Piltdown Mystersy on Nova Tuesday 11 Jan 05

That Dawson guy was a real scumbag. Everything he discovered was bogus. Blue-blood wannabe.

[Creationist] OH MY GOSH NOVA PROVED LAST NIGHT THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE BY SHOWING A FRAUD THAT EVOLUTIONISTS USED!!! SEE THIS SHOWS EVOLUTION IS WRONG BECAUSE AT ONE TIME A SCIENTIST WHO HAPPENED TO BE AN EVOLUTIONIST LIED!!!111ONEONEONE [/Creationist]

NamesAreHardToPick said:

[Creationist] OH MY GOSH NOVA PROVED LAST NIGHT THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE BY SHOWING A FRAUD THAT EVOLUTIONISTS USED!!! SEE THIS SHOWS EVOLUTION IS WRONG BECAUSE AT ONE TIME A SCIENTIST WHO HAPPENED TO BE AN EVOLUTIONIST LIED!!!111ONEONEONE [/Creationist]

Click to expand...

[Kingripa][hyperstupidity] U is 7£H H4%%0R [/hyperstupidity][/Kingripa]

USincognito said:

The thing that Creationists seem to miss when pointing out Piltdown is the reasoning for the hoax in the first place. Since Britain was the center of civilization, clearly the first humans should have arisen there. Piltdown was the result of cheauvanism, rather than a need to prove Darwin right.

Click to expand...

So it had NOTHING to do with proving Darwin right? I missed the beginning of the show -- did they mention how many creationists fell for the hoax? That would have been an interesting angle I think.

1912 Piltdown announced

1913

1914

1915

1916 File markings discovered

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948 Woodward publishes The Earliest Englishman

1949 Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.

1950 In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Arthur Keith

1951

1952

1953 Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.

1953 Piltdown removed from British Museum

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map...nrevisited.html
http://140.232.1.5/~piltdown/map_ex...ltdown_man.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248079.stm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/def...81/r&r8102a.htm

Bevets, why would you ask if any creationists "fell for" an alleged hominid transitional? That's the silliest question I've seen all day. And I teach high school.

bevets said:

1912 Piltdown announced

1913

1914

1915

1916 File markings discovered

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948 Woodward publishes The Earliest Englishman

1949 Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.

1950 In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Arthur Keith

1951

1952

1953 Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.

1953 Piltdown removed from British Museum

Click to expand...

I am SHOCKED that history appears to be repeating itself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1418025,00.html
http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

How could this happen again?

bevets said:

I am SHOCKED that history appears to be repeating itself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1418025,00.html
http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

How could this happen again?

Click to expand...

There are liars and cheats in every profession, even politics. Heck, there are even pedophiles in the clergy.

In this case, once again it was other scientists who discovered the error (to be charitable, "fraud" to be accurate). Certainly no creationist would have found it because no creationist would be caught dead using radiocarbon dating, which as we all know is Satan's tool.

USincognito said:

Piltdown was the result of cheauvanism, rather than a need to prove Darwin right.

Click to expand...

bevets said:

So it had NOTHING to do with proving Darwin right? I missed the beginning of the show -- did they mention how many creationists fell for the hoax? That would have been an interesting angle I think.

Click to expand...

Randall McNally said:

Bevets, why would you ask if any creationists "fell for" an alleged hominid transitional? That's the silliest question I've seen all day. And I teach high school.

Click to expand...

Here is a suggestion: Perhaps the reason the scientific world fell so hard for the Piltdown hoax is because EVERYONE assumed evolution as a given. If they did not accept evolution as a given, perhaps they would ask more questions and uncover frauds in days rather than decades.

bevets said:

I am SHOCKED that history appears to be repeating itself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1418025,00.html
http://skepdic.com/protsch.html

How could this happen again?

Click to expand...

GoSeminoles! said:

In this case, once again it was other scientists who discovered the error (to be charitable, "fraud" to be accurate).

Click to expand...

They could have asked me. I would have told them that the given timelines were incorrect. Why can't I get any credit for 'discovering' these errors?

bevets said:

Here is a suggestion: Perhaps the reason the scientific world fell so hard for the Piltdown hoax is because EVERYONE assumed evolution as a given. If they did not accept evolution as a given, perhaps they would ask more questions and uncover frauds in days rather than decades.

Click to expand...

They did not discover it sooner because the technology to test the age of the skull did not yet exist. Even without the knowledge that it was a fraud, Piltdown did not fit in with the other hominid finds and was widely regarded in the scientific community as an oddity (despite your selective quotes).

bevets said:

They could have asked me. I would have told them that the given timelines were incorrect. Why can't I get any credit for 'discovering' these errors?

Click to expand...

Did you provide anyone with evidence that these dates were wrong? Or is your assertion that the earth is 6,000 years old supposed to be good enough?

bevets said:

They could have asked me. I would have told them that the given timelines were incorrect. Why can't I get any credit for 'discovering' these errors?

Click to expand...

Euh, mabye because you didn't discover it? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

bevets said:

So it had NOTHING to do with proving Darwin right? I missed the beginning of the show -- did they mention how many creationists fell for the hoax? That would have been an interesting angle I think.

1912 Piltdown announced

1913

1914

1915

1916 File markings discovered

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948 Woodward publishes The Earliest Englishman

1949 Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.

1950 In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Arthur Keith

1951

1952

1953 Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.

1953 Piltdown removed from British Museum

Click to expand...

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Yes Bevets, we've seen your posts. I will state again that:
It weren't creationists who discovered the fraud!

Now, I wonder why that would be?

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith


1912 Piltdown announced

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921 In conclusion, the writer desires not only to recant his former doubts as to the association of the jaw with the skull, but to express his admiration of the great achievement of his life-long friend, Arthur Smith Woodward, in making the discovery and in finally establishing beyond question the authenticity of the 'Dawn Man' of Piltdown. ~ Henry Fairfield Osborn New!

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948 Woodward publishes The Earliest Englishman
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_report_finds/earliest_english.html


1949 Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.

1950 In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Arthur Keith

1951

1952

1953 Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.

1953 Piltdown removed from British Museum

I think we got the point the first few hundred times.

Bevets, move on. There was nothing to see there the first time you posted it. Posting it a few hundred times more doesn't make it one bit more interesting.

Who cares what Arthur Keith had to say?

Bevets is a computer program. There's just no doubt anymore.

tryptophan said:

Who cares what Arthur Keith had to say?

Click to expand...

Even better. When reading back the quote:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Since Piltdown is regarded as a fraud nowadays, we can from that conclude that the 'revelations' of Piltdown have been taken into account. This means that science has met the 'demand' of Arthur Keith. To quote him can only be considered supportive of evolution, IMO.

bevets said:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Arthur Keith

Click to expand...

Tomk80 said:

Bevets, move on. There was nothing to see there the first time you posted it. Posting it a few hundred times more doesn't make it one bit more interesting.

Click to expand...

The thing I find fascinating about these quotes is the supreme confidence behind them. The only difference between Sir Arthur Keith, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, Henry Fairfield Osborn AND Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, or Ernst Mayr is that the ignorance of the first group is public knowledge.

I do not know how long it will be before the ignorance of the second group becomes public knowledge. It may be 40 years (as with the first group). It may be 400 years or it may be 40 days. Truth will prevail.

Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

John 3.19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.