It was in the National Geographic. Someone must have took it seriously.
Are you saying that anything in National Geographic should be researched to see if it is true before believing it?
Really? No one's got time for that.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No one ever took the archaeoraptor find seriously. National Geographic - which is not a scientific journal - basically bungled the find. You won't find a single scientific paper on the thing.
It was in the National Geographic. Someone must have took it seriously.
Not a fraud. I don't even know why you put this on the list.
Not a fraud. Also, not a single find - numerous Neaderthal specimens have been found. Their DNA has even been sequenced. Not human.
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was the prize horse in our stable, has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a proof of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8
Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action is an adaptation of Kettlewell's The Evolution of Melanism, which discussed criticisms of Kettlewell's original experimental methods.[18] When the biologist Jerry Coyne reviewed this book in Nature, he stated that the most serious problem was that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks. He also wrote that the white moths had increased in numbers before the lichen had returned and that Kettlewell's findings of moths choosing matching backgrounds had not been replicated in later experiments. Coyne compared his reaction to "the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve". He concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom" and that further studies of the animal's habits were needed.[29]
Contrary to this review, Majerus had stressed that the basic findings from that work were correct, and that differential bird predation of polluted environment "is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth".[30][31] Coyne's statement that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks was incorrect, as the book gives the resting positions of 47 peppered moths Majerus had found in the wild between 1964 and 1996; twelve were on tree trunks (six exposed, six unexposed), twenty were at the trunk/branch joint, and fifteen resting on branches.[30] Majerus found that the review did not reflect the factual content of the book or his own views,[32] and cited an assessment by the entomologist Donald Frack that there was essentially no resemblance between the book and Coyne's review,[33] which appeared to be a summary of the Sargent et al. paper rather than Majerus's book.[34]
Nebraska Man wasn't a fraud, it was a mistake, and the scientific community at the time never gave it much credence. The person involved even admitted the mistake.
A mistake? Of course it was. Yet, there it is. Put forth as fact for all the uneducated or untaught to read about.
How resourceful and imaginative scientific "experts" can be at times. Give them a tooth, not necessarily human, and they can create an entire race of prehistoric humanity.
But it is all clear when looking at the next chapter. Genesis 8:15-17 says:
Originally Posted by Genesis 8:15-17Then God spoke to Noah, saying, Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.
So, unless we assume that the animals matured during the stay on the ark, they would have had to be mature from the start.
This picture suggests the men were giants. Note that the human "footprint" is almost 2 feet long. That'd make him a size 45 or so, I think. Good thing he went barefoot, getting shoes of that size would have been hard.
It could well have been a giant. This is a proven fact too.
Giants did exist and have been in the writings of history of many cultures and nations.
Why? The blue whale is easily the biggest animal that has ever been known to exist on this planet, bar none, and it does just fine. Also, animals like elephants and rhinos are much bigger than many dinosaurs and other animals that went extinct at the same time.
The whale lives in the sea. It is able to take in vast amounts of air and stay submerged for a long time. It was much easier for this mammal to adapt, like us.
Elephants and Rhinos were not near the size of many of the largest dino's.
Also, all kinds of animals die out and become extinct for any number of reasons...
So what's the problem, again?
The problem is that photo's were staged,
the moths rarely rested on trees in the day, the wings of a live peppered moth were not extended,
birds were not their only worry but bats were. Bats use echolocation that doesn't involve the color of wings.
It was never 'put forth as fact' You'll find no scientific papers on it, no research, no anything. It's not in any textbook, and the only time it even seems to come up is when creationists mention it.
There was no 'they'. It was one guy.
That's just it. They don't have to write a paper on it.
The grand lie is never for the professor. They are already part of the scheme.
This was for the layman.
This is how it works. Tell it to millions of the lay people who will never question it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?