Where are those "500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown man" that creationists claim exist?
Posted a few minutes ago:
"Why were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown man when it was a fraud?"
Let's see a list of those 500 dissertations, if you please.
Actually, I'll settle for five.
- secretsauceLv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
Whoa. Paul M was caught in a wee bit of falsehood, and when called on it, corrected it!
As that is almost completely unheard of among Creationists, Paul is to be commended!
But Paul, you still utterly miss the point!
Merely correcting the words "500 doctoral dissertations", to "500 articles" fails to notice how the difference destroyed your claim! Your claim was that science journals and science departments at universities are as infested by frauds as the Creationist community is. Referring to these as "500 doctoral dissertations" is claiming that up to 500 PhD.s were granted based on work on Piltdown! (That is what a "doctoral dissertation" is ... it is THE topic a Ph.D. candidate chooses to research and defend to qualify for their doctorate.) That was the basis of your claim that modern universities are just "diploma mills"!
That these were merely "articles" destroys that point. Were these even scientific articles, published in scientific journals, and written by actual scientists? How many of these articles were questioning, doubting, or outright *debunking* Piltdown?
But the bigger point is that you have to go back to pre-1950s Encyclopedia Britannica as your evidence of rampant fraud within the science community? And then you use that to imply that the entire scientific community is corrupt or fraudulent and that modern science departments are "diploma mills"!
All this "proves" is that you have nothing but contempt for science and for universities!
And even after you have been caught spouting falsehoods as if they are fact, because you fail to check your "facts" before repeating them ... you continue to do so! When you claim that Piltdown was accepted "even by the Leakeys" you reveal how little you check your "facts"! Louis Leakey was always suspicious of Piltdown, and wrote in 1934:
"If the lower jaw really belongs to the same individual as the skull, then the Piltdown man is unique in all humanity. . . It is tempting to argue that the skull, on the one hand, and the jaw, on the other, do not belong to the same creature. Indeed a number of anatomists maintain that the skull and jaw cannot belong to the same individual and they see in the jaw and canine tooth evidence of a contemporary anthropoid ape." Louis Leakey - Adam's Ancestors - 1934
That was the year, incidentally, that Mary Nicol *became* a "Leakey" (by marrying Louis), and none of the Leakey chlidren was older than 13 years old by the time Piltdown was exposed 1953. So just tossing out casually that Piltdown was accepted as "fact" by "the Leakeys" is just flat-out bogosity.
But again ... *NOBODY* thinks that a hoax exposed in 1953 (!!) is relevant ... EXCEPT CREATIONISTS! Why? Because that is the best and pretty much ONLY example they have of this rampant "fraud" they claim exists within the scientific community.
- SinjariLv 610 years ago
Three things, Paul:
1. Learn the difference between a doctoral dissertation and a article or memoir.
2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.
3. Bend over.
- grayureLv 710 years ago
I can't give you that. However, i do have a couple of science textbooks, one on palaeontology and another more general one, which do mention Piltdown Man before it was debunked, and they both say that it's very difficult to fit it into the picture that had already been built up, so if there are any, wouldn't it be interesting if they said something along those lines too? Maybe creationists should be careful what they wish for.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I'd settle for the proper definition of "doctoral dissertation" from anyone making this claim...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Trivia JockeyLv 410 years ago
I would like to add that the fact there was a hoax does not invalidate all the rest of the evidence we've gathered over time. Evolution has GADS of evidence in its favor that has not been falsified.
- Anonymous10 years ago
My bad. " More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man." [Nature editors 1954; Harter 1996] In 1946, 44 years after the fraud was accepted as science, by even the Leakeys, Encyclopedia Britannica still had an article written about the glory of Piltdown Man..
So, I, a non-scientist, corrected my error within 15 minutes, but science failed to correct their multitude of errors and frauds concerning Piltdown Man in 44 years. Ummmm, one question, who's your daddy?
- TomoLv 610 years ago
Dishonest claims made by creationist?....... I'm shocked to the core!
- gutbucketLv 710 years ago
The same place their god is: in the imagination.
- Edward OLv 710 years ago
You won't get 500 pro and/or con answers; however I'll get 2 points.