Scientific hoax: Piltdown man was a fake

[speakout]

Below is a ten mite video from the very great Megiddo 2 film and it goes into why evolutionist had to lie.

click below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0SGRdbQJ4

Evoluionists let the battle commence, you like to believe a lie.

 

[Raydon]

From Wikipedia:

"The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man."

You're 54 years too late.

 

[Molal]

Scientists uncovered that it was a forgery, not creationists.

The self-regulating machinery of science - impressive......most impressive.

 

[Paulos23]

Not to mention that it was scientists that discovered the forgery, owned up to it, and moved on.

Creationists are the ones that keep bringing it back as a PRATT.

 

[TheBear]

From Wikipedia:

"The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man."

You're 54 years too late.

Scientists uncovered that it was a forgery, not creationists.

The self-regulating machinery of science - impressive......most impressive.

Not to mention that it was scientists that discovered the forgery, owned up to it, and moved on.

Creationists are the ones that keep bringing it back as a PRATT.

I concur with all.

 

[Loudmouth]

The other part of the story is that it was a hoax PLAYED ON SCIENTISTS.

Charles Dawson really did find this fossil. He was first alerted to some cranial fossils by men digging a pit along side of a road. Dawson dug farther and found the jaw bone along with more bits of a cranium. This has never been in doubt.

What likely happened is that a creationist, or an enemy of Dawson, planted the fossil. Dawson walked down that road every day, and the hoaxster probably knew it.

If anything, creationists should want this fossil to be real. It contradicts every other hominid fossil that we have found. If Piltdown Man were real we would have a very tough time explaining it.

 

[speakout]

Moved on,

They should have tracked back.

There is no fossil evidence of species changing to other species.

the Peking man was also a hoax.

Science is not opposed to God, proper science answers questions which have nothing to do with religion.

But a religion called Evolution, doctors evidence and wants to move on.

Please Track back. There is no prooof for your reincarnation but you want tax payers to fund the evolution to be taught as science.

Give us any proof for you science fiction.

 

[Molal]

Moved on,

Theyuld have tracked back.

There is no fossil evidence of species changing to other species.

the Peking man was also a hoax.

Science is not opposed to God, proper science answers questions which have nothing to do with religion.

But a religion called Evolution, doctors evidence and wants to move on.

Please Track back. There is no prooof for your reincarnation but you want tax payers to fund the evolution to be taught as science.

Give us any proof for you science fiction.

Science is not a religion. You are sorely incorrect.

Science (evolution) should be taught in the science classroom. Religion should be taught in religious studies.

Agreed-science has nothing to do with religion, faith, belief at all. Science is fact based.

EDIT: Do you understand why the link you posted is wrong?

 

[Raydon]

Moved on,

Theyuld have tracked back.

There is no fossil evidence of species changing to other species.

the Peking man was also a hoax.

Science is not opposed to God, proper science answers questions which have nothing to do with religion.

But a religion called Evolution, doctors evidence and wants to move on.

Please Track back. There is no prooof for your reincarnation but you want tax payers to fund the evolution to be taught as science.

Give us any proof for you science fiction.

I feel bad now for being so blunt, I didn't realise that you had problems with English, you probably aren't saying what you meant to say. Don't feel bad, keep trying and you'll master the language eventually.

 

[speakout]

Evolution is not a law of science.


Gravity now there is a law of science. There is proof for that stuff.

There is no law of evon because it is a hypothesis at best.

They try to say it is a theory but it is not yet that, let
alone a law.

What is evolution? Reincarnation, a hindu religion. Reincarnation holds that species return as different species.

Give us one fossil which is between species?

For the past 6000 years we have not seen man evolve.

It has to take billions of years, never never land stuff.

 

[Molal]

Evolution is not a law of science.


Gravity now there is a law of science. There is proof for that stuff.

There is no law of evon because it is a hypothesis at best.

They try to say it is a theory but it is not yet that, let
alone a law.

What is evolution? Reincarnation, a hindu religion. Reincarnation holds that species return as different species.

Give us one fossil which is between species?

For the past 6000 years we have not seen man evolve.

It has to take billions of years, never never land stuff.

Evolution is a theory - theories include scientific laws. plus, there is more evidence for evolution than gravity. I think you only believe in gravity since you can actually experience it.

 

[Raydon]

List of transitional species, or "fossil which is between species".

Evolution is nothing like reincarnation. Biological evolution is the process of change over time in the heritable characteristics, or traits, of a population of organisms. Heritable traits are encoded by the genetic material of an organism (usually DNA).

Evidence for the evolution of man within the last 6000 years.

Why do you say that Evolution is not a theory? Here's an essay (with sources, which is something you don't provide) on why you are wrong.

 

[speakout]

Scientists uncovered that it was a forgery, not creationists.

The self-regulating machinery of science - impressive......most impressive.

The scientic community fail to repent (change its Mind).

I am just rubbing it in.

Who promises that next time the talk about evolution you will acknowledge that because of lack of proof, you fellow zealots and fundamentalists help Nature find proof.

 

[Molal]

The scientic community fail to repent (change its Mind).

I am just rubbing it in.

Who promises that next time the talk about evolution you will acknowledge that because of lack of proof, you fellow zealots and fundamentalists help Nature find proof.

The scientific community (no-one else) recognized and published the hoax. By definition they admitted the hoax.

Since science are self-policing and disclose all hoaxes, scientists do not manufacture evidence.

If you believe that evidence is manufactured then provide evidence for discussion.

 

[Raydon]

The scientic community fail to repent (change its Mind).

I am just rubbing it in.

Who promises that next time the talk about evolution you will acknowledge that because of lack of proof, you fellow zealots and fundamentalists help Nature frind proof.

Name the proof you want and someone will show it to you. I already listed some of the things you said didn't exist in my previous post.

Your comment about reincarnation shows that you don't even know what evolution is. How can you argue against something when you don't even know the definition of it? It's like arguing that apples are never green when you're picturing chocolate in your head.

Oh, and would Jesus approve of you "rubbing it in"?

 

[TheOutsider]

Is it too late to call troll? Cuz there is no way that someone is foolish enough to think that Piltdown Man is still a valid argument against evolution. It's just not possible. I think that AiG even gave up on this one.

 

[necroforest]

I'm going back to Gottservant's threads. He is easier to understand.

 

[Raydon]

Is it too late to call troll? Cuz there is no way that someone is foolish enough to think that Piltdown Man is still a valid argument against evolution. It's just not possible. I think that AiG even gave up on this one.

He said that he's "rubbing it in". He's an admitted troll whether he believes what he says or not.

 

[speakout]

I am saying what is simple, they is no law of evolution because there is no proof.

The situation got so bad, they had to manufacture the evidence.

When the evidence was uncovered they did not go looking for replacements but wanted to pull a fast one.

What did you replace Dawsons false discoveries with?

 

[Molal]

I am saying what is simple, they is no law of evolution because there is no proof.

The situation got so bad, they had to manufacture the evidence.

When the evidence was uncovered they did not go looking for replacements but wanted to pull a fast one.

What did you replace Dawsons false discoveries with?

Evolution is not a law, it is a theory. Theories include laws.

Science does not manufacture evidence. If you cannot provide any evidence for this assertion then why do you keep repeating it?

Science is a methodology for fact finding, observation and provides a basis for consistency and prediction. Evidence cannot be manufactured otherwise you would be made to look a fool in the scientific community.