Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Jimmy D]

And a knee joint that was found almost 2 miles away then claimed to belong to the same skeleton?????

On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, Lucy's discoverer, lectured at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. After showing slides of Lucy, Johanson showed another slide of a knee-joint, and gave reasons why this fossil helped confirm Lucy as a pre-human ancestor. Johanson was then asked by Roy Holt: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?". Johanson replied that the knee-joint was found "60-70 metres lower in the strata, and 2-3 kilometres away." When asked, "Then why are you so sure it [the knee-joint] belonged to Lucy?" Johanson answered, "Anatomical similarity." (Tom Willis, "'Lucy' Goes to College", CSA News, Cleveland MO, February 1987).

Only a femur was found with the bones of Lucy - not a knee joint. They are simply assuming - because they want it to be so, that the knee bone belongs to the same hominid as Lucy. Note that no knee joint was ever found with the bones of Lucy - likewise no femur was found with the knee joint. There is nothing even remotely connecting the two except pipe dreams and wishful thinking.

The claim is based upon the leg bone angle, yet present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are adept tree climbers. Even though the portion of the lower jaw was v-shaped totally unlike humans, but similar to an orangutan - they decided to claim it was more human-like than monkey like.

Pipe dreams and wishful thinking is what makes it similar to humans - not facts.

What does that quote of yours demonstrate? Donald Johanson published a book in 1981 detailing the find, including specifics of the discovery of the knee joint.... it's no secret or cover up, besides, plenty of fossils of A Afarensis have been found since then.

The claim of bipedality is based on much more than 'leg angle' and a knee joint as you would discover if you bothered reading any sources other than creationist websites. Deny it all you like but the scientific consensus is that A Afarensis walked upright and although it is very ape-like it also exhibits some human characteristics.

Anyway, I haven't really got time to discuss this today, I just wanted to balance your claims with the views of people who are actually experts in this field, Plenty information about A Afarensis is freely available if you are prepared to look beyond the creationist propaganda.

 

[Jimmy D]

There was once a whole caveman species based on a pig's tooth.

What are you talking about?

 

[Goonie]

What are you talking about?

He's referring to this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
A pigs tooth that was misidentified in 1922.

 

[Jimmy D]

He's referring to this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
A pigs tooth that was misidentified in 1922.

Cheers Goonie. So someone misidentified a tooth in 1922!?!? That can only mean one thing.... science is bad!!

 

[Hieronymus]

Cheers Goonie. So someone misidentified a tooth in 1922!?!? That can only mean one thing.... science is bad!!

It's not science at all, it's corrupt human nature.

A whole assumed species of hominids was based on a pig's tooth...

 

[Jimmy D]

It's not science at all, it's corrupt human nature.

A whole assumed species of hominids was based on a pig's tooth...

The misidentification of fossils is not at all uncommon. Exactly who rectified these mistakes anyway?

Here are another twenty or so early hominids are they all hoaxes as well?

 

[Hieronymus]

The misidentification of fossils is not at all uncommon. Exactly who rectified these mistakes anyway?

Here are another twenty or so early hominids are they all hoaxes as well?

I don't know, possibly.
There are many cases of wishful thinking, it's human nature.
There are blatant frauds too, which is just wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What are "unicorns"? What counts as a "unicorn"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hieronymus]

What are "unicorns"?

Animals with one horn.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Animals with one horn.

Oh, cool. A unicorn.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know, possibly.
There are many cases of wishful thinking, it's human nature.
There are blatant frauds too, which is just wrong.

Why do you keep mentioning frauds, as far as I know Piltdown man is the only genuinely fraudulent example (I'm willing to be corrected on that but none of the examples discussed so far has been in any way fraudulent). As far as I'm aware the Piltdown Man fraud was perpetrated by solicitor and was exposed through scientific investigation. If you're trying to use these 'frauds' to cast aspersions on the practices of paleontology or theory of Evolution in general you have failed.

Even if you can point out examples where scientists have lied in presenting evidence of the TOE it in no way furthers the creationist position.

This article claims:

Christian leaders alone stole more than $27 billion in 2009, according to one estimate. Such leaders steal more money than is spent annually on global religious missions. Narrowing it down even more, Utah, arguably the fraud capital of the United States, has a fraud industry “double the size” of its ski industry.

The fact that I'm quoting that doesn't mean I'd be so foolish as to argue that it demonstrates religion is wrong,
there are bad apples in every area of life but so what? As you say it's human nature.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't "keep mentioning frauds".
But people do fraudlent stuff, especially when they have an axe to grind.

Have a look here:
http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you keep mentioning frauds, as far as I know Piltdown man is the only genuinely fraudulent example (I'm willing to be corrected on that but none of the examples discussed so far has been in any way fraudulent).

Piltdown Man is the only one I can think of, but statistically there are bound to many within paleontology as a whole. You rightly point out that human nature being what it is there are rascals everywhere. There is no reason to expect palaeontology to be an exception. But, as in most other fields of human endeavour, the bad apples are a minority and the policing carried out by the rest minimise their impact.

What those who cry fraud seem to overlook - or perhaps not - is that the only way these "frauds" could distort the conclusions scientists reach would be if most paleontologists (and anthropologists and zoologists and botanists and microbiologists) were in on the scam. All of the above that I have met have seemed pretty decent chaps who would be unlikely to perpetrate or maintain such a hoax.

Finally, I've collected and studied hundreds of fossils myself. All my observations coincided with what I would expect were evolution true. I think if I were involved in maintaining fraudulent conclusions I would probable be aware of it.

Like you I should be interested to hear what specific frauds Heironymous has in mind.

 

[Hieronymus]

Nothing specific, just the fact that there are many "iffy at best" things put forward as evidence.
Check out the link i provided for specific cases:
http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't "keep mentioning frauds".
But people do fraudlent stuff, especially when they have an axe to grind.

Have a look here:
http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/

Reading back, you're quite right, it wasn't you who brought it up, I apologize . (You have equated mistakes with corruption and mentioned blatant unspecified frauds though.)

I agree with you about The Grand Experiment though, charging 25 bucks for that creationist nonsense and calling it science should be classed as fraud.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, i know ridicule is the last resort...
You must be rather desperate.

I e-mailed the guy about his costly DVD.
I told him he should share, not sell, but to no avail...
So i guess jerks can be right about things too...

 

[AV1611VET]

"Not properly identified" is very different than a hoax: a hoax means someone has been deliberately deceptive.

That is correct.

Personally, I don't think Lucy is a hoax; but I do think she is a lie of the devil.

 

[AV1611VET]

People need to stop spreading myths of some horse with a horn that did not develop and creep into Christianity until well into the middle ages from Pegan sources.

So you're buying the Hallmark version of what a unicorn looks like?

If so, do you also buy into their version of cherubim as being cute little babies, posing for their picture?

Or do you accept the Rose is Rose version of the cherub ... one of God's elite fighting angels?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Piltdown Man is the only one I can think of, but statistically there are bound to many within paleontology as a whole. You rightly point out that human nature being what it is there are rascals everywhere. There is no reason to expect palaeontology to be an exception. But, as in most other fields of human endeavour, the bad apples are a minority and the policing carried out by the rest minimise their impact.

What those who cry fraud seem to overlook - or perhaps not - is that the only way these "frauds" could distort the conclusions scientists reach would be if most paleontologists (and anthropologists and zoologists and botanists and microbiologists) were in on the scam. All of the above that I have met have seemed pretty decent chaps who would be unlikely to perpetrate or maintain such a hoax.

Finally, I've collected and studied hundreds of fossils myself. All my observations coincided with what I would expect were evolution true. I think if I were involved in maintaining fraudulent conclusions I would probable be aware of it.

Like you I should be interested to hear what specific frauds Heironymous has in mind.

Archaeoraptor was another one. It fooled the staff at Nat. Geo., but no professionals were taken in by it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

 

[sfs]

So you're buying the Hallmark version of what a unicorn looks like?

Not Hallmark -- the Unicorn Tapestries.