So, the video on Piltdown Man Shane did was linked on the VFX forums.
This guy crapped out another post trying to refute the video. Certain users told him to come here if he was man enough to have a debate... as I highly doubt anyone from here, including Shane, would bother with VFX's site.
Quote from: Debate CrusherSo far the apologists for evolution are claiming that Piltdown Man wasn't excepted. Shane says one American scientist and one French scientist looked at Piltdown Man and rejected Piltdown Man. Therefore, since these two men rejected Piltdown Man evolutionists never believed in Piltdown Man and evolutionists were never fooled.
It just happens also that Louis Leakey and Richard Leakey have both rejected certain aspects of the supposed ancestor of mankind, but other evolutionists reject the Leakey's claims, some even calling them fundamentalists (which they aren't).
So the logic error I'm trying to point out is that two people do not represent the consensus.
The consensus is usually represented by textbooks. And if a textbook comes from a prestigious university like Harvard or Yale, that additionally reinforces the general opinion.
It just so happens that Piltdown Man was the consensus view in England and in America. In America Yale and Harvard gave sanction to Piltdown Man in their TEXTBOOKS.
The Leakey's object to certain points of man from ape theory, yet their point of view is NOT the one represented in Textbooks. No matter how much they had objected nobody cared. Even Mary Leakey got mad at Louis and took a hike.
The consensus view tends to filter down into popular culture. In fact Piltdown Man did filter down into popular culture.
HG Wells, in his History of the World, promoted Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was also featured in a semi-pop/science magazine, Scientific American.
The anti-Piltdown Man viewpoint was not part of pop sci culture during the time Piltdown Man was popular and represented in Harvard and Yale textbooks. Award winning, knighted Sir Arthur Keith was a highly trained scientist who fought hard for Piltdown Man.
Piltdown Man was later challenged by some scientist using Flourine dating method - a method which became refuted. So a bad method was used to refute Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man could have been refuted if scientists had merely looked at the filed down teeth, or had drilled into the bones. Real fossils drill out powder.
Piltdown Man was not merely a hoax perpetuated by Dawson, but also by the British Museum. The British Museum knew of the hoax all along and merely wanted to get rid of the fossil. Normally, as evolutionist Lubenow has pointed out, evolutionists cannot handle real apemen fossils, as you may sign up to look at the fossils and then you show up at the museum and they tell you the building is closed for cleaning. Or you get there and they hand you a replica. Or, you get there and they let you look but not touch. Or you get 10 minutes and no touch. Or, inhouse scientists get to look at the fossils but outsiders or disputers do not. That's the real world. There is no science here.
So let me show you my conclusions.
1. Shane says two scientists dispute Piltdown Man. The two leakeys dispute apeman history.
2. Piltdown Man is published in Harvard and Yale textbooks.
3. Anti-Piltdown Man was not published in Harvard and Yale textbooks during that time.
4. A point that is always neglected is the fact that it took some 40 years before Piltdown man was exposed as a fraud, but a method that is no longer considered valid.
5.Piltdown Man tricked down into popular media - HG Wells, science fiction author, and his books, and Scientific American.
6. Shane doesn't mention the 40 years, the refuted flourine method, and the Harvard and Yale textbooks. Nor does he mention the filed down teeth. Shane doesn't mention Sir Arthur Keith.
7. "Doesn't Mention" is a name that evolutionists should call their own.
Anyone called Doesn't Mention is someone who is not scientific, nor objective.
D C
So, what's the response, Shane? (Aside from the fact that he just typed several lines of bullshit.)
My first question would be to ask for references to these textbooks that included Piltdown Man.
Going back to my script, I also find that he ignored:
"...others decried Piltdown Man as a phony and the American Museum of Natural History displayed it as a mixture of ape and man bones."
"As a result, Piltdown Man spent decades not even being displayed."
"So, they look at where they drilled, and inside, the fossil was a light grey color, not a darker color like the outside.
"But a fossil should be the same color all the way through, since it's the minerals that replace the bone that give the fossil its color. So that meant that this was not a fossil at all, but a bone that had been stained to look like one."
"Scientists weren't allowed to examine it, many were suspicious the whole time and their numbers grew, and in the end the hoax was exposed, not by creationists. but by scientists--EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS!"
The last point is the big one that no creationist wants to touch.
Quote6. Shane doesn't mention the 40 years, the refuted flourine method
Of course he would not mention the "Flourine Method" because no such method exists...
It is "Fluorine" not "Flourine"
I am sick of seeing pseudo-scientist conspiracy nutjobs screaming about "flourine" (I don't believe it to be a typo either, because they do it over and over"
Why would anyone take anything they have to say seriously.when they cannot even get their facts straight enough to spell it correctly
That's copy-pasting for you.
Just in case anyone's curious, the guy still hasn't responded to the relayed response from Shane.
But that wasn't a big surprise, now was it?
Oh, and one Creationist twisted words around and defended "Debate Crusher" saying, "Why would Debate Crusher want to come over to that evil atheist forum where all they do is swear. Why would a good chrisitan like him want to be exposed to being sworn at?"
--Wow, just... wow.