CoS Creation Myth.. Piltdown Man?! (Series 2 Intro)
Mar 4th, 2010 by MrCult
While going through past lives, they visit a past live as PILTDOWN MAN!? I’ve read some weird crap while going through the Church of Scientology cult literature, but this takes the cake! This thing’s been revised twice since piltdown man was revealed to be a fraud, and they never changed it! WTF were they thinking? forget intelligent design, forget evolution, ignore that it’s a hoax, and go relive your life as piltdown man, like a good little Scientologist. It’s as if they decided to gift-wrap this section just for anon lulz.. okay Anonymous, have some fun. With all their money you’d think they could hire an editor to do fact checking. COS = EPIC FAIL (oh, and a fond welcome back to WBM/Xenutv1) Piltdown Man creation myth scientology anonymous hoax cult
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Creation
- Internet Marketing Cookbook Mar 2010: Product Creation for Lean …
- the left room» Blog Archive » Creation!
- Art/Creation | Pxleyes Photoshop Contest Watch
- Related Blogs on Intro
- Giavasan » Lost '60 Intro
- Should I Retake My Intro To Chem Course?
- Borderlands Intro | NowGadget
- Related Blogs on Myth..
- Marc Oromaner's Lost In Myth: “Sundown”—Temptation of the Dark …
- The Myth of Depression's Upside | World of Psychology
- Myth-Maker, Myth-Maker, make me a myth « Privilegeofparenting's Blog
- The Myth of SEO, and How to Really Get on the First Page of Google …
SCIENTOLOGY is a CRIMINAL MIND CONTROL MONEY CULT that was FABRICATED by a penniless, drug addicted wife beating tax cheater named L. Ron Hubbard and is now run by a violent alcoholic dwarf named DAVID MISCAVIGE, whom apparently beats his staff and humiliates people for his own amusement.
“The organization [Church of Scientology] clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflective of its founder LRH …. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements.” California Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge
rubbish, as I have just shown, cannibalism DID exist, and was WIDESPREAD, for which there IS extensive EVIDENCE.
QED
CONT….
“The earliest evidence for human cannibalism to date has been discovered at the lower paleolithic site of Gran Dolina (Spain), where about 780,000 years ago, six individuals of Homo antecessor were butchered. Other important sites include the Neanderthal site of Moula-Guercy France (100,000 years ago), the Middle Paleolithic Klasies River Caves (80,000 years ago in South Africa), Neolithic Fontbrégoua (4300-3700 BC, France)….”
You’re REALLY not very good at this, are you.
DUH
really.
“Recent biological evidence seems to suggest that cannibalism was not only not rare in ancient history, it was so common that most of us carry around genetic evidence of our bloodthirsty past…More recent identification of cannibalism is based primarily on the recognition of butchering marks on human bones…
CONT…
RUBBISH.
he says, “Man’s first manhood is found in PILTDOWN, a creature not an ape, yet not entirely a man.”
a
indef.art.
1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but UNSPECIFIED person or thing:
where he is NOT talking about a “singular individual” merely because YOU have “decided” this.
just WHERE do you get that from that statement that he is talking about a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL??
DUH
oh, what something “SHOULD” have been named, changing the historical context of the original name, is ENTIRELY YOUR OPINION.
opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
the “force of Gravity” is STILL in the vernacular, AND used even by PHYSICISTS out of CONVENIENCE, even THOUGH it is NOT considered to be a “FORCE” ANYMORE, dimwit.
Did I?
yea, but it was not KNOWN that it was FAKE at that TIME dimwit.
so he DIDN’T name it after a KNOWN “fake” species AT THAT TIME.
Sure, his claims are based on the supposed legitimacy on the recall of these events. However this recall is shown to be false when held up to scientific evidence – archeology etc.
It’s not a different point at all. It’s a foundational flaw.
yes, because your reaction was JUST that.
a KNEE JERK REACTION, without any “THOUGHT.”
a politician was recently FIRED for using the word “NIGGARDLY” in a public statement, due to JUST such a “KNEE JERK REACTION,” even though the word merely SOUNDS like “nigger” but has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATEVER to do with it, and is of SCANDINAVIAN origin.
and you call your “knee jerk reaction” INTELLECTUAL?
There is simply no archeological evidence that early hominids ATE their wives. Cannibalism came MUCH later.
There is, however plenty of archeological evidence to the contrary…
You’re really not very good at this, are you?
oh but he was NOT claiming that any “Piltdown Man” actually EXISTED, let ALONE “fit in with the structure of early hominid skulls.”
what part of, he was talking about an INCIDENT, and NOT any particular “SPECIES” DON’T YOU GET??
DUH
and the fact that the archaeological evidence is not consistent with this purported behavior is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POINT.
especially since he is not BASING this claim on “archaeological evidence, but on RECALL of the EVENTS THEMSELVES.
Changing the name of the incident would lend it a little more credibility. You’re right WHAT hominid species it was called is irrelevant, but naming it after a FAKE hominid species is completely relevant.
oh, but it’s NOT “lack of a better example. he could have easily said “the Homo Erectus incident,” and the point would have JUST as valid.
and the fact that at that time no one KNEW that Piltdown Man was false doesn’t change that. it might’ve happened that Homo ERECTUS may have turned out to be false, or not a human ancestor as WELL, as far as anyone knew THEN.
and which could STILL conceivably OCCUR.
so it WOULDN’T necessarily have been a “better example” at ALL.
not to mention IRRELEVANT.
Actually he doesn’t say a (singular of plural population) real piltdown man, but the (singular individual ) real piltdown man.
The wording speaks of the specific (fraudulent) fossil, not of a prehuman species. Calling piltdown REAL is an additional issue with the text. Piltdown wasn’t real, it was a hoax.
Convenience? If you’d said for lack of better example it would be more fitting. However once a better example was available, and the former was seen to be based on a fraudulent specimen, The incident name should have been changed.
The fact the LRH attempts to claim a scientific basis and left the term in the text shows a sloppy ethic in his work.
It’s not really a matter of opinion. Anyone familiar with Piltdown Man who were to read that book – without the blinders of faith – would have the same sort of knee jerk reaction I did.
“Piltdown? That was a hoax!”
The reason Piltdown wasn’t readily accepted by the scientific community – other than the fact the person that claimed to have discovered it refused to allow testing – is because the skull did NOT fit in with the numerous other fossils which were found.
Piltdown did NOT fit in with the structure of early hominid skulls.
The “similarity” which LRH claimed such beings had is not consistent with the fossil record, and the behaviors he notes are not consistent with archeological evidence.
and a rational reaction could ALSO be,
“I don’t really care that they never changed the APPELLATION of the INCIDENT, “Piltdown Man,” since I know he was NOT referring to any ACTUAL Piltdown Man, as he clearly STATES, but uses this name out of CONVENIENCE, and historical CONTINUITY, since that is the ORIGINAL name he gave the incident, and EXPLAINING his use of it.”
and YOUR OPINION that it was an “embarrassing flaw” which it WASN’T, because he EXPLAINS his use of this appellation, is just that.
your OPINION.
opinion |əˈpinyən|
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
and there is nothing wrong with not wanting one’s TECH CHANGED from something that WORKS to something that may NOT WORK, merely to satisfy YOU.
DUH
RUBBISH.
a COINED APPELLATION that he clearly SAYS is not “accurately” describing a PARTICULAR “species” is perfectly acceptable, since it only describes the INCIDENT!
and NOT EXACTLY the SPECIES engaged in the behavior IN the INCIDENT, which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT, and BESIDES THE POINT.
which apparently went right OVER YOUR head.
and the ACTUAL quote in the current book is, “It so named NOT because it is ACCURATELY the real Piltdown Man, but because it has some similarity.”
(caps mine)
SO??
what is wrong with THAT??
the APPELLATION “Piltdown Man was COINED for this particular INCIDENT, NOT for any particular SPECIES of pre human.
that is glaringly OBVIOUS, ESPECIALLY after he EXPLAINS that it is NOT a “REAL” “Piltdown Man.”
what an “genius.”
yea, but the “authenticity” or the lack of it vis a vis the Piltodown Man was entirely IRRELEVANT to the POINT HE WAS MAKING.
he was talking about RECALLING an INCIDENT(S), an OCCURRENCE. what one CALLS that incident is entirely BESIDES the POINT. he called have called it the “Homo Erectus incident” and the POINT would have been JUST as VALID nitwit.
and THAT is the primary point. he was not concerned with EXACTLY WHICH hominid it was!
what if Homo ERECTUS turned out to be wrong LATER??
DUH
yea, and what part of “NOT” as in “not because it is the real Piltdown Man” don’t you get???
not |nät|
adverb
3 used to express the negative of other words : not a single attempt was made | treating the symptoms and not the cause | How was it? Not so bad.
what a dimwit.