G
GoSeminoles!
Guest
That Dawson guy was a real scumbag. Everything he discovered was bogus. Blue-blood wannabe.
Upvote
0
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]
GoSeminoles! said:That Dawson guy was a real scumbag. Everything he discovered was bogus. Blue-blood wannabe.
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.
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
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?
USincognito said:Piltdown was the result of cheauvanism, rather than a need to prove Darwin right.
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.
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.
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?
GoSeminoles! said:In this case, once again it was other scientists who discovered the error (to be charitable, "fraud" to be accurate).
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: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.
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?
Euh, mabye because you didn't discover it? Seems pretty straightforward to me.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?
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
tryptophan said:Who cares what Arthur Keith had to say?
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
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.