Replies

[Not only are there not "lots" of hoaxes, but there are so few actual hoaxes in the 150-year history of evolutionary biology that I can count them on the fingers of one hand, without using all the fingers. Please explain how you can justify to yourself bearing false witness like that.]

Heavens! I struck a nerve.

Behaving like a loon and spewing falsehoods has a tendency to do that.

Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)

Another blatant creationist falsehood! You're on a roll!

Now the big question is, did you *know* you were posting a falsehood, or were you just gullible enough to actually trust in the reliability of a creationist source?

[From: Piltdown Man]

500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man

This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.
This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic.
Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations. Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral dissertation.
It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]".

So no, there were not "500 doctoral theses" on Piltdown. There may not even have been *any*. It's just yet another example of a creationist falsehood that one creationist fabricates, and then dozens repeat it uncritically without having any clue whether it's accurate or not -- as you have done here.

There have been more than 500 *articles* on Piltdown, sure, but the vast majority have been about the *debunking* of the hoax, not (as you falsely imply) by scientists falling all over themselves attesting to its validity.

Have you no shame?

How about Orce Man --first human..then not human.

How about it? It's a fragment of bone small enough that opinions differ on what it might be. Is *this* the best you can come up with? Yeah, I guess it is!

If you're trying to imply that this is some sort of "hoax", since that's what you've been lamely trying to accuse biologists of allegedly doing on a regular basis, then this is yet *another* lie from you, because there's no indication that it's a hoax in any way, it's just a hard-to-identify bone. Some researchers feel it might possibly be hominid, some feel it may be equid. Where's the "hoax"? Oh, right, there isn't any. Did you have some sort of point to make, or did you just want to make slanderous implications with no shred of justification? If so, that would be called "lying".

More dissertations.

Name a single dissertation on the Orce fragment. We'll wait. Oh, there *aren't* any? Then you're lying.

More PhD's out there teaching numbskulls this mind numbing rubbish.

Please document a single case of any PhD anywhere teaching that the Orce fragment is conclusively a hominid. We'll wait. Until then, it's clear that you're just lying again.

The fraud list goes on...

No, actually, it doesn't, as made entirely clear by your scraping the very bottom of the barrel in order to have a dishonest excuse to list a NON-FRAUD as an alleged example of the "gosh too many to list" frauds you falsely claim evolutionary biology is riddled with. STOP LYING, it only makes you look like a scumbag.

it's really funny how so called "scientists" have for so long been able to demand respect from the general population of uneducated serfs. Fortunately, right wing radical Christians have stormed the walls of imperious sceence. The walls are coming down like Jericho's.

Let me know when you're finished ranting, and are able to either a) support your false accusations, or b) are willing to become an honorable person and retract your falsehoods.

Also, you could do us all a favor and explain to us why creationists are such unabashed liars. I've never been able to figure out why, but almost every one I've ever had a conversation with lied repeatedly and often, and never showed any shame when caught at it.

Here are just a few hundred creationist falsehoods for you:

Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- eleni121, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here.
eleni121, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?

Tell me how many more examples you'd like me to post of creationist distortion of the evidence, and I'll be MORE than glad to post them.

Here are a countless more: List of creationist claims

So keep telling lies about science, eleni121 -- it'll make it *very* clear to the lurkers which side is *actually* the one that engages in falsehoods, frauds, and misrepresentations.