Malarkeyman11 probably understands just fine, but his blind adherence to his bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE demands that he LIE to himself, the children he "teaches" and the world in general.I wrote:
It has also been explained to you that the Piltdown Man didn't support evolutionary theory.
It did for over 40 years.
Then why did German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich dismiss the finding as a “chimera” long before the fluoride analysis proved it to be a hoax?
Why did George G. MacCurdy dismiss the whole thing in his two-volume opus in 1924?
In 1944, 11 years before the exposure, why did American anthropologist Sherwood Washburn write,“You could make sense of human evolution if you didn’t try to put Piltdown into it”?
In 1947, why did Sir Arthur Keith write that the discovery “presented students of human evolution with a conundrum. How are we to account for this unique type of early Pleistocene man in England while the rest of Europe, and apparently the whole of Asia, were inhabited by variants of the pent-browed type? If we could get rid of the Piltdown fossil fragments, then we should greatly simplify the problems of human evolution”?
The only reason Keith didn’t dismiss the whole thing altogether, as Weidenreich did, was because he saw that as the coward’s way out. He commented,“That is one way of getting rid of facts which do not fit into a preconceived theory: the usual way pursued by men of science is not to get rid of facts, but to frame theory to fit them.”
Keith then summarized a plausible theory of human evolution beginning in Africa, but admitted that it “leaves unexplained such an aberrant type as that of Piltdown.” That’s on page 231. On page 264, he was still wondering,“What became of the Piltdown race?”
And who finally exposed the Piltdown Man as a hoax? Not Creationists, obviously.
And furthermore, Kenneth Miller commented that the techniques which exposed Piltdown Man were the same techniques which authenticated Lucy. So which would you rather do, dismiss Lucy or consider Piltdown Man?
I hope you understand this time, but who am I kidding?
Understanding and thinking is an inconvenience, but LYING is a prerequisite to being a "fundamentalist christian or muslim creationist".