Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Con X-Poser
Piltdown man was considered questionable at least as far back as the fall of 1912 (except for the English who wanted their own fossil to keep up with the French and the Germans.) The parts of the Piltdown skull didn't fit according to evolutionary theory. The Creationists did nothing to expose the fraud. American and German paleontologists were skeptical from the first; they didn't believe that the jaw and skull were from the same species. In the 1950s, C14 dating indicated differing dates for both the jaw and skull.

This brings up the question of why do the Creationists believe that the Piltdown skull is a fake? The two biological indications of fakery are the failure to fit with evolutionary theory (1912) and the C14 dating (1950s) data. Both of these types of analysis have claimed by Creationists to be invalid.

956 posted on 03/19/2003 6:26:30 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies ]


To: Doctor Stochastic
This brings up the question of why do the Creationists believe that the Piltdown skull is a fake? The two biological indications of fakery are the failure to fit with evolutionary theory (1912) and the C14 dating (1950s) data. Both of these types of analysis have claimed by Creationists to be invalid.

That's good. Very good. However, they have a response. Everything that supports evolution is fake. No need for them to worry about the "voodoo" of radiometric dating. To them, it's just a convenient mystery that we admit Piltdown was a fake.

961 posted on 03/19/2003 7:04:04 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson