[Oztrich Boy]

The same basis anyone would use to argue Piltdown was a fake. The facts.

But "the facts" in question are what evolutionists say they are. You accepting evolutionists as auhorities now?

[js1138]

But "the facts" in question are what evolutionists say they are. You accepting evolutionists as auhorities now?

Anyone who accepts the argument that Piltdown is a fake accepts the fact of evolution.

[BaBaStooey]

Charles Dawson claimed to have been given a fragment of the skull in 1908 by a workman at the Piltdown gravel pit. According to Dawson, workmen at the site had discovered the skull shortly before his visit and had broken it up. Revisiting the site on several occasions, Dawson found further fragments of the skull and took them to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the Geological Department at the British Museum.

Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing link between ape and man, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution was brain-led.

So it is clear that at the time, leading evolutionists such as Woodward championed the discovery of Piltdown man as evidence of the theory of evolution being right.

The facts are that the skull was studied, and was proven to be a hoax because:

(1) Piltdown Man was shown to be a composite forgery, part-ape and part-man. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of a Sarawak orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

(2) The appearance of age had been created by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid.

(3) The area where the jaw joined the skull posed problems that were overcome by the simple expedient of breaking off the terminals of the jaw. The teeth in the jaw had been filed to make them fit and it was this filing that led to doubts about the veracity of the whole specimen, when, by chance, it was noticed that the top of one of the molars sloped at a very different angle to the other teeth.

(4) An "artifact" near the bones which was believed by the scientists to be a tool or a part of the skeleton, but was actually a cricket bat.

The story of the revisionist historians was that Piltdown Man sent evolutionists down the wrong track. (I found that explanation courtesy of everyone's favorite liberal network PBS.) Only after it was revealed to be a fake did evolutionists say, Oh, we knew it was a fake all along. It, uh, yeah, was inconsistent with our theory.

The truth is that it was just like the Texas Air National Guard forgery that fell into the laps of the people at CBS News. Hey, this confirms what we knew all along! There's no way this could possibly be phony!