1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '11 23:172 edits
    Piltdown Man

    http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    23 Jun '11 23:511 edit
    The remains of Piltdown Man was first acclaimed by anthropologists to be
    about 5000,000 years old. Over 500 doctorial disertations were performed
    on Piltdown Man. From 1912 until October of 1956 almost eneryone
    believed Piltdown man was a missig link between ape and man. More
    critical examination and investigation revealed that the jaw-bone belonged
    to an ape that had died 50 years previously, yet it was dated to be about
    500,000 years old. Can we really trust the scientist that are determined
    to prove the theory of evolution? Were all the "experts" really fooled?
    Piltdown Man was viewed in museums and studied in major textbooks for
    several generations before it was declared a fraud. What will today's "fact"
    of human evolution turn out to be?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
  3. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    24 Jun '11 00:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The remains of Piltdown Man was first acclaimed by anthropologists to be
    about 5000,000 years old. Over 500 doctorial disertations were performed
    on Piltdown Man. From 1912 until October of 1956 almost eneryone
    believed Piltdown man was a missig link between ape and man. More
    critical examination and investigation revealed that the jaw-bone belonged
    t ...[text shortened]... y's "fact"
    of human evolution turn out to be?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
    The scientists got it wrong. They admitted it, learned from it, and moved on. When has a religion ever admitted it got something wrong? When has new evidence ever caused an old religious orthodoxy to be overturned?
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    24 Jun '11 02:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The scientists got it wrong. They admitted it, learned from it, and moved on. When has a religion ever admitted it got something wrong? When has new evidence ever caused an old religious orthodoxy to be overturned?
    The evolutionary scientists also thought the Neanderthal Man was a
    missing link at first too. So, what I am wondering is when are the
    evolutionary scientist going to give up on the theory of evolution
    and admit they got that wrong too.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jun '11 02:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The evolutionary scientists also thought the Neanderthal Man was a
    missing link at first too. So, what I am wondering is when are the
    evolutionary scientist going to give up on the theory of evolution
    and admit they got that wrong too.
    About the same time right winger's like you admit creationism is a fairy tale.

    Thing is, they can change their stance, they will naturally do so most reluctantly but when the evidence tilts overwhelmingly in favor of something else, either the old combatants die or they give up and the young dudes with the new information wins out.

    That can't happen with your religion, the story remains the same no matter what evidence it presented to you.

    Of course you just become increasingly irrelevant in the modern world, there is no place for religious fairy tales.

    Good luck tilting at windmills. If you know what I mean.
  6. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    24 Jun '11 02:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The evolutionary scientists also thought the Neanderthal Man was a
    missing link at first too. So, what I am wondering is when are the
    evolutionary scientist going to give up on the theory of evolution
    and admit they got that wrong too.
    There is no missing link and never will be so they'll never give up looking just like a dangling carrot in front of the horse. Lol.
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    24 Jun '11 03:16
    Missing link between what and what?
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    24 Jun '11 04:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    About the same time right winger's like you admit creationism is a fairy tale.

    Thing is, they can change their stance, they will naturally do so most reluctantly but when the evidence tilts overwhelmingly in favor of something else, either the old combatants die or they give up and the young dudes with the new information wins out.

    That can't happen ...[text shortened]... place for religious fairy tales.

    Good luck tilting at windmills. If you know what I mean.
    What windmills? I don't see any windmills.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    24 Jun '11 04:54
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Missing link between what and what?
    You don't read much do you? Try reading the second post.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jun '11 05:051 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You don't read much do you? Try reading the second post.
    So you use a 100 year old hoax as proof evolution is also a hoax. Great argument there. You get more hilarious by the hour.
  11. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    24 Jun '11 06:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The remains of Piltdown Man was first acclaimed by anthropologists to be
    about 5000,000 years old. Over 500 doctorial disertations were performed
    on Piltdown Man. From 1912 until October of 1956 almost eneryone
    believed Piltdown man was a missig link between ape and man. More
    critical examination and investigation revealed that the jaw-bone belonged
    t ...[text shortened]... y's "fact"
    of human evolution turn out to be?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
    There is of course a more positive reading of this story: science has the power to detect and repair its errors. Incorrect identification will be discovered. Anyway, who really cares about science before the fifties?
  12. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    24 Jun '11 07:09
    Originally posted by galveston75
    There is no missing link and never will be so they'll never give up looking just like a dangling carrot in front of the horse. Lol.
    The "missing link" is the transformation of ape into man ,(right?).
    The religous people think they're onto something here because science has had problems explaining how ape turned into man (in such a short time). I think there was "oiutside" forces that sped up a "natural"" process.
    I think E.T.'s were involved.

    The E.T. explanation relates to spiritual/religous beliefs as well as scientific ones.
    It bridges a gap for me, but leaves me with more questions than answers, admittandly.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    24 Jun '11 07:13
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    There is of course a more positive reading of this story: science has the power to detect and repair its errors. Incorrect identification will be discovered. Anyway, who really cares about science before the fifties?
    How about the Wright brothers , Thomas Edison, and Albert Einstein here
    in the USA to name just a few?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Jun '11 07:21
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    .... because science has had problems explaining how ape turned into man (in such a short time).
    Science has had no such problems.
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91666
    24 Jun '11 07:25
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Science has had no such problems.
    Ok. So "science" is totally agreed on the timeframe for the emergence of man? What was it again?
Back to Top