Going back to your initial assertion, for the entirety of its existence, Piltdown Man was viewed with quite a bit of skepticism. In all areas of research, some paths of investigation are dead ends. Eventually, lines that prove useful, survive, while others die out. That, incidentally, is how evolution works.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">link to youtube video presumed to be a
Paraphrasing InFlatEarth: "If you give them videos, they will believe it, without questions, as long as it fits into their narrative. They will also defend it to the max."
This is certainly true for the anti-science crowd; strident voutube videos based on bad data, poor logic, fuzzy thinking, and misinformation seem to be the main vector for their message.
Can you provide a transcript of that video or a synopsis of its argument? If you can't clearly describe what it's saying, you must not understand it. Do you have anything other than (a) video(s) to bolster whatever argument you're trying to make, or are you just trying to hammer home the point about believing videos you want to believe?
--A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.
--Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as
panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many
seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
READ MORE :
https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).
DNAThe complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.
Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10^690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 10^80 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:
‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).
Infinite monkey theorem :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem Many atheists say that religion is inherently unreasonable, and that if someone comes to faith in any deity, it is only because of a religious experience that is best unverifiable and at worst a form of delusion. However, Flew’s deistic argument is useful in that he,
using arguments completely on the natural level, makes a powerful argument for God’s existence.
‘I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded
on a purely natural level,
without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith’ (p. 93).
Readers looking for an apologetic for Christianity will be disappointed, but the book is a good read.
The book is powerful evidence that one can come to a belief in theism purely from the evidence. It is also a lesson that design alone is not enough for saving faith; that needs special revelation, which is likewise backed up by credible historical evidence as Habermas and Wright showed.
READ MORE :
http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew