Re: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:31:10 GMT
On 7 May 2007 16:20:19 -0700, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:
On May 7, 3:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7 May 2007 15:25:32 -0700, m...@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:
On May 3, 3:36 pm, "Gerry Murphy" <gerrymur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<m...@xxxxxxxxxx>, the very living example of "breathtaking inanity", the
fundamental anti-particle of knowledge, polluted the internet when he wrote
in messagenews:mccoy-1178227712.496357.131720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>
McNumbskull,
It's that time again. It's now day 316 of the McPiltdown Death March.
Where's that citation to back up your claim that Piltdown man made it into
millions of textbooks in support of evolution?
Also, just a reminder. It has been pointed out repeatedly that not only do
no such textbooks exist but 'millions' is a ridiculous lie.
Even today any book that sold a million copies would be classified as a
bestseller. And you want to claim this for a textbook in the first half of
the twentieth century?
Carry on, McLaughingstock.
<We now return you to your regularly scheduled McCrap>
I'm McLaughing right now. The reason being is that there have been
textbooks made ever since the 20's that contain Piltdown Man.
Nobody doubts that. But not hundreds of thousands - let alone millions
- and none of them used Piltdown Man a important evidence for
evolution. In most cases the mention was little more than a footnote.
Garbage. There had to be hundreds of thousands. 30-40 years of impact
and several disciplines that used paleontology. You even had science
survey textbooks. This "footnote" you claim is not true. You can even
find charts and pictures.
Yes McClueless, you do spout garbage.
I was
even able to document a textbook that was made in 1952 that contains
Piltdown Man. So then, if only 10,000 textbooks were made a year,
Which there would not have been, even in a very good year. I think you
misunderstand how many textbooks sell - most have entire print runs of
just a few thousand copies.
Not so. If one university had only 50 textbooks per year per 30
years, what would that mean? But Piltdown appeared in books on
biology, science survey and other subjects.
Not so McClueless. You clearly don't understand the use of textbooks
books.
First, the school would have to adopt the book as part of their
course. Most books fail at that point. But, lets be generous and say
that 1 in 100 schools like the book enough to change their course to
us it. Each school, if we use the British system as a guide, would
require 16 copies divided by 3 = 5.5 copies.
Now, the average life of a school textbook would be? Well certainly
when I was at senior school in the late 60s we were often using books
that were 10 to 15 years old. So unless there was a real reason to
change the books carried on until they fell to pieces. I actually have
a book on organic chemistry that I put together from sections of
several originals that were being chucked out.
At university level you may rise to the dizzy heights of having one
book per student, and you may change the course a little more often.
But 50 books a year for 30 year??? Don't be stupid.
Remember that we are talking about a period with a major (long term
and very deep) recession which stopped most schools from buying books
for many years. We are also talking about a period with not one, but
TWO world wars. The period in question represents the worst possible
time for book publishing and selling which didn't recover until well
into the 60s.
Even today, you would be totally wrong to claim any textbook would
sell, in its entire life, hundreds of thousands of copies. Most have
very small print runs, some university level books would only print a
few hundred copies. You just do not understand publishing or the
schools usage of books. But there again, there is not much you do
understand - hence the well earned title of McClueless.
that would make how many textbooks? But then again, this is most
misleading. Because not only did Piltdown Man find itself into Biology
textbooks, but other types of textbooks. I have only been able to
obtain American textbooks, however, everyone knows that Europe, and in
particular England, had their own textbooks. So the million, or even
millions mark is not farfetched whatsoever.
It is McClueless. Especially given the time period involved.
The time is good.
Not for books.
10,000 is a rather small
amount. How many school districts are found in the US? How many in
Europe? Multiply that and figure how many textbooks they would need.
A typical school in the UK would have needed 16 copies.
How many schools are in the UK? How many in Europe in total? How many
in the US?
I should have added "if it used the book." Most, of course, didn't.
One for the
teacher and one for each pair of students. Many schools would have had
agreements with other schools in the are to share books so if school A
covered the book in the September term then school B could use the
copies in the January term and school C could have them for the Summer
term.
In the case of the USA school districts would have moved books around
- and anyway for a large part of that time many american schools did
not teach evolution.
A book company has to have a profit,
Well, they would like to. One reason textbooks are often VERY
expensive.
and apparently Piltdown Man
appeared in many different issues. And I found one college in
California that had Piltdown textbooks at least from the 20's.
Yep. You found one. How many copies did they buy and how many years
did they make them last?
JM
[excessive sig removed and reported as abuse.]
You are working hard to get another suspension from google.
--
Bob.
.
- References:
- Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: mccoy
- Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: Gerry Murphy
- Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: mccoy
- Re: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- From: mccoy
- Misrepresenting Creationism
- Prev by Date: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
- Next by Date: Re: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- Previous by thread: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- Next by thread: Re: Misrepresenting Creationism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading