another forgery from EVOS

[Mike Flynn]

"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."

Which is exactly what you quoted in your OP:

The tail turned out to be from a new type of bird-like feathered dinosaur - Microraptor - the smallest, adult dinosaur yet discovered. "

and now:

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

You contradict your OP claims from your quote mine.

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

maybe you should do that. The claim that it was made fruadulent in order to push evolution is contradicted in your OP by your own quote mine:

But it later emerged that the tail had been glued on to increase the fossil's commercial value before being sold to a dealer.

IOW...another contradiction and misrepresentation by you. Instead of admit it...you dodge it with more quote mine.

And for the icing on the cake:

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.

A statement contrary to your own claims in your OP.

..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

An usubstantiated claim that you don't seem willing to discuss of late.

Sorry napajohn, but since when is wishful thinking a sound scientific principle?

 

[Nathan Poe]

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:

it was a fraud perpetrated on the evos, not by them. I trust you can see the difference.

"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?

yes, your math is accurate. Now let's test your reading comprehension, SAT-style...

QUESTION 1: What were the scientists doing between the years '97-'99?

A: Propping the fossil on legs and using it as a coffee table.
B: Plotting a secret conspiracy to defraud the public on a topic many of them neither know nor care about.
C: Studying the find to determine if it was genuine or not.
D: All of the above.
E: None of the above.

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."

National Geographic Magazine didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Olsen at the time, because a story of such magnitude needs to be confirmed before it'll be published. Otherwise.... well, we do live in a rather litigious society...

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.

Ooo.... National Geographic got taken in.... I'll never watch their tv show quite the same way.

hmmm..No wishful thinking on EVOS part..just the use of the Scientific Method as many claim here that creationist do not follow.

Pretty much so: Make mistake, catch mistake, correct mistake. Try it; it works.

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

Right.... They should've tossed the baby out with the bathwater based on a single hoax.

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

Truth if you don't.

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."

So now that we know what it isn't, we can try to figure out what it is.... so this fiasco won't be a total loss...

Good thinking!

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

Does this show what you're trying to show? not at all.

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

And a hate-filled rant to accompany it.

Why so much anger at the world, napajohn? Don't you have enough to hate?

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...

And it does... but not as what it appears to be. While it may not be the "missing link" the scientists originally thought it to be, it is made up of some very old fossils.

It would seem that in this care, the whole may turn out to be less than the sum of its parts. For while the whole may be bogus, the parts might be genuine.

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

Because ID scientists are not using "sound scientific principle" at all. ID is not a viable, testable, falsifiable theory. Never was.

Science works by falsification. Something is true only until someone proves it false. If something, by definition, cannot be proven false, science won't touch it. How does one go about disproving a God?

This was a falsifiable theory. How can you tell? It was falsified.

 

[Arikay]

After all that, im still waiting for napa to claim that it was a hoax perpetrated by scienctists.

However, Lets say it there is a hoax that is perpetrated by scientists,
what does that say about evolution?
Nothing.
What does that say about the honesty of one scientist?
that it was lacking.
What does it say about the honesty of scientists who drop the evidence as soon as they discover its a hoax?
That they are honest for not using false evidence.

If only this would happen in the creationist community (false evidence is dropped), I would be very happy.


The irony is that in his attempt to make evolutionists look bad, he has accidentally shown honesty in science.

 

[Mike Flynn]

[pregnant pause while napa mines more irrelevant quotes]

 

[napajohn]

it was a fraud perpetrated on the evos, not by them. I trust you can see the difference.

yes, your math is accurate. Now let's test your reading comprehension, SAT-style...

QUESTION 1: What were the scientists doing between the years '97-'99?

A: Propping the fossil on legs and using it as a coffee table.
B: Plotting a secret conspiracy to defraud the public on a topic many of them neither know nor care about.
C: Studying the find to determine if it was genuine or not.
D: All of the above.
E: None of the above.

stupid point..stay with the story..whats the significance of this question?

National Geographic Magazine didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Olsen at the time, because a story of such magnitude needs to be confirmed before it'll be published. Otherwise.... well, we do live in[/b] a rather litigious society...

wishful thinking on your part..no Olsen said they ignored him..give Him some credit besides..he has questions of the dino-bird theory..why listen to someon on the "other side"..meanwhile NG publishes it in spite of the warning...so whats your point? they did the opposite

Ooo.... National Geographic got taken in.... I'll never watch their tv show quite the same way.

no you'll watch the walking with XXX series and see the science and not the propaganda

Pretty much so: Make mistake, catch mistake, correct mistake. Try it; it works.

no its look for link, find link, announce link and hope no one sees the mistake..happens all the time

Right.... They should've tossed the baby out with the bathwarter based on a single hoax

piltdown man, Nebraska man, coelacanth..no just 1 error in a series of many errors

And a hate-filled rant to accompany it.

hate?..just the facts madam

Why so much anger at the world, napajohn? Don't you have enough to hate?

calling someone a liar is not hate

And it does... but not as what it appears to be. While it may not be the "missing link" the scientists originally thought it to be, it is made up of some very old fossils.

who needs fossils ..just get some superglue and let the imagination go wild

It would seem that in this care, the whole may turn out to be less than the sum of its parts. For while the whole may be bogus, the parts might be genuine.

Can't wait for the next announcement

Because ID scientists are not using "sound scientific principle" at all. ID is not a viable, testable, falsifiable theory. Never was.

unsupported opinion..to be taken as unquestioned fact

Science works by falsification. Something is true only until someone proves it false. If something, by definition, cannot be proven false, science won't touch it. How does one go about disproving a God?

it should..but when you have Disc channel and others perpetuating propaganda, its good as gold from the EVOS standpoint

 

[napajohn]

[pregnant pause while napa mines more irrelevant quotes]

so what was your question to me Mike..I'm giving you the chance to ask..and please give it a title or something so I can look for it.

 

[napajohn]

After all that, im still waiting for napa to claim that it was a hoax perpetrated by scienctists.

However, Lets say it there is a hoax that is perpetrated by scientists,
what does that say about evolution?
Nothing.
What does that say about the honesty of one scientist?
that it was lacking.
What does it say about the honesty of scientists who drop the evidence as soon as they discover its a hoax?
That they are honest for not using false evidence.

If only this would happen in the creationist community (false evidence is dropped), I would be very happy.

Gee you made it sound like the creationists were lying here..amazing how EVOS respond when their camp is wrong..what does it say?..it shows at least that a pro EVO rag like NG is willing to jump the gun to get the missing link out.that you guys will do the best to spin and defend your POV including lying..the willingness to admit that fraud occurs from the EVOS camp is very blatant..i mean it took 40 years to accept that Piltdown Man was a forgery..in the meantime 40 years of truth had been perpetuated on the populace that a missing link was found..whats next 100 years until EVOS admit that their theory is not based on the empirical science that they claim?

 

[toff]

no its look for link, find link, announce link and hope no one sees the mistake..happens all the time

No, it does not. You lie.

who needs fossils ..just get some superglue and let the imagination go wild

No, that's the creationist method...falsify data and use it even after the falsification has been exposed.

unsupported opinion..to be taken as unquestioned fact

No, that IS fact, sorry. ID is not science. I know you don't like this, just like you don't like the fact that creationism isn't science. Unfortunately, your dislike doesn't change the facts.

 

[Physics_guy]

whats next 100 years until EVOS admit that their theory is not based on the empirical science that they claim?

But it is based on empirical evidence despite what you say, liar (just following suit for your basless accusations in the past).

Would you care to look at any of the empirical evidence to support evolution? Do you even know what the term empirical evidence even means?

 

[Mike Flynn]

so what was your question to me Mike..I'm giving you the chance to ask..and please give it a title or something so I can look for it.

First napajohn...please deal with the point that I and others have made on this thread:

The article you mined does not say imply 'another forgery by evos' as you claim in the subject line. It implies a forgery for the sake of greed. Stop dodging this point and deal with it: have you not misrepresented the case (dileberately or not)? If you are going to continue to make the claim, then you need additional proof that tells us that the forgery was in fact produced in order to help substantiate evolutionary theory. If you can't do that then just admit it plainly....and stop mining for quotes that dodge this point.

You want to prove to us that creationists have scientific objectivity right? Then prove it by showing us that you have some.

As to the questions on evolution and racism...we discussed this at length several weeks ago. Check your posts on the racism and 'blood stained century' threads...then check my responses.

 

[Arikay]

Do you even read the posts here?

Yep, the creationist organizations do lie. Many arguments and pieces of evidence that creationist groups use have been shown false multiple times, by mutiple people, in mutiple sciences. Yet they still use them as truth. Even though sometimes it has been 20 years since the evidence was shown false. (Since I know you are good at distorting things, note: I said since it was shown false, not since it was discovered, big difference).

On the other hand, the part you seem to ignore in all posts, is that as soon as something is discovered as false, real scientists stop using.

To repeat, in darker letters for readability,
When scientists (evos as you call them) discover something to be false or a fraud, they stop using it as evidence. Just like we can see in this example you showed us.

Gee you made it sound like the creationists were lying here..amazing how EVOS respond when their camp is wrong..what does it say?..it shows at least that a pro EVO rag like NG is willing to jump the gun to get the missing link out.that you guys will do the best to spin and defend your POV including lying..the willingness to admit that fraud occurs from the EVOS camp is very blatant..i mean it took 40 years to accept that Piltdown Man was a forgery..in the meantime 40 years of truth had been perpetuated on the populace that a missing link was found..whats next 100 years until EVOS admit that their theory is not based on the empirical science that they claim?

 

[Aggie]

Errors are possible--and present--in every area of science. The only thing that sets evolution apart from any of the others is the number of people who complain every time an evolutionist makes a mistake. I don't hear this sort of thing about the decades of convention that estrogen supplements could prolong a woman's life after menopause that turned out to be based on a flawed study, but it's caused by exactly the same thing--the human error that is possible in any area of study.

In terms of using inaccurate information, creationists are actually worse than people in any of the areas of science whose goal it is to impartially increase humans' understanding of the world, probably because creationists don't have this goal. While disproving someone else's claim would further a scientist's goal to learn more about the world, a creationist who wants to win support for a preconcieved notion at any cost would rather sweep any evidence against it under the rug.

I'm not making this up--there is an article at talkorigins.org that explains this using an example from the author's experience. Here it is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

It's often hard for people to see how hard scientists try to disprove one another, because usually any claim that can be disproven IS disproven before it gets to a popular magazine like National Geographic, and it never gets any further than the point at which it was disproven.

There is an additional motivation to many scientists to try to disprove others' theories, which is that there is no better way for any scientist to make a name for himself than to disprove a popular theory or to come up with a new theory that explains the evidence better. This doesn't happen especially often, but it is far from impossible: it is what Albert Einstein did.

Many scientists have tried to disprove evolution, and some like Micahele Behe have come fairly close, but so far none have succeeded. And each of these failed attempt to disprove evolution provides evidence for its validity.

Here are a few examples of the sort of sloppy attitude toward error that's common among creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

There are an awful lot of these, and I'm not even sure that's all of them. Even when creationists' claims are disproven, they often continue to use them to try to convince people who aren't aware that the argument has been disproven.

 

[LorentzHA]

Is Napa John a Bot ? He repeats the same old arguments, while never taking time to be confused by any facts.

 

[Nathan Poe]

stupid point..stay with the story..whats the significance of this question?

You seem to have a fetish for "years." Why do you think scientists wait years before announcing a major discovery?

(hint: It's not about setting up a conspiracy)

wishful thinking on your part..no Olsen said they ignored him..give Him some credit besides..he has questions of the dino-bird theory..why listen to someon on the "other side"..meanwhile NG publishes it in spite of the warning...so whats your point? they did the opposite

Olsen submitted an opinion to a magazine. The magazine chose to disregard it. Evidence for a conspiracy, or an editor's decision?

no you'll watch the walking with XXX series and see the science and not the propaganda

Do you have some sort of phobia regarding the word "Cavemen?" Funny you should mention it; I did recently see it on DVD. While it was obviously dramatized, it was interesting.

no its look for conspiracy, find conspiracy, announce conspiracy and hope no one sees the mistake..happens all the time

I took the liberty of correcting your post. You seem to have used the wrong word

piltdown man, Nebraska man, coelacanth..no just 1 error in a series of many errors

Errors which were discovered and corrected by scientists, who no longer use them.

Fact is, the only people who drag these names up are professional creationists, the ignorant, and the paranoid.

hate?..just the facts madam

Joe Friday you ain't.

calling someone a liar is not hate

True, calling someone a liar without anyhting to back it up is libel.

who needs fossils ..just get some superglue and let the imagination go wild

Proof positive you don't bother to read the posts or the article... I mean c'mon, you never even looked at the date...

Can't wait for the next announcement

Oh, I'm sure you can't. Got a new Conspiracy theory, or sticking with your Greatest hits?

unsupported opinion..to be taken as unquestioned fact

Yep, that's ID in a nutshell.... which is why scientists may agree or disagree, but don't (and can't) test for it.

it should..but when you have Disc channel and others perpetuating propaganda, its good as gold from the EVOS standpoint

And you're going to falsify evolution...how? Inspired rhetoric?

 

[Larry]

What is a 'EVOS'?

 

[Deamiter]

Evolutionist.

 

[wblastyn]

Creationists absolutely repulse me. How can anyone be so ignorant and so willing to stay that way.

Napajohn why can't you understand the simple points everyone is trying to make? What is wrong with you (and most creationists since they are pretty much like you)? Why doesn't your brain seem to function properly? Do you have some kind of neurological disorder? I mean there is seriously something wrong with you if you can't understand why this "fraud" is nothing against evolution.

 

[LorentzHA]

Creationists absolutely repulse me. How can anyone be so ignorant and so willing to stay that way.

Napajohn why can't you understand the simple points everyone is trying to make? What is wrong with you (and most creationists since they are pretty much like you)? Why doesn't your brain seem to function properly? Do you have some kind of neurological disorder? I mean there is seriously something wrong with you if you can't understand why this "fraud" is nothing against evolution.

I was curious about this a well. You make a very good point. There seems to be a serious intellectual disonnect. You coax him in and I will set up the appointment- I can probably set it up for free, if we can use him as a "study".

How can Napa use the word "fraud" without feeling guilty, since creationism is chocked full of fraud and perpetuated by frauds (Hoving et. al)???!

 

[foolsparade]

"napajohn, what you've just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherant response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[Nathan David]

Napajohn, can you please explain what you mean when you say ceolocanths are a fraud? I'm pretty sure ceolocanths really exist.