Denton) notes the usual testy testers, their typical censorship and some of the examples where their mythological narratives can be tested.

"ONE DAY, MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO, I picked up an apparently dull geology textbook and found my attention arrested by a single sentence. The book was called Pre history and Earth Models and was by the professor of metallurgy at Utah University, Dr. Melvin Cook. Cook, a physical chemist now in his eighties, is a world expert on high explosives and his textbook on explosives for mining is still a classic work of reference. Professors of metallurgy do not usually stir up trouble in the academic world, but what I had read in his geology book was more explosive than any text on TNT.

In his preface Cook wrote: “An attempt to publish a manuscript giving direct evidence for the short-time chronometry of the atmosphere and oceans entitled ‘Anomalous Chronometry in the Atmosphere and Hydrosphere,’ not unexpectedly nor without some cause, met with considerable opposition and was not published.”

Who on earth had prevented Dr. Cook from publishing his paper? I wondered. And what could a metallurgy professor have to say that was so heretical that someone wanted to prevent its publication? I found that his book contained scientific evidence and reasoned argument which showed that something was terribly wrong with the orthodox scientific view of methods of dating. The most widely used methods, such as uranium-lead and potassium-argon, had been found to be seriously flawed, not merely in practice but in principle. In addition, the methods yielded dates so discordant as to make them unreliable.

Cook showed for example that if you used the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the crust you got the conventionally ac cepted age of over four thousand million years. But if you used the selfsame method on the atmosphere, you got an age of only a few hundred thousand years. He also showed that the entire amount of “radiogenic” lead in the world’s two largest uranium deposits could be entirely modern. Clearly something was wrong.

When I dug deeper, I found that Cook was not a lone voice. Other papers by scientists in reputable scientific journals expressed similar doubts and findings. Funkhouser and Naughton at the Ha waiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages of up to 3 thousand million years—when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801. McDougall at the Austra lian National University found ages of up to 465,000 years for lava in New Zealand that is independently known to be less than 1,000 years old.

I eventually came to the alarming realization that although ra dioactive decay is the most stable source of chronometry we have today, it is badly compromised as a historical timekeeper, because it is not the rate of decay that is being measured but the amount of decay products left. For this reason, all radioactive methods of geochronometry are deeply flawed and cannot be relied on with any real confidence in this application.

At the end of the last chapter, I asked, How could science have gone so far wrong? The answer turns out to be that it is not science which has gone wrong, merely those scientists seeking to defend a single idea—Darwinian evolution. Science has proposed many methods of geochronometry—measuring the Earth’s age— all of which are subject to some uncertainties, for reasons I shall describe in a moment. But of these many methods, only one technique—that of the radioactive decay of uranium and similar elements—yields an age for the Earth of billions of years. And it is this one method that has been enthusiastically promoted by Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists, while all other methods have been neglected."
(Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
By Richard Milton :37-38)

Neither Milton or Denton, who I sometimes cite here, seem to be Christians. Denton is an agnostic and Milton does not seem to be Christian. This really makes no difference to me. I look at text, logic and evidence for truth, not the person. I just note that for Leftist bigots, those who feeeel the need to run around screaming when they hear the word "religion" and that sort of thing. It's to help such ignorant and stupid people know that regardless "religion," the mythological narratives of Darwinism go to absurdity and beyond, beyond "possibility" to impossibility. They try to tell a narrative using the standard of, "Well, it's possible. And at least that is a naturalisic narrative, unlike religion!" But the narrative is actually impossible when confronted with a sound analysis of probability.

It would be better, as in more probable, to believe that time-travelling aliens created life as we know it than to believe in the narratives typical to Darwinism.

(Although that actually runs into patterns of Christianity and its mythos. Which seems to be what some people, especially on the Left, are quite phobic and bigoted about.)

No comments: