Take a look at some of the 'hominid skulls' brought as evidence, look at all the odd and ill fitting pieces, the asymmetry in the profile, then add in a margin of error as to dating methods to each fragment.
g
W.
Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler
New York, NY, August 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."
After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement:"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.
"It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to "reclaim America for Christ" and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law."
The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit: How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions."
A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program "features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens."
Do yourself a favor and learn more about why Franz Boaz and other anthropologists fought hard against lies like Hitler's
The reader should note that these are university sources and the sources are manifestly NOT anti-evolution.
The following link was used for the More troubling, it is a case of scientific predisposition toward interpretations that validate contemporary ideas about evolutionary events. Once such ideas gain wide acceptance, they are sometimes judged by the strength of opinion, not strength of evidence. quote.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/twelve.htm
The following link is to a slide show that leads to the other links from which the quotes were extracted.
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/
There are many other quotes which can be mined from this source. Like this, for instance..
This program offers a cornucopia of sources commenting on, developing and demolishing Piltdown Man.http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_receptionfav/receptionfav_lvl1.html
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_receptionfav/darwintheoryproved.html
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/map_receptionfav/palskullmissinglink.html
Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Don't provide sources and you're credibility is suspect, at least; do provide it and you're quote mining.... Sheesh. Heads I win, tails you lose.
The South African finds beginning in 1924 completely marginalized Piltdown.
Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting (correctly) that the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang.
Piltdown is getting far more press now from the creationists than it did in the professional literature after the mid-1920s.
Looks like they've had their hopeful "proof" and "a consensus of scientists" more than just a few times before. Case closed. And then whoops... Case dismissed. LOL
My beliefs("claims" if you prefer) are irrelevant. As such, I will not post them here or in email.
You have not answered my question. Furthermore, you haven't any evidence of this great seduction within recent scientific thought; a seduction so great, that men are willing to accept clearly fabricated results. Where is the evidence?
"Whether Piltdwon was hoax, fraud or honest mistake"
A 1000 year old human skull with a moderm orangutan jaw bone glued to it, is hardly an honest mistake. And as you say, the "scietific" community (all the atheists, anyway) was salavating, not questioning. Of course, anyone who questions the tenents of darwinism is ostracized or fired.
I wonder where the truth squads are for the investigation of religous frauds -- crying statues, faith healers and the like.
"I wonder where the truth squads are for the investigation of religous frauds"
Can't you keep you religion/God bashing out of this discussion.
I would think the single greatest sin in any religion woulf be to discredit it with phony miracles, particularly phony miracles that produce monitary gain for the perpetrators.
So why is is antireligious to expect religion to police itself? Why is it OK to call evolution a religion and trash it, but forbidden to expect churches and preachers to maintain basic honesty?
g
W.
As for the lack of evidence, here's the Discovery Institute's most qualified spokesman on common descent (not the only one avilable).
I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean (and I did not say) that there is a separate mechanism for generating pseudogenes. I simply meant that the normal process of DNA replication or recombination, which sometimes generates pseudogenes, is very complex, and has not been explained in a Darwinian fashion either by Kenneth Miller or anyone else. (For example, Kornberg & Baker's 1992 edition of "DNA Replication" has virtually nothing on how any of the steps of replication could evolve in a Darwinian fashion.) The point in my book was that the pseudogene argument is essentially "God wouldn't have done it that way, so Darwinian evolution must be true." Pseudogenes may be reasonable evidence for common descent, but the assertion that they show that life was produced by Darwinian mutation/natural selection has to be judged separately.
I would like you to notice several things. First, the man is the single best qualified critic of evolution. He testified for Intelligent Design at the Dover trial. He's the major scientific consultant for the Discovery institute. He's a tenured professor of microbiology.
And he accepts common descent. Don't believe it? Here's another quote.
I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.
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.