another forgery from EVOS

[Jet Black]

I thought that might be appreciated

 

[napajohn]

Nope, greed causes many to succumb to fraud napajohn. Self-righteousness and idol worship are the plagues of creationism. Surely you already know that by now.

IOW, the fossil is still evidence of a transitional species between birds and dinosaurs...something that creationism says is impossible.

Good work napajohn. With friends like you, creationism certainly doesn't need any enemies.

BTW, are you going to address my points on the racism threads, or can we assume that you have conceded the points?

Actually can you repeat your question(S)..i may not have caught your issues..
please cite some sources Mike where this debate is raging..i have given you 1 data, another was the introduction of a fictional creature called pro-avis that was suppose to show this link..archaeoptyrix is even being seen by most paleontologist as a bird..so where am I lying Mike...Idol Worship , Mike?
where can you make that claim..You claim to be a Christian but so far all your responses to me have been baseless accusations...if the tone of the message seems to indicate that i seriously question your faith in the Bible, then yes, I seriously do...Remember what it says
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
how does this fit in your faith Mike? or this
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Mike, you don't believe in the Words of moses, why should you believe in Jesus?

 

[Arikay]

Notice how napa has completly ignored comments on the OP and gone straight to the attack, accusing Mike of Idol worship and questioning his christianity.

Napa, maybe you can stop with the attacks and address responses to the OP.

Please explain to us why its a bad thing when scientists catch a fraud, that is only months old, then stop using it as evidence. As I fail to see the problem with honest science.

Actually can you repeat your question(S)..i may not have caught your issues..
please cite some sources Mike where this debate is raging..i have given you 1 data, another was the introduction of a fictional creature called pro-avis that was suppose to show this link..archaeoptyrix is even being seen by most paleontologist as a bird..so where am I lying Mike...Idol Worship , Mike?
where can you make that claim..You claim to be a Christian but so far all your responses to me have been baseless accusations...if the tone of the message seems to indicate that i seriously question your faith in the Bible, then yes, I seriously do...Remember what it says
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
how does this fit in your faith Mike? or this
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Mike, you don't believe in the Words of moses, why should you believe in Jesus?

 

[Mish]

If he replied to the answers, that would make him wrong, napajohn is never wrong (catchy slogan, huh), ergo he will not reply.

 

[napajohn]

Notice how napa has completly ignored comments on the OP and gone straight to the attack, accusing Mike of Idol worship and questioning his christianity.

Napa, maybe you can stop with the attacks and address responses to the OP.

Please explain to us why its a bad thing when scientists catch a fraud, that is only months old, then stop using it as evidence. As I fail to see the problem with honest science.

Notice how you lie ,Arikay..i didn't ignore the question..i just asked him to rephrase it since i don't spend my time following everyones threads here...tell you what Arikay, why don't you ask Mike's questions for him..since you say i'm ignoring his comments..where does it say that it was only months old?...LIAR..
I know reading is not your strength Arikay..here I'll spell it out for you and this is from the article:

"The specimen, known as Archaeoraptor, captured the attention of the scientific world when unveiled by the National Geographic Society, US, in October 1999."
this article was in March of 2001..so this hoax has been going on for years (if you know anything Arikay) since pronouncements are usually preceeded by years or months of analysis...

Again Arikay, caught you in a LIE..but based on your history with me thats par for the course..whats next Arikay, you misquoted yourself?...

 

[Aggie]

Actually, it's not at all clear that Archaeoraptor was a deliberate forgery rather than just a mistake. This farmers who discovered this fossil did not have any training in paleontology, and some paleontologists have hypothesized that they were assuming another set of nearby remains to be part of the same animal. When Phil Currie examined this fossil, he recongnized that some of these elements were glued into place, but the only information he could get from China about where they had come from suggested that they were from the fossil's counterslab. This error probably would not have gone undiscovered for so long if China were not so restictive about what they allow with any fossils that has been discovered in their country. Fortunately, the Chinese government was embarassed enough by this mistake that they have modified their regulations to try to prevent something like this from happening again.

By the way, one of the animals that was used to build this chimera--Micoraptor, which is now also known from several other specimens--actually provides better evidence for a dinosaurian origin of birds than Archaeoraptor ever could have, although in a slightly different way from what most people would have expected.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Notice how you lie ,Arikay..i didn't ignore the question..i just asked him to rephrase it since i don't spend my time following everyones threads here...tell you what Arikay, why don't you ask Mike's questions for him..since you say i'm ignoring his comments..where does it say that it was only months old?...LIAR..
I know reading is not your strength Arikay..here I'll spell it out for you and this is from the article:

"The specimen, known as Archaeoraptor, captured the attention of the scientific world when unveiled by the National Geographic Society, US, in October 1999."
this article was in March of 2001..so this hoax has been going on for years (if you know anything Arikay) since pronouncements are usually preceeded by years or months of analysis...

Again Arikay, caught you in a LIE..but based on your history with me thats par for the course..whats next Arikay, you misquoted yourself?...

Wrong yet again, and especially out of place calling Arikay a liar when you apparently deliberately twisted the meaning article to claim that paleontologists who accept the theory of evolution created the hoax when they did not.

The hoax was discredited several months later in early 2000 and firmly discredited by further study:

http://www.sciencenews.org/20000115/fob6.asp

 

[Arikay]

Again with the attacks.

You have ignored all the comments saying that this is actually a plus for science and not a bad thing.
Again, please explain to me how honest scientists are bad for science?

BTW when I said months, its was in reference to nathan's post,

"Hoax perpetrated: 1999
Hoax exposed: 1999"

Besides, you do realize years are made up of months right?


Maybe you can try this post again, in a more calm manor.

Notice how you lie ,Arikay..i didn't ignore the question..i just asked him to rephrase it since i don't spend my time following everyones threads here...tell you what Arikay, why don't you ask Mike's questions for him..since you say i'm ignoring his comments..where does it say that it was only months old?...LIAR..
I know reading is not your strength Arikay..here I'll spell it out for you and this is from the article:

"The specimen, known as Archaeoraptor, captured the attention of the scientific world when unveiled by the National Geographic Society, US, in October 1999."
this article was in March of 2001..so this hoax has been going on for years (if you know anything Arikay) since pronouncements are usually preceeded by years or months of analysis...

Again Arikay, caught you in a LIE..but based on your history with me thats par for the course..whats next Arikay, you misquoted yourself?...

 

[Aggie]

Oh, and in response to NapaJohn's last post, it was only a few months after Archaeoraptor's initial description that the assumptions made based on it were rescinded because there was evidently something wrong with the fossil's authenticity. What went on for the next two years was the U.S. and China trying to figure out what had caused the problem and how they could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

That they spent two years on this isn't especially surprising considering how embarassing it was for any scientists who assumed that it was an unaltered fossil. Preventing this sort of thing is something that scientists work extremely hard at, and if they miss something like this, it means they need to work even harder at it.

 

[Arikay]

Anyone else think Napa is just trying to bait people into attacking him so he can then justify his attacks against them?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Napa, you are a liar.

Lie 1. - News. It's over four years old.
Lie 2. - 'Forgery from evos'. Nope. It was a forgery by a Chinese farmer, financially motivated. I doubt the farmer cares a thrupenny bit for origins.
Lie 3. - 'Another' - clearly meant to make the reader think this is a common thing. It is not. What is there? Piltdown - a hoax perpetrated on scientists again. Haeckel? About the only one you can claim.

So, Napa, you are a liar. How does it feel?

Note - this is not a flame. It is a simple appraisal of the facts.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Anyone else think Napa is just trying to bait people into attacking him so he can then justify his attacks against them?

You aren't the only one who has thought this, that's for sure. It's been going on for some time now.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Actually can you repeat your question(S)..i may not have caught your issues..

You can search for them yourself. Look up the blood stained century of evolution and the racism thread that you frequented about a month ago on this forum.

This is becoming a pattern for you napajohn. I had to look up another post for you where you accused me of inventing herd instincts. Another one that you have since forgotten I'm sure.

archaeoptyrix is even being seen by most paleontologist as a bird..so where am I lying Mike

Did I say you were lying? I said your post does not correctly make the claim that this fraud was perpetuated by 'evos' in order to further evolution. In fact it claims nothing of the kind. You claim this in the subject line 'another forgery from evos'. Thats dishonest IMO.

...Idol Worship , Mike?

You have a very short memory napajohn. Do you put your assumptions about the bible over the true salvation message? Do you believe your interpretations infallible? Do you believe that literalism is true and all other interpretations are not? That is a form of idol worship napajohn. You are worshipping your interpretations over worshipping God.

I'm not saying that you are not a Christian...I am saying that your arguments here point to a kind of idol worship: the worship of biblical literalism.

You claim to be a Christian but so far all your responses to me have been baseless accusations...

Show me one post I have made like that napajohn.

I have done everything I can to carry on a reasonable discussion with you...you always either run your arguments in circles or ultimately ignore my posts (like you have done in the past).

It is you who is making a baseless accusation here. And here is another one:

if the tone of the message seems to indicate that i seriously question your faith in the Bible, then yes, I seriously do..

I'm not surprised that you judge my faith napajohn in contradiction to scriptures. Most YECs who post here are content to do the same. What I don't understand is how you can't see the glaring contradiction that your judgements make with Christian theology.

Remember what it says
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
how does this fit in your faith Mike?

He is saying that he is a living God...the God of living men. The same God that brings salvation to all nations through the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...all of whom lay down their lives to serve God. He is also saying that these men have not died as it indicates in the scriptures...and biological death is not really death.

Do you think I don't believe these people are real napajohn? How little you care to understand me. But how much you care to judge!

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Mike, you don't believe in the Words of moses, why should you believe in Jesus?

I have dealt with this point about 15 times now napajohn...your memory is very selective.

For the last time: I do believe in the words of Moses napajohn. I believe them...but not your interpretation of them. You might claim that you are not interpreting them. That only proves that you are confused.

See the idol worship napajohn? You judge the merits of my faith based on the degree to which I agree with your interpretation of the Bible. IOW, you base your faith on your own fallibility...and judge others accordingly.

Just in case you believe I am doing the same...I am not. You can interpret the historicity of the bible any way that makes you happy napajohn. I will call no YEC a non-Christian for their literalist approach. But when they try to bind us all to such interpretations, and judge everyone in the process...then I must protest. And so I respond to your posts on the subject.

Remember the pharisees napajohn the next time you want to make claims about my faith.

Your judgements are all evidence anyone needs to prove that your claims are not consistent with Christianity. That doesn't mean I'm saying you are not Christian napajohn (for unlike you, I would never presume to stand in judgement over you like that), but it does mean that I believe you are confused...both theologically and scentifically.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Preventing this sort of thing is something that scientists work extremely hard at, and if they miss something like this, it means they need to work even harder at it.

And this is not the same approach adapted by many creationists (except perhaps OECs). ICR still pushes 'starlight and time' by Humphrey's even though several of its claims have been falsified (something that they will not tell you on their website).

Just ask other creationists: Go to www.reasons.org and search for 'starlight and time'.

 

[napajohn]

Oh, and in response to NapaJohn's last post, it was only a few months after Archaeoraptor's initial description that the assumptions made based on it were rescinded because there was evidently something wrong with the fossil's authenticity. What went on for the next two years was the U.S. and China trying to figure out what had caused the problem and how they could prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

That they spent two years on this isn't especially surprising considering how embarassing it was for any scientists who assumed that it was an unaltered fossil. Preventing this sort of thing is something that scientists work extremely hard at, and if they miss something like this, it means they need to work even harder at it.

OK now you EVOS are trying to deny that there was no intent on the part of EVOS to defraud the public...that the issue is my contention this fraud was only months and that I'm a liar..well here are the points:

"Another fossil going on display today is that of Beipiaosaurus, the largest feathered dinosaur found to date. A farmer in Liaoning Province discovered this fossil, but it was so fragmented that only by coincidence did he show it to Xu in 1997. Back at IVPP, Xu recalls, it took months to piece together a portion of the fragments. As feathers began to emerge, Xu realized how significant the find was.
Sinornithosaurus--fossil and model--was also unveiled today. The reconstruction shows the dinosaur in a leaping position with reptilian teeth and claws plus birdlike feathers"

hmmm ..discovered in 97..announced in 99..those are years aren't they?

that there was no intent to defraud and advance the missing link:
well check this quote from reknowed bird expert Olsen:
"But Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum and an outspoken skeptic of the bird-dinosaur link, says he warned the magazine in November, when the article was published, that there were serious problems with the fossil. He says he was ignored.
"The problem is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information was not revealed," Olson says."

even this guy said that that fossil was what they were looking for:
"This mix of advanced and primitive features is exactly what scientists would expect to find in dinosaurs experimenting with flight."

Christopher P. Sloan
Author of article featuring Archaeoraptor
National Geographic, Nov. 1999.
hmmm..No wishful thinking on EVOS part..just the use of the Scientific Method as many claim here that creationist do not follow.



One should conclude that Nat Geographic should be leery of not only the embarrasment of this incident but doubtful of the evidence from this region
but look at their response:
""Assuming that all the evidence is in and it is a composite, not since I've been editor has anything happened like this," National Geographic editor Bill Allen told USA TODAY. "At any time prior to publication, if we had been informed of any problem at all, we would have yanked (the article)."
Liar if you believe Storrs Olsen

heres NG's position on the significance of the evidence:

"It was disappointing to learn that Archaeoraptor may be a combination of animals," said Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and author of the magazine's article about the find, published last November. "But we're still convinced that Archaeoraptor is an important specimen. After all, if it is a composite, it is a composite of some very important 125 million-year-old fossils...
"National Geographic will continue to support efforts to study it fully."

wishful thinking on EVOS part..they're sorry not about the incident but that they were caught..does this show remorse? Hardly

So guys read my initial post very carefully...see where i said anything about "news", "months", and all that you accuse me of lying..i give you my sources

Obviously, the picture seems clear here..there were forces that wanted to perpetuate the finding of some missing links, yet some reputable scientists saw this as a fraud and made that evident..still there are pro-EVO forces that still insist that a fraud missing link has validity...today there are id scientists and others who are blowing the whistle on the so called evidences of evolution..yet they are often being silenced and ignored by those who choose to perpetuate what is being questioned on the basis of sound scientific principle

 

[Mike Flynn]

Napa...are you claiming that the creationist community is not guilty of the same thing? That their sceintific standards are on a higher grounds that the rest of the science community? You are willing to accept every single account of fraud on evolution...but you are unwilling to accept any similar claim about creationism? IOW, you have an obvious double standard napajohn...

Why don't you start a new post on the merits of ID science. And lets discuss the validity of those claims? In the mean time you can post some particulars about the theory of evolution that you take issue with and we can discuss those as well.

IOW, why can't we debate the ideas and the science instead of making judgements, name-calling, and unsubstantiated claims?

How long are you content to engage in this pointless circle of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're still describing the hoax as a fraud perpetrated by evolutionists Napa?


What are we meant to think of you when you carry on purveying falsehoods you know are false?

 

[Phred]

Pretty much what we think of him already.

 

[toff]

The usual tissue of lies, exaggerations and half-truths from napajohn. I'll merely address one obvious point, and leave it to others to shred the rest:

"But Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum and an outspoken skeptic of the bird-dinosaur link, says he warned the magazine in November, when the article was published, that there were serious problems with the fossil. He says he was ignored.
"The problem is, at some point the fossil was known by Geographic to be a fake, and that information was not revealed," Olson says."

Yup, science (in the form of a scientist) discovered the fraud (or, at least, at this stage, warned there was some doubt about the authenticity), and told National Geographic. National Geographic, run by a group of journalists, not scientists, published anyway - for what reason, we can only speculate (already had stories written and changing them would have been too much effort? the fossil made a much better story than a maybe fake? who knows?).

So, we have science identifying the fake...and journalists publishing anyway. Hardly the fault of science. Note that nowhere in the world (to my knowledge) are journalists encouraged to use the scientific method.

Obviously, the picture seems clear here

Yes, but apparently not to you.

there were forces that wanted to perpetuate the finding of some missing links

Nope. There was a chinese farmer who wanted to make an extra buck or two.

yet some reputable scientists saw this as a fraud and made that evident

Yup, he did.

still there are pro-EVO forces that still insist that a fraud missing link has validity

Nope. Journalists went ahead and published anyway - for what reasons we can only guess.

today there are id scientists and others who are blowing the whistle on the so called evidences of evolution..yet they are often being silenced and ignored by those who choose to perpetuate what is being questioned on the basis of sound scientific principle

No, they're not being "silenced" or "ignored". Your paranoia is showing. When they attempt to publish (both in science journals and popular science, such as Behe) their work is peer-reviewed. Sadly, it has suffered, because what they are practicing is bad science.

Nice try, though, napajohn.

 

[Phred]

Nope. There was a chinese farmer who wanted to make an extra buck or two.

Let's be clear about this... a "farmer" wouldn't know that a feathered dinosaur fossil would be worth more than any other. This fraud was perpetrated by someone with some basic knowledge of the fossil field... However, it was not perpetrated with the intention of presenting a false transitional fossil. The goal was to bring a higher price for the fossil by making it appear more rare.

Napa's premise was destroyed by about the third paragraph of the article.