tgamble

They have the piltdown man but nothing else relevent to evolution. None that I noticed anyway.

<a href="http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/piltdown.html" target="_blank">http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/piltdown.html</a>

"Using a fluorine-based test to date the skull, the researchers concluded that it was approximately 50,000 years old. The jawbone, however, was only a few decades old. A second test, using nitrogen analysis, confirmed the first test. They also found that the jaw had been artificially stained with potassium dichromate to make it appear older."

hmm, 50 000 years old.

And these methods are reliable according to creationists?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

babelfish

Anything is considered reliable by Creationists as long as it supports their position, or can be used to discredit somebody they disagree with.

They've got years of practice in this type of selective thinking. Have you ever heard one of them discuss the Bible?

tgamble

Actually, the question was rhetorical.

babelfish

I know, but I wanted to answer it anyway.

Duvenoy

From my reading, I've seen that Piltdown was suspect from the very beginning. It's interesting to note that Piltdown was debunked by science, not religon, as was Nebraska Man.

Oh, by the way, a skull is not an artifact.

d

Synaesthesia

Piltdown man was tested because it didn't agree with the rest of the evolutionary record of man.

That is to say, the fossil record suggested a consistent evolutionary progression in man but pildown man didn't agree with it so it was questioned and found to be a hoax.

How often will you find creationists mentioning this fact? How many of them know it?

tgamble

How many who know it give a damn?