Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="USincognito" data-source="post: 72182181" data-attributes="member: 21511"><p>Please use the quote function so we know you're responding to. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First off, Nebraska "man" was never reported as "<em>truth</em>". Science doesn't do "<em>truth</em>". That said, a hoax is a willful act. In the case of <em>H. harolcookii</em>, it was a misidentification, not a hoax, not a fraud. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would suggest reading up on the Nebraska "man" case from legitimate sites instead of Creationist ones. The Wikipedia entry is pretty good and succinct. </p><p>1. <em>H. haroldcookii</em> was identified as an anthropoid ape, not as a human or human ancestor. </p><p>2. Primate molars and porcine molars are very similar in appearance. </p><p>3. The infamous drawing of Nebraska "man" and his family was done by a newspaper artist, not a scientist and was based more on the Java man findings that <em>H. haroldcookii</em>. </p><p>4. Osborn himself repudiated the drawing by saying, "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".</p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man" target="_blank">Nebraska Man - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p>As I mentioned yesterday, it's quite humorous to read Creationists going on about Nebraska "man" (which was't a hoax) from 95 years ago and Piltdown man from 100 years ago when today, in 2018, their fellow Creationists are posting falsehoods and their own hoaxes to the Internet by the thousands each day.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="USincognito, post: 72182181, member: 21511"] Please use the quote function so we know you're responding to. First off, Nebraska "man" was never reported as "[I]truth[/I]". Science doesn't do "[I]truth[/I]". That said, a hoax is a willful act. In the case of [I]H. harolcookii[/I], it was a misidentification, not a hoax, not a fraud. I would suggest reading up on the Nebraska "man" case from legitimate sites instead of Creationist ones. The Wikipedia entry is pretty good and succinct. 1. [I]H. haroldcookii[/I] was identified as an anthropoid ape, not as a human or human ancestor. 2. Primate molars and porcine molars are very similar in appearance. 3. The infamous drawing of Nebraska "man" and his family was done by a newspaper artist, not a scientist and was based more on the Java man findings that [I]H. haroldcookii[/I]. 4. Osborn himself repudiated the drawing by saying, "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate". [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man"]Nebraska Man - Wikipedia[/URL] As I mentioned yesterday, it's quite humorous to read Creationists going on about Nebraska "man" (which was't a hoax) from 95 years ago and Piltdown man from 100 years ago when today, in 2018, their fellow Creationists are posting falsehoods and their own hoaxes to the Internet by the thousands each day. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Want to learn about evolution? Take a free course
Top
Bottom