Since Britain is all the rage, let's discuss this fascinating bit of possible nationalism.
isnt it a hoax though?
>>1327793
Yeah, that's why I called it a case of nationalism. The only scientists who wholeheartedly believed it to be authentic we're the British. America and France were rather skeptical.
>The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery.
>It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
Sick joke, lad.
>>1327818
But who did it still remains a mystery.
>>1327826
I had a discussion with my old science teacher. He didn't even bring it up.
>>1327830
Discussion about what?
>>1327839
Creationism. He was YEC and I was BioLogos. He had shown me a presentation that he had from another YEC, and he just skipped over it because we both knew it was fake and didn't see any point in bringing it up. It was a good day.
>pic related
A slide from the presentation.
>>1327842
I am basing my assumption on Jack Chick, who I mostly kinda assumes represent most Creationists pretty well.
Suppose I may be wrong about that.
>>1327860
He and Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) are actually considered hacks by most creationists. Even Ken Ham, the Godfather of YEC thinks he's incompetent.
Bump
