Posted on 02/19/2005 7:36:30 AM PST by Woodworker
Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works
A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues. Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. "The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.
Protsch's work first came under suspicion last year during a routine investigation of German prehistoric remains by two other anthropologists. "We had decided to subject many of these finds to modern techniques to check their authenticity so we sent them to Oxford [University] for testing," one of the researchers told The Sunday Telegraph. "It was a routine examination and in no way an attempt to discredit Prof. von Zieten." In their report, they called Protsch's 30 years of work a "dating disaster."
Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."
Protsch, known for his love of Cuban cigars and Porsches, did not comment on the commission's findings, but in January he told the Frankfurter Neue Presse, "This was a court of inquisition. They don't have a single piece of hard evidence against me." The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." "Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald. Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.
#202 addressed to me was removed by the moderator. Any idea why?
Look, even evolutionists admit that evolution takes place over such a long period of time that it cannot be opbserved.
You really just made yourself not look too good, really.
Certainly not the steady state creation myth!!!!!
Those evolutionists in those articles think so.
it is easy, and all of us here on this website have heard it on the news and even on PBS.
So, you can retract any time, because I not only posted the evidence, we all heard it ourselves.
Maybe you are just coming to the party late to hear all this, just how old are you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
Here ya go. The above link has links to other specific references. Also, you can do a search on talkorigins or browse the index and find more material on evolution and its predictive ability than you can read in days.
Origin of Species itself predicted the whole science of genetics, btw.
If creationism is science, you should be able to answer these questions:
What is creationism?
Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.
In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.
(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
Was it from me?
I don't know, in any event.
You assert the statement's wrong, but you don't back up that assertion, but simply handwave it away. Give evidence the assertion is wrong. I've already shown you the evidence the assertion is right. Either you have something or you don't, so either put up, or shut up.
"Look, even evolutionists admit that evolution takes place over such a long period of time that it cannot be opbserved.
You really just made yourself not look too good, really."
You intentionally missed the point and twisted the meaning of observed. We have not observed the dino evolution except in the forensics. But we have observed evolution in real time speciation and other changes in allele frequencies in populations.
I look really good all the time. I don't see what my looks have to do with science. [example of how to be a literalist]
Nice segue but it doesn't help you a bit. You stated that "there are no creationists who do science". The statement is false. A creationist, by definition, is somebody who believes that God created the Universe and all that is in it. That seemingly describes all Christians, except you.
To prove your statement false, one would simply have to name one creationist who did science. There have been literally millions of them.
I leave it as an exercise for you to set your straw dog aflame.
Now, if the physical evidence should wind up matching Bishop Usser's calcuation, fine. That would make things a little easier. A little less faith would be needed. A point of dispute would be resolved. But if it doesn't that's fine too. It's not going to change my thinking.
The truth is the age of the earth is not that important. What is vitally important, however, is the claims of Jesus. If the Gospels are true, then even if man shared a common ancestor with apes (or oak trees), one would still have no excuse in rejecting the Lord Jesus.
So even common descent -- which has NOT been established -- would not shake my faith and I can consider it fairly objectively.
You, OTOH, would have your whole world changed -- as it's being done -- if it could shown that life required a Creator.
Did you not understand that he was refering to this so-called "creation science", or are you just dodging?
Here's an interesting one for you since I believe you've said you're a Catholic.
Abbé Georges Lemaître.
sIf creationism is science, you should be able to answer these questions:
jNice segue but it doesn't help you a bit. You stated that "there are no creationists who do science". The statement is false. A creationist, by definition, is somebody who believes that God created the Universe and all that is in it. That seemingly describes all Christians, except you.
That is not the definition of creationist used in this debate. I am a theistic evolutionist which is a belief in God the creator, but does not make me an apostle of the false prophets: Morris, Ham or Dembski. Can you not be honest in just one part of this debate? Are you just trying to be nasty?
"To prove your statement false, one would simply have to name one creationist who did science. There have been literally millions of them. "
No, you would have to name someone at AIG, ICR or ID that has demonstrated they are able to understand and do scientific inquiry in evolutionary biology or some aspect of it. This does not count chemistry, hydrology or some science outside of this debate, and you know it.
jI leave it as an exercise for you to set your straw dog aflame.
I don't think you have the ability to debate in good faith and I am glad I was able to demonstrate this to the lurkers.
In general, I don't read into other words. When a person uses the word "creationist" , I take it that word means what it means. I don't argue that is isn't is. Perhaps you and Shubi should write clearly to avoid any misconceptions.
Hope this causes you no anguish.
Creationist means what it means. If you mean something else, then I suggest you make that clear in your ranting. Your statement is false. Now way around it. Go whine somewhere else.
Most fake fossils I have heard of are variant franken-fossils. As for faking things that never lived, that's what makes it so much easier in China: We have not had access to China since before WWII, so a lot of REAL stuff is stuff that has never been seen before, like the two parts to Archeoraptor - both unique PARTIAL specimens, put together to form something dramatic.
Keep in mind that until the late 1990s, there were only six T-Rex skeletons found, and none of them complete. Only one was really a lot more than a few jumbled bones, and as I recall, some parts had never been found until the group of (four?) nearly intact skeletons recently discovered.
Abbé Georges Lemaître.
The above name was offerred as a "creationist" who did actual science. Here is a good link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html
He formulated the Big Bang theory and died in 1966. He was a Catholic priest. The Big Bang theory is not included in the Theory of Evolution, j. Again, this is a twisting of the debate. There is no one in any of the creationist organizations who is doing any real science to refute evolution. At ICR and AIG they have to sign a form saying they believe in the literal Bible of young earth etc. so they cannot possibly look into the possibility that their belief is wrong.
I think I have responded enough to walsh and will refrain from feeding his ego anymore.
Understood. It's well known, from for example the quote mine projects, that creationists have problems with context. In other words - I'm not surprised.
Actually, it makes paleontologists skeptical of anything they didn't dig up themselves, or wasn't dug by someone they know well - which causes them to ignore new specimens if they don't fit their conceptions perfectly; which after some are finally noticed and proven, in turn causes them to occassionally go chasing fakes. Fortunately few make it to the front pages of newspapers (which makes it difficult to Google).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.