Science has to revise its view of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.

Due to one anthropologist grossly incorrectly carbon dating fossils that he found. Reiner Protsch von Zieten who is credited with showing that Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe was found by a German universtiy panel to have fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleages.

It appears that Protsch incorrectly dated fossils so that he could appear as if he has made monumental discoveries when in fact his finds were nothing important.

Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle.

"The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.

Protsch's work first came under suspicion last year during a routine investigation of German prehistoric remains by two other anthropologists.

Link

Quote///
The scientific fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" consists of: Neanderthal Man (many specimens);
Peking Man (several skulls);
the "men" called Java, Heidelberg, Piltdown (until 20 years ago), and the recent finds in Africa: all extremely fragmentary; and a few other fragments. The total fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" could be contained in a box the size of a small coffin, and it is from widely separated parts of the earth, with no reliable indication of even relative (much less "absolute") age, and with no indication whatever of how these different "men" were connected with each other, whether by descent or kinship.

Further, one of these "evolutionary ancestors of man," "Piltdown Man," was discovered 20 years ago to have been a deliberate fraud.
Now it is an interesting fact that Teilhard de Chardin was one of the "discoverers" of "Piltdown Man"-a fact which you will not find in most textbooks or in biographies of him. He "discovered" the canine tooth of this fabricated creature-a tooth which had already been dyed with the intent to cause deception regarding its age when he found it!


Genesis and Early Man
The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

An article entitled The Eternal Will was printed in The Christian Activist Volume 11, Fall/Winter 1997.
It was a lecture given by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism and his interpretation of the traditional teachings by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Genesis.
This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been excerpted for length by Frank Schaeffer.

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

IX
helen

Here's a little non-sensational information on the story.

skepdic.com...
On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).*

Apparently Protsch was a dipstick and no one believed him anyways.

EDIT:

It was also reported by Der Spiegel that Protsch, the son of a Nazi MP, is under investigation by Frankfurt University for ordering the shredding of documents housed in the anthropology department relating to gruesome scientific experiments done by the Nazis in the 1930s.

Oh, Snap!

Zip

[edit on 6/29/2005 by Zipdot]

Sorry to double post, and especially with so few comments on my quotes, but I really think this speaks for itself.

*note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."

Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

This came also from the URL I referenced above.

Zip

There's several factual errors that should be addressed.

Originally posted by helen670
Quote///
The scientific fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" consists of: Neanderthal Man (many specimens);

Neanderthal isn't a direct ancestor of ours. It hasn't been considered part of the homo sapiens line for about 20 years.
www.acube.org...

Peking Man (several skulls);

No such creature. There had tentatively been a specimin labeled that, but it was later found (better measurement) to be homo erectus. The site is still known as "Peking Man Site", however.
Link here

the "men" called Java,

aka Homo erectus... same bunch as "Peking Man"

Heidelberg,

Not part of the human line

Piltdown (until 20 years ago),

Your source is about 60 years out of date, there. Current investigations report that the fraud was perpetrated by by a Christian in order to prove the Flood and was debunked by scientists.

and the recent finds in Africa: all extremely fragmentary; and a few other fragments. The total fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" could be contained in a box the size of a small coffin,

This sounds suspiciously like something from a Jack Chick tract. In fact, we have over 40 Neanderthal individuals and a good number of the others you mentioned -- not to mention all the homo sapiens skeletons as well.

and it is from widely separated parts of the earth, with no reliable indication of even relative (much less "absolute") age, and with no indication whatever of how these different "men" were connected with each other, whether by descent or kinship.

...terribly, terribly out of date. We've found family groups, in fact.

Further, one of these "evolutionary ancestors of man," "Piltdown Man," was discovered 20 years ago to have been a deliberate fraud.

50 years ago (1953). Check the dates.

Now it is an interesting fact that Teilhard de Chardin was one of the "discoverers" of "Piltdown Man"-a fact which you will not find in most textbooks or in biographies of him.

It is, however, mentioned in every site that debunks the Piltdown man.

Now, since this document attacks scientists, let's turn the coin around and take a little closer look at something that's IGNORED by this writer:

The Piltdown hoaxer, de Chardin was a Christian.
www.crosscurrents.org...

He "discovered" the canine tooth of this fabricated creature-a tooth which had already been dyed with the intent to cause deception regarding its age when he found it!

With more than one fabricated fosssil, in fact, this Christian set out to deceive the scientific community. His hoax was uncovered within 30 years of its creation. This is not the first time that Christians have attempted to hoax scientists... the Paluxy man track is another of those where the perpetrator finally admitted fraud.

This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been
www.orthodoxinfo.com...

Rose needs to check his scholarship and his facts.



Edit: just shortened a link

[edit on 29-6-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Due to one anthropologist grossly incorrectly carbon dating fossils that he found.

This means that his work has to be re-examined, and scientist's, as usual, have to be careful with what results they accept and which they rigourously test.

Thankfully, science, as a methodology, has built in methods to deal with this sort of thing.

Originally posted by helen670
The scientific fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" consists of: Neanderthal Man (many specimens);
Peking Man (several skulls);
the "men" called Java, Heidelberg, Piltdown (until 20 years ago), and the recent finds in Africa:

The 'recent finds in africa' are a large number of specimins. The fossil evidence for man's orgins is quite a bit more than the one's listed.

Also, this new information, it relates to Neanderthal in Northern Europe, not the existence of Neanderthal, just neadnerthal in part of one part of Europe.

all extremely fragmentary; and a few other fragments.

They are not all extremely fragmentary.

The total fossil evidence for the "evolution of man" could be contained in a box the size of a small coffin,

This makes it sound like there's just enough for one individual or a little more, which is completely untrue.

Here is a good page that has lots of examples of the fossil evidence for the origings of man.
This is completely untrue.

Further, one of these "evolutionary ancestors of man," "Piltdown Man," was discovered 20 years ago to have been a deliberate fraud.

Yes, so why was it listed? Is that quote above from someone from way back before anyone knew that piltdown was a fraud?

Wait, 20 years? The skulls were discovered over several years starting in 1912, the fraud was finally discovered in 1953. Its been known to be a fraud for well over half a century.

a tooth which had already been dyed with the intent to cause deception regarding its age when he found it!

Yes, the materials were dyed and scratched and mocked up too look like extremely ancient fossils and obscur the age.

Teilhard was not one of the 'discovers' really, the first skulls were found by Charles Dawson in 1912, who contacted Teilhard and others to look for more. Teilhard didn't find the canine until 1913.

Here's a page about the issue.

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

What did you find most convincing about that essay?

reply to post by Nygdan

de Chardin found a Stegodon tooth, but the "confirmation" of Piltdown man came from a molar tooth and some skull fragments "found" by Dawson at another site, Sheffield Park in similar gravels to those at Piltdown. That was supposedly in January 1915 when de Chardin was in France serving as a stretcher bearer on the Western Front. But de Chardin claimed to have visited that site in 1913 with Dawson, an inconsistency spotted by S.J Gould and by Kenneth Oakley. This claim was in 1953 or 54, after the fraud had been exposed.

Oakley dismissed it as a lapse in de Chardin's memory, Gould was convinced it was evidence of de Chardin's complicity.

But there was a third site, Barcombe Mills, this was found in June 1913, not long before de Chardin returned to France. If de Chardin went with Dawson to a site other than the Piltdown Common one, then that was probably it. de Chardin returned to France in September 1913 and never saw Dawson again.

de Chardin is said to have only once mentioned his involvement with Piltdown after about 1920, and it is possible in my opinion that he suspected something was wrong. After the farus was exposed, he claimed to have seen Dawson doing something at the site which puzzled him, but thought he could have been mistaken. It is clear that he was not present at the sites at all material times and may have been reluctant to make any public statements about it for fear of implicitly accusing Dawson or Woodward of fraud or negligence on little evidence.

Shortly before returning to France, de Chardin met William K. Gregory of the American Museum of Natural History in New York at Woodward's London home. It was Gregory who mentioned a rumour of fraud in the American Museum Journal soon afterward, only to dismiss it.

Source - Unravelling Piltdown, by John Evangelist Walsh

well, it looks like the newsmakers should take crash-courses in general science (high-school level would be great ) before publishing their "work"