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.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
PDQ is a classic.
I thought this thread involved a sexual harassment scandal.
Calling Science Magazine a lie??
Calling your fellow evolutionists liars??
Cuz, those aint my articles, those are EVOLUTIONISTS articles!
Wow, you really need to just chill, you cant handle evolutionists saying that C-14 dating is off, then you just insult people.
Hiya shubi
See what I mean. A bunch of sniveling crybabies.
If'n it don't agree with me, it must be a lie. Boo Hoo, that's a lie, bawwwl, he's a liar, waaaaah, that is all lies, boo hoo, boo hoo, liar liar liar.
Shheeeeesh!!!!!! I have never seen so much whining. No character at all, most of you are just a bunch of snotty nosed, snot running, bugger eating brats.
If you have some science, put it up, if you want to whine or to strut your ego...supply the barf bags please, because it is embarassing and sickening.
I make shoes, if it fits, tough, wear it. If not, don't worry about it.
Then you are lying about me, because all I did was cut and paste them without any comment
You owe me a public apology
But, since you act like a democrat, I wont expect one.
You are now on the ignore list.
I know it, dimensio is now on the ignore list, he has no rebuttal, only accusations, and then when articles are posted, he doesnt address the article, he just acts like a liberal and calls the person who posted the article a lie.
Noöne with any understanding believes you read and selected those articles. Or have any knowledge oif their content.
You cut and pasted from a page in Kent Hovind's quote mine
I dont go to Kent Hovind's website, sorry, you guessed wrong on that one, too.
And, since NONE of you respond with any detail to what I post, no one with understanding thinks you read my posts, either...and that is too bad, because you might learn something.
So he will soon be teaching at Harvard, right?
He has a point. A number of his dishonestly out-of-context quotes have appeared on more than just Hovind's site. Even Jack Chick's website now has quite a few howlers.
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:Dan Rather, is that you?
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
...
"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54 Kent Hovind
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp.58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p211
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 832 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Jouranl of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 54 319 posted on 02/20/2005 7:22:52 PM PST by RaceBannon
I have been following the entire thread and was really just seeking the poster's own definition of Theistic Evolution so I could better follow the discourse.
I believe in the Bible's view of Creation.
In my younger years though I was a Christian I held similar views about creation and life.
This was I am sad to say was due to neglect of a proper study in the Word.
In my later years especially the last ten or so, I have been pretty deep in the study of the Bible.
It is an absolute amazing eye-opening endeavor. My deepest regret is that I wasted so many years.
Out of the thousands of books on all kinds of subjects that I have read, there is no other book that can come close to being so challenging, so rewarding, so fascinating, and so seeming inexhaustible in it's content.
If it is not the Word of God then I believe we do not have it.
It can show the everyday individual the way to God and eternal life in just a few minutes and at the same time in it's depth, offer an endless opportunity to learn to the great minds of men in the past, present and I believe the future.
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.