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.
Agreed. That is not a good enough reason to quit one's job.
And since I already posted the athiest sites that defend Darwin, and since I already posted the MARX quote that praised Darwin fo his thesis...
You are still proven wrong.
You guys need to pick up a Bible, and read it.
And believe what you read.
Funny! :)
Something tells me he didn't quit. He's a FRAUD and his textbooks are still in universities around the world, no doubt. The damage he has done to real scientists and the work they do is immeasurable.
But forget about that! The "science patrol" here wants to bash Creationists. What else is new?
Please note the final paragraph of my prior post, the paragraph AFTER the one you quoted.
I already noted that it sure smelled bad that he had the time to continue posting, but apparently not to read what had been vouchsafed to him (a little Tolkienesque lingo...)
BTW, is there a troll or ZOT policy on crevo threads?
Could we make some of the most egregious offenders read and / or subscribe to the pledge on PatrickHenry's Freeper page?
Cheers!
You are still proven wrong.
Exactly which statement of Ich's is proven wrong by the existence of atheists and Marx supporting Darwin? Or is this yet another assertion that RaceB cannot support.
If atheists and Marx believe that the world is an oblate-spheroid are they wrong in that too? Are all beliefs of atheists and Marxists false? Just checking.
You guys need to pick up a Bible, and read it.
Yeah, done that
And believe what you read.
Ah, there's the rub. You can't force me to believe something. I cannot even force myself to believe things....
"Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists?"
Not necessarily. Other possibilities exist:
a. Jesus was misheard.
b. Jesus was talking in a way that his contemporary audience would understand.
c. Jesus was heard correctly, but the eventual transcription to the Bible was in error.
d. Jesus was not omniscient (if you believe that Jesus was omniscient it would be interesting to know at what age he acquired this remarkable ability, or did he have it from the moment of conception?)
e. Jesus was talking figuratively (in fact this is definitely so, because God did make Male and Female from the "beginning of creation", he did it at least some days after the beginning).
f. Some other explanation that hasn't occurred to me yet.
There's no need to offer me respect on matters on biblical interpretation. I'll cheerfully admit that my knowledge of it is approximately equivalent to RaceBannon's observed comprehension of science. Bondserv already knows this in fact.
But if we are talking literally, then I fail to see how "beginning of the creation" becomes "beginning of marriage", that's definitely a figurative statement then, not literal?
In any case my point was merely to offer a number of explanations that someone who could genuinely claim to be "Christian" might use to gainsay Bondserv's interpretation, not saying that any or all of them fit with any particular Christian's exact beliefs.
BTW Bondserv I am aware that I've left our interesting discussion on the morals of Genesis hanging; I will be getting back to you though because it is thought-provoking stuff.
I thought it was an oblate ellipsoid.
Full Disclosure: Prolate ellipsoid = stretched. Think "football".
Oblate ellipsoid = "globe". Think "sitting on a Pilates ball."
...a "funny image" that was only "about it" because it had been DISHONESTLY PHOTOSHOPPED to appear to be about people who support evolution, when in fact the original image had nothing to do with it. And you got caught at it. Deal with it like man -- if you're able.
Why don't you lighten-up and get a life, dude.
I enjoy myself immensely on these threads, and I do have a life, "dude". You folks seem like the bitter ones, railing about the "scientific conspiracy" to "suppress the truth" about how the Earth is only a few thousand years old and all that.
I have never seen anybody spend so much time defending a particular world-view as you, Ichneumon.
All I defend is the truth, when it is falsely attacked. Almost every one of my posts concerning evolutionary biology was in response to someone else first posting an attack on it or misrepresentation of it. So if If you guys will stop "spending so much time" attacking science and telling lies about it, I could spend less time correcting you and more time doing other things. So how about it?
Maybe it's time for a break.
Go right ahead. That would be really refreshing.
You're not winning this battle. You realize that, right?
No, actually. Nor am I going to allow you folks to "win" by default. As long as you keep spewing misrepresentations, I'll be here to keep pointing out how dishonest and/or incompetnt you're being, and what a disservice you're doing to both the conservative movement, and to educational standards in this country.
Try a new hobby.
I have many hobbies. This is one of them. But again, if you folks would give up *your* hobby of spewing lies about science, we could *all* spend more time on other pursuits.
Get out of the house/apt and try something new.
I type at 120wpm. I can do this *and* still have enough free time to "get out of the house".
I thought it was an oblate ellipsoid.
Alternate terminology for the same shape -- either is correct.
No, you're still wrong. True, you provided one (questionable) example but you failed to back up your claim that creationists often claim all evolutionists are atheists. So no, finding one questionable post doesn't make you right. At this point you've claimed victory before crossing the finish line. I see in your next post you picked several examples that do not support your claim but you link them as if they do.
Why do you find it such a difficult task to be intellectually honest about these things?
Sorry I'm still catching up. I'll give you my Cliff's Note's version. There is a valid belief that people of faith have, that atheists would use science as an argument against their faith. As an example, look how easily Bible class was removed from public school.
Creationists have even gone so far as to give the atheists credit for inventing a religion of their own. Since atheists rarely acknowledge their belief, creationists have called it "evolution" and have endowed it with it's own characteristics drawn from several scientific disciplines. This effort has become a fairly lucrative business. Anti-evolution literature alone has supposedly topped $1 billion/year.
Evangelical Churches near me routinely invite speakers on "evolution" who repeat pretty much what you see posted here. One of my co-workers spent about 45 minutes at lunch one day explaining to me why the science teacher who spoke at his Church against "evolution" - with the degree in English Literature - should be credible. The ID'ers moved in later to try to give the movement more gravitas (heehee - I love that word since the 2000 election). I think this movement generated the notion that anti-evolution leaders should acquire science degrees to boost the validity of their claims.
Most of the creationist/ID crowd have NO science background - also thanks to the public school system - so they'll believe anything their heroes tell them. And there will always be heroes because there's money to be made in the field. So when you make science arguments to them, it falls on deaf ears. they don't know any science, or very little science, so they don't understand what you're saying. I don't believe that they're lying to you. They just don't know.
Plus I don't think they really want to make a scientific argument anyway. Sooner or later they'll resort to scripture or the argument from ignorance, "Evolution can't explain the eye so it's false". The best approach on these threads is to attempt to maintain your head and respond so that lurkers, who are genuinely interested, can get useful information. It worked for my co-worker.
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.