Pekin Man --------------------------------------------------------- [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Return to Creation vs Evolution ] [ FAQ ] --------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Helen on June 24, 1998 at 19:50:52: I emailed the entire thread of conversation with Jim Foley to Malcolm Bowden. Although I know I could have posted this response under his name, I consider it the better part of honesty to simply say that here is the email I received in return (again, for those who are unfamiliar with it, Penny is my nickname and the one used by friends and family. Helen is my given name and the one used formally and legally): _____________ Dear Penny, I am not surprised by the ridicule and the response. I give my replies below. 1. Penny said "All the first observers seemed to think that they were monkeys". This is not quite correct. They all claimed they were between apes and men BUT EVEN THEY HAD TO ADMIT THAT THEY LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE MONKEYS. This is not quite the same but a damning admission. 2. If they were the ape-men who kindled the huge fires that were found, why were ONLY skulls found? Yet they were all mixed up with other animals - deer etc. - that had obviously been caught for their meat and then their bones thrown into the fire with the ape-skulls they had also caught for their brains. ALL the bones and skulls found at this site were the remains of their hunting expeditions. This is what Boule suggested in his book. It is THIS question that evolutionists must answer and not try to dodge. 3. Foley quotes from Boule and Vallois's "Fossil men". But there were two editions and on page 98-99 of my book I show that Vallois toned down Boule's strong denunciation of Pekin Man in the second edition. Foley is probably quoting from VALLOIS'S French version of the second edition that was translated into English in 1957 - not from Boule. I therefore reject the accusation that I have lied to my readers. Foley, in common with many evolutionists, will naturally present only one side of the argument and quote the claims of their fellow evolutionists as being the ultimate truth. This is then presented in the mass media and counter-evidence is barred. Investigations by creationists then reveal that there are many more facts against them than for them. 3. The ten missing skeletons. Note how Foley tries to diminish it as a "journalistic screw-up". It was sufficiently well reported to have comments by many famous anthropologists around the world and Nature awaited an announcement by Black. In the dead silence that followed, why did not one single expert ask what had happened to the skeletons????? The find was obviously too damaging to the picture of the ape-men they had supposedly discovered. 4. "Bowden has not printed the evidence from Breuile,... and as he has so blatently misrepresented what Boule said, I am not likely to take his word for it." This is laughable. He has only to look up Breuil's paper to check my accuracy, but refuses to do so, simply wanting to slam me as much as possible. From this, every time Foley refers to some other person's view, I would want the exact quotation, reference etc. for EVERYTHING they say. Let him try to rise to the standard that he sets others with whom he disagrees! This is an old evolutionists ploy. 5. Boule indicated as clearly as he could that the skulls were the remains of the hunters dinners without daring to say that the Pekin man were not ape-men. Had he done so he would have been contradicting the Pekin fraudsters who had been given a lot of publicity by the media. Boule had to be cautious. 6. The 10 skeleton story was not just a journalists fabrication. It was reported by several papers at the same time. Nature reported that Black was going to make a big announcement about the discoveries on 29 December. This was not journalistic fabrication; they must have had something from Black to have said this. What happened? - on 28th he reported the finding of ONE skull and this was the ONLY skull referred to in the expected meeting (Ape p 96). 7. I am not impressd by Lubenow's book. He hardly deals with Peking man at all. Foley says Lubenow is "embarassed" by Pekin claims. Does he have a tape recording of this conversation - or can he get Lubenow to confirm that this is his opinion??? Why should I take Foley's word for it? (I have heard that phrase somewhere before I think). I have already corrected Lubenow in a recent issue of CRSQ for relying too much on statements by evolutionists as though they were accurate and unbiassed. Final (I am not troubling to reply to all that Foley says - this reply has taken too long as it is) - what is so laughable about the whole of the criticism of creationists made by evolutionists is that they are surrounded and swamped by the whole ocean of lies and deceptions that they have to parrot in order to defend evolution yet they canot see this for themselves - or so they would have us believe. I would firstly claim that they are not really seeking for TRUTH, but must maintain evolution as this is the only theory that allows them to get rid of God. Secondly, when you see the way in which they slide across the thin bits of the ice they are skating on it becomes obvious that they are not open to either rational thinking or being persuaded by facts and arguments. After one, possibly two such exchanges, I refuse to waste my time on them any further. One last thought - is Jim Foley related to the Dr. Foley who had a large part in the disappearance of the Pekin fossils at the time of Pearl Harbour -Ape p 120f ? Now that WOULD be interesting! Malcolm Bowden. --------------------------------------------------------- [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Return to Creation vs Evolution ] [ FAQ ]
Previous - UP - Next
This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.
Home Page |
Illustrations | What's New | Feedback | Search | Links | Fiction
Copyright © Jim Foley || Email me