Talk:Piltdown Man

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(discussion moved from another talk page)

Although to be fair, does anyone NOT oppose teaching the Piltdown Man as truth? He's more of a Piltdown Straw Man these days. --JMairs 18:50, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Clarence Darrow did not oppose it. The Piltdown Man was taught in the textbook at issue in the Scopes Trial. How often do you hear that admitted by an evolutionist today? Most evolutionists did not admit that the Piltdown Man was a hoax for nearly forty years. Real science is not that slow to identify falsehoods.--Andy Schlafly 18:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
Darrow wasn't a scientist and doesn't seem to have been very educated in general. Most evolutionists started to ignore the Piltdown bones when their finder restricted access to them for the obvious reasons and other finds fitted into their theory better. I just think it was a big deal 90 years ago but is pretty irrelevant now. --JMairs 19:09, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
It illustrates the lack of scientific method by evolutionists. Why did it take evolutionists nearly 40 years to discredit the Piltdown Man, after teaching in textbooks for decades? The answer is obvious: because evolution is not science.--Andy Schlafly 08:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Did you bother to do any research before you came to that conclusion?--Dsherman 00:12, 28 November 2013 (EST)
Yes, the research was done, the case is settled, and we're continuing to provide evidence on this site as to how false evo is. Get over it. Karajou 01:14, 28 November 2013 (EST)

The article presently needs to back up its claims with citations/links

The article presently needs to back up its claims with citations/links in numerous places which I noted. Conservative 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

The "citation needed" in the paragraph "Evidences of a greater complicity..." is unnecessary since an actual example is given in the next paragraph: "For instance, in 1922..." Dr. Richard Paley 14:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A citation is definately needed for this line "The Piltdown Man was publicized as the "Missing Link" between man and ape-like species, which eluded (and still eludes) promoters of evolution." because there are fossils that link homo sapiens and the great apes, just like there are transitional fossils between homo habilis and neaderthals. As well, "Like similar artifacts purporting to prove evolution today, there was no independent or public scrutiny of the actual materials" this is quite the bold statement to make since many scientists examine the same fossils for their research ie "lucy", this absolutely needs a citation (credible one) if it is to have any merit. -shoe

It's pretty clear that Lucy was just an ape. I don't have any issue with transitionals between us and Neanderthals though. After all they were stronger than us and IIRC had a braincase 10-15% larger. Doesn't that sound like degeneration? Maybe Noah was a Neanderthal and could build such a large wooden boat because he simply had a better brain than us. I'm sure we all accept that a lot of speciation happened since the flood, so why not evolution (more like devolution really) from Neanderthals to us? --JMairs 19:18, 21 August 2011 (EDT)


Since the article is categorized under "Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation", there's no need to also have it categorized under "Hoaxes". The first is a subset of the other. Thanks Learn together 16:46, 20 September 2007 (EDT)