Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then Australia is off my list.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's the major thing about theism. I can't recall single time where creationist said something was wrong and false and changed it in light of new information surfacing.
siti
Well-Known Member
Not so! Ray Comfort (aka banana man) retracted his scientific theory about the banana being created specially to fit into the human hand when it was revealed to him that the banana he was talking about was the hybrid result of thousands of years of deliberate human cultivation. He is now working on a replacement theory about how another (sometimes) vaguely banana shaped object was supernaturally designed specially to fit into his hand.
I speculate that the critters were recreated using imperfect geneticThe velociraptors were to large. Utah Raptor would have been the better candidate. .but velociraptor sounds cooler and making them larger and more intimidating was better for the movie. And scaly monsters look scarier than big feathered chickens. I'm pretty sure that was their thinking anyway. ....maybe.
reconstruction, so there'd be variation from the originals.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Nebraska man was also a artifact which along with Piltdown man was considered slam dunk evidence at the Scopes trial.... turned out Nebraska man was a tooth of an extinct pig and Piltdown man a fraud so the Brits could catch up with the German neanderthal... sad
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it wasn't. This claim of yours was already refuted, but go ahead. Find a reliable source that supports your claim. After you fail to do so and admit it I will supply a valid source that refutes your claim.
Or you could save some time and admit your error now.
They did use amphibian DNA in the mix........OMG. I'm talking about this like they're real.
Nerd!
I did leave myself open for that didn't I?
I know that you invited it.
gnostic
The Lost One
That because Christianity have nothing to do with science.
Religion don't deal with facts.
Your blah, blah, blah is very typical reaction of someone who don't understand science, don't want to understand science and never will understand science.
David M
Well-Known Member
No it wasn't, objections and concerns were raised from the very start, it was only in England that it had overall acceptance.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I just finished watching this video that deals with the Piltdown Man and other frauds of evolution. It would behoove the OP to watch it:
You will probably enjoy it as well.
Earthling
David Henson
Nonsense. Museums worldwide prominently featured copies and photographs of the skull, while books and periodicals quickly spread the news.
As I mentioned early one, the first objection (I found) was in 1913.
I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but even if correct, the controversy still existed.
Museums are all a work in progress, & often have out of date & incorrect info.
Have you ever worked in/for a museum?
I do, & criminy, is it a lot of work to present cromulent info.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Links please. You do realize that when it comes to such claims that you have shown yourself to be less than reliable.