Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud
Ray Martinez
Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
Ray
Boikat
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
No shit? You just found out what scientists have know sind the early
'50's, and many suspected from the start??
Speaking of hoaxes, what ever happened to that bit about some schmucks
claiming to have found Noah's Ark a few months ago? Geee. They seem
awful quiet. I wonder why that is?
Boikat
bpuharic
so what? fraud is present in all areas of science. look up jan hendrik
schon.
as to religion, well...fraud is synonymous with religion
Ken Shackleton
If a scientific fraud invalidates evolutionary theory, [as you seem to
imply] then Christianity [and all religions] are clearly false by the
same reasoning.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
RAM
That was taught fifty years ago when I was in college. Your learning
curve needs adjustment.
Devils Advocaat
I am curious as to why you bring up this old bit of information.
Would you care to elaborate?
Spotted Owl
Hang on, we all agree with Ray on this. Doesn't that make either Ray
an atheist, or all the atheists on T.O. Christians?
Ron O
Teach the controversy. Just someone that has bent over and taken the
switch scam because that is all they have left. When all you have is
an obfuscation scam it may be time to rethink your beliefs? She talks
about evidence, but what does she have? Same double standard that we
see constantly around here. Pitman claimed that he had the evidence
supporting his alternative to common descent that was as good as the
evidence science had, but he always ran from that claim. Some people
understand what the evidence is and still can't deal with the fact
that they have none to support their views. She didn't even know that
she was talking about Haekel with her embryo example. This was
surprising since she seems to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the
scam junk and should have known better.
She talks about closed minds and can't look in the mirror. Ray should
have learned something from the vid, but that is too much to expect.
Creationism cannot compete in the science class. That is the plain
and simple truth. All the dishonest can manage to do is blow smoke
over what they can't compete with. It seems tragic that all they can
claim is that the scientific evidence is not good enough when they
know that what they have isn't even as good as the science that they
are claiming is no good. What should that tell any thinking rational
human being? Really, what should it tell anyone when their junk isn't
as good as something that they claim isn't good enough? Guys like
Pitman with enough on the ball to understand reality just ran away.
Ignorant rubes like this woman likely is don't want to understand the
reality of the situation. Willful ignorance isn't a viable argument.
Ron Okimoto
William Hughes
The fact that Piltdown was a hoax is very old news.
Is the point that it was not just a "hoax" but also a "fraud"?
I suppose that if I got some homo habilis bones and planted them
in a gravel pit, I could be said to have perpetrated a hoax that was
not an outright fraud, but I would say that the fact that the fossils
are genuine and not "improved" does not alter the fact that I have
perpetrated an outright fraud. It is a bit of an irregular word
I play a trick
You are guilty of a hoax
He perpetrates a fraud
- William Hughes
cassandra
Certainly Dawkins doesn't think Piltdown is news. It wasn't even a
major point of the link. I suspect Ray thinks this video shows Wendy
Wright in a favorable light. If so, he's wrong again.
Moist Lipwig
news:b790aaf6-aac4-49e4...@s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
___________________________________________
His learning curve is actually a parabola; it approaches the
baseline (learning) but never quite reaches it.
Regards,
Kermit
Yes, you agree with science.
I also admire those scientists who established this beyond any
reasonable doubt. It was suspected almost immediately. but it required
better tools and more facts to be sure. It was old news in the sixties
when I started reading adult science books.
Did you know that Nebraska Man was also not a hominid? It was not a
fraud, however. An extinct pig tooth found in 1922 was incorrectly
identified, but that was corrected in 1927 a couple of years after
more remains (of the pig) were found and studied..
Kermit
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, how *DARE* and atheist tell the truth?! Damn him to hell!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Harry K
Exposed by (drumroll) SCIENTISTS and known for near a century
already. Your point is (other than that one on your head) is?
Harry K
Ernest Major
<f6a082ab-3be6-44af...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
William Hughes <wpih...@hotmail.com> writes
A fraud is performed for gain (usually financial, but I'd guess that
political gain qualifies). Since it is uncertain who committed the
Piltdown forgery, and for what motivation, it's not clear to me that it
graduates from hoax to fraud.
>
> - William Hughes
>
--
alias Ernest Major
haiku jones
TRUMAN BEATS DEWEY! TITANIC SINKS!!
HINDENBURG BURNS!!!
Film whenever we feel like it.
odin
Mendelian inheritance data was fudged too, according to chi-square,
which was developed after the fact. But a hoax does not tell us much
about the validity of the underlying theory, does it? So what is your
point?
-Thor
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
Desertphile:
"What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
Howard Hershey:
"Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. Look up the meaning of
the two words."
As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
I wonder how long it will take both Desertphile and Howard to admit
that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or qualification?
Here is an example of admitting honest mistake without excuse or
qualification:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c0b34633eecb731
Ray
cassandra
> On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
> Desertphile:
>
> "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
>
> Howard Hershey:
>
> "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. �Look up the meaning of
> the two words."
>
> As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
Is that your point? To start a semantic quibble? What a waste.
Bruce Stephens
> On May 26, 8:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
I presume your point was that people shouldn't have been so
argumentative about it being called a fraud?
I agree. It appears that it's commonly referred to as both fraud and
hoax. Indeed, <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html> uses both
terms, as does
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/excavations_techniques/piltdown_man_01.shtml>.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Two people saying that hoax is not fraud when both are synonymous is
not quibbling.
Ray
aganunitsi
From das wiki, on differentiating hoax from fraud: "A hoax also
involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging
or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous."
cassandra
<snip>
> Two people saying that hoax is not fraud when both are synonymous is
> not quibbling.
It is when you don't say why it matters to you.
RAM
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Good point.
Maybe even more like mobius strip below a base line. He keeps coming
back to his one dimensional assumptions and never progresses beyond
that.
odin
A mobius strip is overkill. Just a circle would do.
Eric Root
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> Ray
Well, I watched more than half of it. Does she ever realize she's
wrong? If not, she's just like yet one more drunkard who can't get
off the sauce.
Eric Root
hersheyh
> On May 26, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> > Ray
>
> Mendelian inheritance data was fudged too, according to chi-square,
> which was developed after the fact.
Given the time the experiment was performed, it is most likely that
the "fudge" was unintentional bias due to stopping experiments when
the results clearly were closer to the 3:1 or 1:1 ratios than would
normally occur by chance if you set a pre-determined number of
results. Modern rules for experimental design had not been invented
yet.
> But a hoax does not tell us much
> about the validity of the underlying theory, does it? So what is your
> point?
Piltdown certainly was a hoax (and likely one that went too far, such
that the perpetrator was unlikely to come forward because, in science,
unlike in creationist circles, honesty is valued). It was not widely
accepted at the time. And was shown to be a hoax more than 50 years
ago. Importantly, it was a hoax perpetrated on *scientists*, not on
*creationists*. So it was discovered to be a hoax by using the
methodology of science, not by resorting to Biblical analysis or
personal revelation.
The problem that creationists have is not with the odd and relatively
rare hoax (and occasional fraud) perpetrated in science on scientists,
since those frauds rarely survive long. The problem that creationists
have is with all the legitimate fossil evidence and legitimate genetic
evidence and legitimate experimental evidence of natural selection
that they desperately want to be 'frauds' but aren't.
There are, of course, quite a number of *creationist* hoaxes and
frauds (meeting the criteria of being a hoax that has a profit
motive). The repeated findings of the "true" Ark in Turkey. Carved
man footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. Fossil human penises.
Claims that the second law of thermodynamics (or whatever) disprove
evolution. "Creation Science." "Intelligent Design." In fact, it is
hard to find any creationist 'evidence' that isn't a hoax or a fraud.
The difference is that creationists have no way to tell whether
something is or isn't a hoax or fraud other than whether it agrees or
disagrees with their interpretation of some ancient text. So even the
stupidest, most egregious, most obvious and amateurish creationist
fraud finds a willing sucker (er, believer) willing to accept it as
'the truth'.
>
> -Thor
JTEM
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud"
The hoax was a fraud?
So... double negative... it wasn't a hoax?
Man, you're crazy.
Burkhard
Difficult one. Wordnet lists them indeed as equivalent expressions
(they avoid the expression "synonymous" since strictly speaking, no
two words are ever fully synonymous) But I wonder. In 1997 a 14-year-
old student, gathered petitions to ban "Dihydrogen monoxide" as the
basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We? This became
known as the "Dihydrogen monoxide hoax". Would you really say this was
a fraud? I wouldn't. and I also would call April Fool" pranks hoaxes,
not frauds.
Having said that, Piltdown seems to me to be closer to a fraud than a
hoax. In a hoax, part of the idea is to reveal eventually the truth
and poke fun at the duped. My main suspect is Charles Dawson, and even
if he did not profit financially, he did profit in terms of social
cudos and standing,
odin
And what about the Shroud of Turin? It was radiocarbon dated to the
Middle Ages. Roman Catholic upper management is careful not to make
any clear cut claims on it. But the pope has said that it is an
important tool of faith regardless of its authenticity. You just got
to love that level of masterful deception.
J. J. Lodder
> On May 26, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
> >
> > Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
> >
> > Ray
>
> Teach the controversy. Just someone that has bent over and taken the
> switch scam because that is all they have left. When all you have is
> an obfuscation scam it may be time to rethink your beliefs? She talks
> about evidence, but what does she have? Same double standard that we
> see constantly around here. Pitman claimed that he had the evidence
> supporting his alternative to common descent that was as good as the
> evidence science had, but he always ran from that claim. Some people
> understand what the evidence is and still can't deal with the fact
> that they have none to support their views. She didn't even know that
> she was talking about Haekel with her embryo example. This was
> surprising since she seems to be thoroughly indoctrinated with the
> scam junk and should have known better.
More than that, Piltdown was predicted to be a fraud,
(by less blinded men) on basis of the theory of evolution,
because it couldn't be fitted into any plausible scheme.
And indeed, when better techniques became available
this prediction was confirmed.
Jan
hersheyh
> On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
> Desertphile:
>
> "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
>
> Howard Hershey:
>
> "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. �Look up the meaning of
> the two words."
>
> As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
"Hoax" and "fraud" are NOT synonymous. Look up the words.
> I wonder how long it will take both Desertphile and Howard to admit
> that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or qualification?
>
> Here is an example of admitting honest mistake without excuse or
> qualification:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c0b34633eecb731
>
> Ray
Fraud: comes from latin meaning a cheating, deceit, or error.
Meaning: a deceit,deception,trick artifice by which the right or
interest of another is injured, strategem intended to obtain some
undue advantage. Synonyms: deceit, artifice, cheat, deception,
imposture, swindle, treachery, treason.
Hoax: a corruption of hocus. Something done for deception or mockery,
a trick played off in sport, a practical joke. As a verb: to deceive,
to play a trick upon for sport, without malice.
So, *correctly* speaking, as you can see above, intent is important in
distinguishing between 'fraud' and 'hoax'. Of course, it is entirely
possible to conflate the two words either by ignorance or by sloppy
talk or imprecise writing and there may be cases where it is hard to
tell which word is better. I've done that myself. There *have* been
actual *frauds* that have been perpetuated upon science wrt fossils.
The most recent was an Indian or Pakistani scientist who bought
fossils and claimed to have found them in an area that could not be
readily studied by others. He benefited by publication and
advancement. In the case of Piltdown, it is likely that the only
person who 'benefited' was the 'dupe' of what was most likely a
practical joke or hoax, not a fraud (unless the perpetrator was the
finder -- the perpetrator was never known and most people who have
studied it think it unlikely that the finder was the maker of
Piltdown). But Piltdown could have been a fraud if the intent of the
perpetrator was *malicious*, such as the intent to ruin the career or
reputation of the finder or to falsely give England a pre-modern human
that it lacked. That is a possibility, but it is more likely that
Piltdown was a practical joke that went too far.
That said, creationist 'hoaxes' can all be considered to be at least
"pious frauds" -- a fraud designed to accomplish [what the perpetrator
considers] a good end. Some, of course, are also done for the money
and to rip off the gullible believers.
Ray Martinez
Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of carbon dating knows that it
does not work on cloth; especially on a Cloth that contains a long
list of contaminants known to have been pressed or fused into its
fibers.
Ray
Ray Martinez
The "double negative" is not in dispute (I quoted Dawkins in the
YouTube).
The point was that certain Darwinists here actually thought that
"hoax" and "fraud" were not synonyms.
How you could miss the point is baffling.
Ray
J. J. Lodder
> On 27 May, 20:13, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 27, 12:05 pm, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 27, 2:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 26, 8:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
> >
> > > > > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec)
> >
> > > > > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
> >
> > > > Desertphile:
> >
> > > > "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
> >
> > > > Howard Hershey:
> >
> > > > "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. Look up the meaning of
> > > > the two words."
> >
> > > > As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
> >
> > > Is that your point? To start a semantic quibble? What a waste.
> >
> > Two people saying that hoax is not fraud when both are synonymous is
> > not quibbling.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Difficult one. Wordnet lists them indeed as equivalent expressions
> (they avoid the expression "synonymous" since strictly speaking, no
> two words are ever fully synonymous) But I wonder. In 1997 a 14-year-
> old student, gathered petitions to ban "Dihydrogen monoxide" as the
> basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We? This became
> known as the "Dihydrogen monoxide hoax". Would you really say this was
> a fraud? I wouldn't. and I also would call April Fool" pranks hoaxes,
> not frauds.
>
> Having said that, Piltdown seems to me to be closer to a fraud than a
> hoax. In a hoax, part of the idea is to reveal eventually the truth
> and poke fun at the duped. My main suspect is Charles Dawson, and even
> if he did not profit financially, he did profit in terms of social
> cudos and standing,
It clearly was a hoax, and the hoaxer did try to give the game away.
But when even his 'pleistocene cricket bat' was swallowed
without inducing a shade of doubt he seems to have given up on it,
Jan
RAM
This is TO you know.
odin
OK Ray. Is this a hoax or a fraud or both or neither:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
hersheyh
That is because, strictly speaking, they are not synonyms. They have
similar meanings, and it may not always be possible to tell which is
more appropriate in a particular case, but fraud involves an element
of intent and malice that hoax does not. Selling a 'piece of the True
Cross' is typically a fraud. An April Fool's picture purporting to
show a fossil T. rex in the process of eating a fossil human is a
hoax. A carved human footprint in a slab with a dinosaur footprint
can be a pious fraud if it is not being sold, but merely claimed as
evidence that evolution is false.
Burkhard
What on earth gives you that idea?
see e.g.
OR Sellers: Radiocarbon Dating of Cloth from the'Ain Feshkha Cave
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951
AJT Jull, DJ Donahue, M Broshi, E Tov: Radiocarbon dating of scrolls
and linen fragments from the Judean Desert
Radiocarbon, 1995
I Carmi, D Sega: Radiocarbon dating of early islamic textiles in
the'Arava valley
l - 'Atiqot, 1995
AJ Jull, DJ Donahue: Radiocarbon dating with accelerators: methods and
application to textiles
- Orientations, 1990
AJT Jull : Using accelerator mass spectrometry for radiocarbon dating
of textiles
- Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1997
>especially on a Cloth that contains a long
> list of contaminants known to have been pressed or fused into its
> fibers.
Well, it makes things more difficult, but proper laboratory practice
should be able to deal with most o fit.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RAM
<ramat...@gmail.com>:
>On May 26, 9:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>
>> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>>
>> Ray
>
>That was taught fifty years ago when I was in college. Your learning
>curve needs adjustment.
From a horizontal line?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
>Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
Yes; so? Who do you think exposed the fraud?
Bob Casanova
>On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
Aha, so your post was about *semantics*!
Well, it's a subtle point, but I believe Ernest Major put it
fairly clearly:
"A fraud is performed for gain (usually financial, but I'd
guess that political gain qualifies). Since it is uncertain
who committed the Piltdown forgery, and for what motivation,
it's not clear to me that it graduates from hoax to fraud."
As I said, it's a subtle distinction, so you probably won't
understand it.
And now that you agree with Dawkins (an atheist), does that
make you a non-Christian? Bored people probably have no
interest in knowing...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by cassandra
<cassand...@gmail.com>:
Yes, he is.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Spotted Owl
<geo...@hotmail.com>:
>On May 27, 3:53�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>
>> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>>
>> Ray
>
>Hang on, we all agree with Ray on this. Doesn't that make either Ray
>an atheist, or all the atheists on T.O. Christians?
To be fair, maybe Ray doesn't agree that it was a fraud;
after all, every other time he's referenced Dawkins it was
to disagree with him.
So, Ray, you think Piltdown Man was real?
haiku jones
Ray Martinez: upgrading reality, one feature at a time.
(still waiting for Ray to declare me a full head of hair)
Ron O
There was dissent, but actually there were two camps. The presapient
theorists that accepted Piltdown thought that big brains had preceded
other human attributes such as upright walking. Even after Piltdown
bit the dust the presapient camp persisted into the 1970's and
probably 1980s for the holdouts for ramapithicus being on the hominid
lineage. I think Richard Leaky was one of the last major hold outs.
The last hurrah was the 1470 fiasco where Leaky wanted the large
brained specimen to be 2.3 or 2.7 million years old instead of 1.8
like the other fossil types of animals found in the same strata.
These are the guys that were dismissing fossils such as Lucy because
she didn't have a big enough brain to be such a recent ancestral
type. Piltdown was an exaggeration of the type specimen that they
expected.
Ron Okimoto
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>
>> >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>>
>> Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
>Desertphile:
>
>"What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
If you'd like to equivocate on definitions, feel free, but it's rather
pointless. It's as silly as distinguishing between lying and
prevarication.
Stuart
> On May 26, 9:53 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> '50's, and many suspected from the start??
>
> Speaking of hoaxes, what ever happened to that bit about some schmucks
> claiming to have found Noah's Ark a few months ago? Geee. They seem
> awful quiet. I wonder why that is?
>
They got paid already?
Stuart
Stuart
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
Yup. But we have known that for 50 years.
This is waht creationists are deuced too.. dredging up 50 year old
ordinance that no longer has any pop.
Should we list the frauds committed in the name of religion?
Stuart
Desertphile
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
> >
>
> > Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
> >
> > Ray
>
> TRUMAN BEATS DEWEY! TITANIC SINKS!! HINDENBURG BURNS!!!
They're hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!
> Film whenever we feel like it.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 12:05�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 27, 2:31�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
> >
> > > > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
> >
> > > > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
> >
> > > Desertphile:
> >
> > > "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
> >
> > > Howard Hershey:
> >
> > > "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. �Look up the meaning of
> > > the two words."
> >
> > > As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
> >
> > Is that your point? �To start a semantic quibble? �What a waste.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Two people saying that hoax is not fraud when both are synonymous is
> not quibbling.
"Fraud" denotes unlawful gain; "hoax" does not.
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
> >
> > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
> >
> > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
> Desertphile:
> "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
Yes, hoax: not fraud.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
>
> Howard Hershey:
>
> "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. Look up the meaning of
> the two words."
>
> As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
Yes, as if, which they are not.
> I wonder how long it will take both Desertphile and Howard to admit
> that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or qualification?
If you ever point out a mistake I have made, I will admit I have
done so within seconds of my reading your correction. (Note that I
have done this many times in the past.)
So.... if you see any mistakes I have made, by all means do point
them out. I will very much appreciate it.
> Here is an example of admitting honest mistake without excuse or
> qualification:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c0b34633eecb731
>
> Ray
JTEM
odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK Ray. Is this a hoax or a fraud or both or neither:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
I'd say that it was neither, that it qualified as
an experiment.
...it may even fall under "I can't tell you
but I can show you."
I'm not sure if it bears comparison to Piltdown
man. The forger has never been conclusively
identified, so establishing motives is pretty much
impossible.
Boikat
> On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> > Well, yes, everyone knows that. Your point was?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
> Desertphile:
>
> "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
>
>
> Howard Hershey:
>
> "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. �Look up the meaning of
> the two words."
>
> As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
>
> that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or qualification?
>
> qualification:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c0b34633eecb731
Or that you are arguing symantics?
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
A slightly more involved scenario has this as a "counter-hoax" perpetrated
by a young scientist trying obliquely to warn the more senior scientists
that they were falling for the hoax/fraud of the original Piltdown find.
Dawson had, apparently, committed frauds in the recent past in order to gain
status in the local historical and scientific society, a record which puts
him higher up the list of suspects: motive, method, and opportunity...
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
There is a lot of suspicion that the original was a fraud (as opposed to a
hoax) in the sense that the perp was seeking recognition in order to gain
social advancement, e.g., to become an FRS or similar. (I'm going by the
narrow differences spelled out by other posters.) The book "Piltdown
Man--the Secret Life of Charles Dawson" by Miles Russell is a detailed look
at Dawson's life and career. Though it uses the word "hoax" in the
subtitle. Dawson remains the best candidate for the person who set up the
Piltdown affair.
Geode
> On May 27, 1:39�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 7:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > > Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
>
>
if he loves to speak of hoaxes, the has to read the story of Jesus to
relax.
He was a man-god and was performing miracles.
He descended from king David of the Jews, and to prove that point they
wrote two different genealogies totally incompatible. Not only on the
names of Jesus ascendants were different on each genealogy, but also
on the number of ascendants between Jesus and David were different.
For one genealogy has 35 more generations than the other.
Geode
.
Geode
> any clear cut claims on it. But the pope has said that it is an
> important tool of faith regardless of its authenticity. You just got
> to love that level of masterful deception.
the shroud of Turin is also a pleasant pious fraud. If this guy loves
hoaxes, he has to go to Turin to worship the holy shroud.
Geode
.
Geode
> list of contaminants known to have been pressed or fused into its
> fibers.
>
> Ray
There is not any problem to perform miracles for a god.
Even if the shroud of Turin were made of synthetic fibers, like
rayon, vinyl or polyester, it could be authentic and miraculous
shroud.
For the validity of a relic is measured by the spiritual gifts the
faithful receives if he prays with true faith.
So, the shroud of Turin is not a fraud. It is a miracle. What if
Jesus were flying in helicopter, or by plane two thousand years ago?
Is nothing more than a fucking miracle! Nothing is impossible for god
almighty!
Geode
.
Geode
This is happening on a daily basis. There is a lot of trash in our
culture.
Geode
.
Geode
carbon dating is not any good if it uncovers some pious frauds.
Geode
.
Geode
It is not any miracle that different anthropologist could have
different ideas on a matter where there are so little knowledge. Each
scientist could have his own favorite paradigm. When can not throw
the holy books of Christians to the trash bin, and started to make a
new holy books with the opinions of scientists.
A theory that looks true now, or some parts of theory, can be
considered in error in the next century.
Geode
.
Geode
they had discovered the Noah's Ark all right, with the eyes of their
faith.
They even can see just now Jesus resurrecting a second time.
Geode
.
John Vreeland
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
>Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
>Ray
Science: a self-correcting process of determinig how nature works.
Creationism: a process of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Ark.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
gregwrld
> On May 27, 12:05�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 2:31�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> > > > >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
> > > Desertphile:
>
> > > "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
>
> > > Howard Hershey:
>
> > > "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. �Look up the meaning of
> > > the two words."
>
> > > As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> not quibbling.
>
> Ray
Don't you have something better to do?
You know, like writing your imaginary
book.
gregwrld
Mark Isaak
> On May 27, 2:10�pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> And what about the Shroud of Turin? It was radiocarbon dated to the
>> Middle Ages.
>
> Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of carbon dating knows that it
> does not work on cloth; especially on a Cloth that contains a long list
> of contaminants known to have been pressed or fused into its fibers.
Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of carbon dating knows that it
works perfectly well on any cloth that a mediaeval or ancient shroud
might be made out of. Are you suggesting that the Shroud was really made
out of nylon?
As for the contaminants, there is such a thing as cleaning.
And then, of course, there is the confession of the person who made the
Shroud. . . .
The Shroud of Turin is an idol for people who lack faith in a god. There
is no other reason to venerate it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Oh, Ray! You've claimed several times that no "Real
Christian" (TM) would ever agree with an atheist about
anything. That noted, you really need to address this:
>On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>>
>>> >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
<snip>
>And now that you agree with Dawkins (an atheist), does that
>make you a non-Christian?
hersheyh
Such as? Dating works on natural fibers (made and manufactured from
plants or animals fed on plants). There might be a minor bit of
surface contamination from more recent dates, but none that would
drastically affect the date by more than 1000 years too recently. Or
are you, yet again, claiming knowledge of things you are actually
completely ignorant about?
>
> > Ray
>
> There is not any problem to perform miracles for a god.
> �Even if the shroud of Turin were made of synthetic fibers, like
> rayon, vinyl or polyester, it could be authentic and miraculous
> shroud.
And god would also have to perform the miracle of getting the 'old'
carbon of synthetic fibers (made from oil) to date to as *recently* as
the middle ages or even CE 35 or so.
Stuart
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>
> Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
> Ray
The creationist rubes sing this song, doo-dah, doo-dah
The Piltdown hoax is 100 years old doo-dah, doo-dah..
Goin' to blab all night, goin' to blab all day..
I bet my sanity on an old exposed ruse
Its the only argument I have to use...
Doo-doo-doo-dah-day...
Stuart
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Stuart
<bigd...@gmail.com>:
While I applaud the sentiment, you *really* need to work on
the scansion... ;-)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:03:48 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>Oh, Ray! You've claimed several times that no "Real
>Christian" (TM) would ever agree with an atheist about
>anything. That noted, you really need to address this:
>
>>On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>><pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>On May 26, 8:35�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>>>
>>>> >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>
><snip>
>
>>And now that you agree with Dawkins (an atheist), does that
>>make you a non-Christian?
Oh, my...
Seems Ray is No True Christian, and just realized it.
Mike Lyle
>> I wonder how long it will take both Desertphile and Howard to admit
>> that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or
>> qualification?
>>
>> Here is an example of admitting honest mistake without excuse or
>> qualification:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c0b34633eecb731
>
> Or that you are arguing symantics?
>
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
>>> Having said that, Piltdown seems to me to be closer to a fraud than
>>> a hoax. In a hoax, part of the idea is to reveal eventually the
>>> truth and poke fun at the duped. My main suspect is Charles Dawson,
>>> and even if he did not profit financially, he did profit in terms of
>>> social cudos and standing,
>>
>> It clearly was a hoax, and the hoaxer did try to give the game away.
>> But when even his 'pleistocene cricket bat' was swallowed
>> without inducing a shade of doubt he seems to have given up on it,
>>
>> Jan
>
> A slightly more involved scenario has this as a "counter-hoax"
> perpetrated by a young scientist trying obliquely to warn the more
> senior scientists that they were falling for the hoax/fraud of the
> original Piltdown find.
>
> Dawson had, apparently, committed frauds in the recent past in order
> to gain status in the local historical and scientific society, a
> record which puts him higher up the list of suspects: motive,
> method, and opportunity...
For what it's worth, and entirely irrelevantly, I have W.E.Le Gros
Clark's drawing-compass --or "pair of compasses" as we were taught to
call it or them. I seem to have lost other instruments.
--
Mike.
Perplexed in Peoria
> On May 26, 8:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:53:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
>>
>> >Richard Dawkins: "Piltdown hoax was an outright fraud" (2 min 15 sec).
>>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/52de9eece87ef344
>
> Desertphile:
>
> "What fraud? The article is about the Piltdown Man hoax...."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/09585aaf7889a2e9
>
> Howard Hershey:
>
> "Piltdown was a *hoax* and not a fraud, Ray. Look up the meaning of
> the two words."
>
> As if "hoax" and "fraud" are not synonymous!
>
> that they have made an honest mistake without excuse or qualification?
Or maybe they can team up and get Dawkins to admit his mistake. ;-)