another forgery from EVOS

[Phred]

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

1. Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took 40 years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors.
2. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues.

You're simply being dishonest Napa...

 

[Jet Black]

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?

actuallz piltdown man was sidelined some good time before it was finally exposed as a forgery. Note that it was not the scientists who created the forgery.


napa, why do you continue going on about these things, surely you have been told several times now.

 

[pureone]

Boy napa, I've been gone for a month now, and you still try to battle the evils of evolution with imaginary missiles?...

 

[napajohn]

actuallz piltdown man was sidelined some good time before it was finally exposed as a forgery. Note that it was not the scientists who created the forgery.


napa, why do you continue going on about these things, surely you have been told several times now.

Yes JET-BLack..but only from those who disagree with me..so no that has no value:
fact: NJ posts intentional error by some EVO "scientists" and by the National Geographic
response by EVOS on this board.
1. NJ is a liar, NJ is spreading hate, NJ ignores creationist fakes, NJ doesn't understand that scientists corrects themselves, creationists are liars and EVOS follow sound scientific principles, more quotes from talkorigins.(something specifically not encouraged on this board)
"It is recommended, but not required, that you do not use information from the Talk Origins Archive, or Answers In Genesis as the main support for sources, nor the main source for the start of threads."

Here are some quotes from Stors-Olsen (an EVO himself)regarding this debateyes its linked to AIG, but the letter is from S Olsen)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4159.asp

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith"

"The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions."

" I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

with regards to EVOS willingness to correct their errors..read a book by Jonathan Welles called Icons of Evolution..in it he demonstates 10 things that were taught as recently as the 80's and 90's that are now falsified..in it he describes EVOS attempt to suppress the evidence and perpetuate the errors of evolution

Just this year DC showed Walking with Caveman and Dinosaurs that are so mired in propaganda but masked as "science" (hey its on Discovery Channel so it must be science)..But of course these are journalists and media hounds
not scientists..of course you read the credits and the FAQ and you'll see they get all that info from seeing prints and teeth marks (Ok i may give you that) but feathers on dinosaurs(can you say speculation)..go to any museum and you'll see a scene where footprints of man (laetoli?) show a semi-simian man or cro magnon (take your pick) yet forensic experts say that there is nothing in the footprints that one can do to derive such features..all one can see is that these footprints are human but artists in these museums take liberty to do what they want (who'll question it, it must be science..its in a museum for gosh sakes)

Read the issues Dembski has had in convincing editors to remove the fake peppered moth examples..se this quote:
"In 1998, University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore D. Sargent and two colleagues wrote in the journal Evolutionary Biology that although the camouflage-predation explanation “may be true, in whole or in part,” there is “little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time.” The same year, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry A. Coyne wrote in Nature that the fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks “alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks.” Coyne concluded that this “prize horse in our stable of examples” of evolution “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue"

"In 1985, Cyril Clarke and his colleagues noted that in 25 years of field work they had found only one peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk; they concluded that they knew primarily “where the moths do not spend the day.” In 1987, Rory Howlett and Michael Majerus reported that “exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site” for peppered moths. A decade later, Majerus wrote a book summarizing the evidence and concluded that “peppered moths do not naturally rest in exposed positions on tree trunks.”

Again I have provided you quotes and sources, but you EVOS continually say I'm baiting you to a fight and being dishonest..These are not my words guys
but I'm convinced that somehow this post will be turned by you EVOS as more lies from me..in fact I come to expect it.

 

[Phred]

Yes JET-BLack..but only from those who disagree with me..so no that has no value:

The heart of your arrogance/ignorance. Only those who agree with you can be correct in any way.

fact: NJ posts intentional error by some EVO "scientists" and by the National Geographic

This is not a fact. Can you really be this blatantly stupid? Your own article points out the forgery was created by someone to get a higher price for the fossil. The scientists only examined it. Once they had, they eventually found it to be a forgery. That's the process, that's how it works... Somebody created a forgery, it was caught. How many times will you have to be told before it gets thru your skull???

But... you just wish to create falsehoods to support your belief that evolution is somehow an evil anti-christian conspiracy. You do realize you yourself are doing more to hurt christianity than evolution ever did? Right?

 

[Timo]

fact: NJ posts intentional error by some EVO "scientists" and by the National Geographic

I think you have got your quotation marks in the wrong place here. I think it would make more sense to say:
fact: NJ posts 'intentional error' by some EVO scientists and by the National Geographic

Why? Because at no point in the article is the error attributed to the scientists, intentional or otherwise.

You also seem to expect National Geograpic not to publish something because of one person's opinion. Do you think that anything would get published ever if they did that? If the general consensus of people with the appropriate specialisation supports something, then they will publish it.

It is inevitable that with pretty much anything, there will be some people who disagree with the findings, whatever they are. Einstein didn't agree with Quantum Mechanics - that doesn't mean that it should be disregarded. He also found that a static Universe required the cosmological constant in his field equations. Hubble showed the Universe was expanding. So should they ignore Hubble's findings or Einstein's? What would you do napajohn?

 

[Aggie]

"The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith"

What support is there for this information? I've been part of the dinosaur paleontology community since around 1994, and I've been gradually watching more and more paleontologists come to this view after wieghing the new evidence that was discovered starting in 1996. The only reason it's become so popular since then is that so much evidence has been found in favor of it in the eight years that these feathered dinosaurs have been known. Everyone still has their own version of this theory--my curator friend thinks that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but that some of the feathered dinosaurs may have been cold-blooded. This is a pretty heretical thing to believe, but nobody minds as long as he has the evidence to support it.

I've written more about this topic here: http://www.christianforums.com/t80067 . None of the "evidence" against bird evolution stands up under scrutiny.

"The National Geographic Society has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively, and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions."

The only reason they might be off-limits to some people is that China is very restrictive about what Americans can do with fossils discovered there. This has nothing to do with what China thinks of evolution; it's because China is communist and the U.S. isn't.

If you mean more than this with your quote, you need to find some evidence to support it.

"I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

National Geographic will ALWAYS present the prevailing viewpoint about ANYTHING, because it's a popular magazine and that's what all such magazines do as they try to simplify the issue so that people who haven't studied science can understand it. This does not mean the issue is closed; all it means is that if popular magazines are all you ever read, you won't get to see the debate.

If you're looking for a more scientific souce about this sort of thing, I recommend you go to http://www.dinosauria.com . Technical articles like the ones there don't try to simplify the issue the way popular magazines do.

 

[troodon]

Hey guys, what's been goin' on?

another forgery from EVOS

You just now found out about Archaeoraptor?

Let me point you to something Aggie said:

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.

Absolutely, Microraptor is a considerably better transition than Archaeoraptor ever would have been.

BTW, I like the name Aggie

"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."

One of the best parts of that movie

 

[napajohn]

What support is there for this information? I've been part of the dinosaur paleontology community since around 1994, and I've been gradually watching more and more paleontologists come to this view after wieghing the new evidence that was discovered starting in 1996. The only reason it's become so popular since then is that so much evidence has been found in favor of it in the eight years that these feathered dinosaurs have been known. Everyone still has their own version of this theory--my curator friend thinks that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but that some of the feathered dinosaurs may have been cold-blooded. This is a pretty heretical thing to believe, but nobody minds as long as he has the evidence to support it.

Don't want to comment on everything here Aggie...but are you familiar with Storrs Olsen, considered by some to be the foremost authority on birds and Curator at the Smithsonian, disagree with this dino to bird theory..as Frank Scherwin of ICR shared and I'll paraphrase his quote: " I had met Storrs Olsen and he blatantly said that birds did not come from dinosaurs..as a matter of fact he gave me a tie saying birds are not dinosaurs..all those who believe the evidence are paleontologists who are wishfully thinking that this scenario
be true..as far as he knew and this is at a meeting in Washington DC in 2001 was that birds did not come from dinosaurs..this is what he announced at the conference..and he is not a creationists!!! (emphasis added by Frank)

So aggie, as you claim your authority on being in the community I claim mine on Storrs Olsen..in fact Alan Feduccia another paleontologist said

A report on the discovery appears in the Nov. 15 issue of the journal Science. Besides Feduccia, authors are Dr. Lianhai Hou of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and Dr. Larry D. Martin and graduate student Zonghe Zhou of the University of Kansas' Natural History Museum.

Last year the team reported in the journal Nature discovery of complete fossilized skeletons of Confuciusornis, a close, somewhat younger relative of Archaeopteryx with clawed fingers for climbing, beaked jaw and short tail. Like its more famous cousin, Confuciusornis probably also was cold blooded.

In the new work, the researchers report discovery of so many specimens of Confuciusornis that they conclude that the bird lived in large colonies, which is the first evidence of social behavior in birds. They also found that that it was the first fully feathered bird yet identified and that its flight feathers were asymmetric, meaning that it too could fly.

More important, Feduccia said, they have found fossils of a modern-type, probably warm-blooded bird they call Liaoningornis together with Confuciusornis. Unlike the latter, the former had a keeled sternum, which is the earliest evidence of that distinctly bird-like structure, one that acted as a pump for air sacs in the lungs and facilitated longer flights. All modern flying birds show that keeled breastbone.

"We would expect that the common ancestor of the two groups -- which we call `Sauriurine' for reptile-like and `Ornithurine' for bird-like -- predates Archaeopteryx and that we may reasonably search for birds in Middle Jurassic and older beds," Feduccia said. "This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are primarily Late Cretaceous in age and are younger than Archaeopteryx by more than 76 million years."

That paradox, he said, has even led some dinosaur experts to argue that birds gave rise to certain late Cretaceous dinosaurs.

The scientist believes that birds suffered cataclysmic extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous period just as the dinosaurs did. Those that survived, chiefly a small group of shore birds, evolved "explosively " into most modern bird groups in only 5 million to 10 million years, a period he calls "bird evolution's big bang." He also believes flight evolved from trees downward -- as tree-climbing reptiles sought food and escape from predators -- rather than from the ground upward.

"This has probably been the most contentious issue in vertebrate paleontology for the past 30 years -- whether birds are derived from earth-bound dinosaurs or whether they are derived from antecedents of the dinosaurs," Feduccia said. "In the 1970s, paleontologists began to view birds simply as modified feathered dinosaurs. Once you do that, you are pretty much stuck with the `ground-up' origin of flight, but it is impossible to explain how flight could have evolved from heavy earth-bound creatures with short forelimbs. Besides making no sense biophysically, that theory also appears to ignore the geologic record."

 

[Arikay]

Napa, Now I know you are being dishonest, you have been explained about the peppered moths multiple times. to bring this out again is to commit false witness.

BTW, I notice you are still ignoring the fact that your OP is a possitive for science. Since real science appears to correct itself when wrong. Imagine that.

 

[LorentzHA]

Yes JET-BLack..but only from those who disagree with me..so no that has no value:

This is scary. So basically only people who agree with you can tell you your wrong but that bring us back to an interesting point-If they AGREE with you why would they correct you in the first place (strange logic) ummm... by the way, are you married? With comments like this I envision Mrs. NapaJohn developing High Blood pressure, unless she is a puppet?? I am very shocked that such a faithful servant of the Lord would have such a prideful nature!!

 

[wblastyn]

Hey guys, what's been goin' on?

Welcome back! Btw, where did you go?

 

[LorentzHA]

Hey guys, what's been goin' on?

Hey there, I was wondering what happened to you. Everything OK?

 

[Aggie]

Don't want to comment on everything here Aggie...but are you familiar with Storrs Olsen, considered by some to be the foremost authority on birds and Curator at the Smithsonian, disagree with this dino to bird theory..as Frank Scherwin of ICR shared and I'll paraphrase his quote: " I had met Storrs Olsen and he blatantly said that birds did not come from dinosaurs..as a matter of fact he gave me a tie saying birds are not dinosaurs..all those who believe the evidence are paleontologists who are wishfully thinking that this scenario be true..as far as he knew and this is at a meeting in Washington DC in 2001 was that birds did not come from dinosaurs..this is what he announced at the conference..and he is not a creationists!!! (emphasis added by Frank)

I'm well aware that about 5% of paleontologists think that birds aren't descended from dinosaurs, and the reason why is that there's a Triassic animal called Longisquama that they consider to be a better candidate for a bird ancestor than any dinosaur. None of the people you've mentioned would be pretentious enough to say that they think that there is no evidence that dinosaurs are ancestors of birds, but some of them think that the evidence for Longisquama is even stronger.

THIS is the debate I mentioned that you can't see in National Geographic, and you appear to be more aware of it than you let on at first. What seems strange to me is that from watching this debate between those who think the evidence is strongest for dinosaurs being bird ancestors, and those who think that the evidence is strongest for Longisquama being a bird ancestor, you conclude something that neither side thinks is likely: that neither animal was.

"We would expect that the common ancestor of the two groups -- which we call `Sauriurine' for reptile-like and `Ornithurine' for bird-like -- predates Archaeopteryx and that we may reasonably search for birds in Middle Jurassic and older beds," Feduccia said. "This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are primarily Late Cretaceous in age and are younger than Archaeopteryx by more than 76 million years."

Let's make sure we both understand what this article is saying: this common ancestor is completely hypothetical, so we can't know when it lived. What's more, it's possible for a group of animals to live for a long time AFTER another group split off from it and evolved into something else, and the first fossils of the original group may not be from when the animal first appeared--especially if it lived in an area such as a mountain, that lacks the necessary conditions for fossilization.

Feduccia's claim about the most bird-like dinosaurs is an gross exaggeration of a valid point: the most bird-like of all known non-avian dinosaurs, Sinornithosaurus, is about 20 million years younger than the most dinosaur-like of all birds, Archaeopteryx. This is somewhat inconvenient for those who wish to construct a perfect genealogy of dinosaurs' transition to birds, although the fact that Sinornithosaurus is not ideal in this regard suggests that it was not faked, since someone who was trying to fake evidence in favor of evolution would not have forged something involving this sort of inconvenience. However, most evolutionists are resigned to the fact that they can never construct a true genealogy--the best they can do is determine how closely related two animals are to one another, without determining whether one is a direct ancestor of the other or not. In the case of Sinornithosaurus, the anatomical similarities suggest a common ancestor very soon before Archaeopteryx, whose descendents that gave rise to Sinornithosaurus changed very little over the next 20 million years.

So, back to the point of what kind of animal Archaeopteryx could have been descended from--we can say it was something similar to Sinornithosaurus, but it couldn't have been Sinornithosaurus itself since Sinornithosaurus lived too late for this. However, there is one dinosaur that lived about the same time as Archaeopteryx, and probably also slightly earlier, whose skeleton is so similar to that or Archaeopteryx that Archaeopteryx fossils have twice been originally been misidentified as belonging to this dinosaur. It's called Compsognatus. Because no fossil of it showing a skin impression has ever been found, there's no way to tell whether or not it had feathers, but its skeleton is very similar to that of Sinosauropteryx, one of the dinosaurs found in China with preserved feathers. It's like comparing a leopard to an ocelot--when the skeletons of two animals are this similar, you can expect there to be a lot of other similarities as well.

In the 1970s, paleontologists began to view birds simply as modified feathered dinosaurs. Once you do that, you are pretty much stuck with the `ground-up' origin of flight, but it is impossible to explain how flight could have evolved from heavy earth-bound creatures with short forelimbs. Besides making no sense biophysically, that theory also appears to ignore the geologic record."

You're using an outdated reference here; most paleontologists who think birds are descended from dinosaurs don't favor a ground-up origin of flight anymore. One of the feathered dinosaurs from China, Microraptor, is obviously an arboreal animal. It has a reflexed hallux, which is only present in modern birds as a perching adaptation, and the wings on its legs would have been useful for gliding but not powered flight. Microraptor is not considered to be a direct bird ancestor, but it shows what kind of dinosaur flight could have evolved in--a tree-dwelling animal that began to use the elongated fringes of feathers on its arms, tail, and possibly also legs to lengthen and steer leaps between branches in trees.

My art gallery at Side 7 includes an illustration I've made of this animal: http://www.side7.com/cgi-bin/S7SDB/Display.pl?act=image&iid=258194

 

[Physics_guy]

Aggie,

You are wasting your time - napajohn has no intention of learning anything about what is being debated by paleontologists, he simply thinks that using a few carefully misrepresented articles and making some baseless accusations he can convince the already converted that the creationist position has merit. Of course, scientifically it doesn't and hasn't been taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community besides a few radical religious demagouges with no interest in actually pursuing scientific investigation for more than 150 years. He thinks that crying "fraud!" every once in a while will make people doubt the credibility of the overwhelming abouts evidence out there that not only falsifies his own religious-motivated position but provides huge amounts of evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution (or stellar mechanics, big bang cosmology, etc. - he knows he can't win a detailed battle on any front so he will throw out aspersions in any direction).

Thanks for your explanation though. Nice to hear that debate in the paleontology community continues!

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, note the things he is corrected on, I will bet you that he will eventually repeat them as if he has never heard anything against his arguments. He has done so in this thread. And I bet he will in the future.

 

[troodon]

Welcome back! Btw, where did you go?

Hey there, I was wondering what happened to you. Everything OK?

Hey! I've been just fine, felt like I needed a break from the creationist stuff. It gets so very tedious, as well as frustrating. And yet, like lucaspa has said, it has to be done

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

I still can't beleive all these people would fall for this bologne.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

So basically only people who agree with you can tell you your wrong but that bring us back to an interesting point-If they AGREE with you why would they correct you in the first place (strange logic) ummm... by the way, are you married? With comments like this I envision Mrs. NapaJohn developing High Blood pressure, unless she is a puppet?? I am very shocked that such a faithful servant of the Lord would have such a prideful nature!!

no that actually makes sense because someone who agrees with him won't alter the resuts or facts or make it look any better to suit their purposes. The rest is just mean and inflamatory.

 

[Jet Black]

I still can't beleive all these people would fall for this bologne.

fall for what?