Fossil hoaxes

[Pete Harcoff]

Of the various controversial fossil finds that come up in creation/evolution debates, I only know of two that were deliberate hoaxes:

Piltdown Man - probably the most infamous hoax

Archaeoraptor - this one was exposed quickly, so it doesn't get as much press

Other fossil finds which some label as "hoaxes" weren't really such (Nebraska Man comes to mind).

I'm just wondering, are there any other genuine fossil hoaxes out there (where the intent was deliberately fool people into thinking the fossil was something it wasn't).

 

[euphoric]

They're all hoaxes, silly.  Clearly put there by the devil to fool us. 

In all seriousness, I'm not aware of any others off the top of my head.  This is a pretty good article on TalkOrigins about a creationist bookon hominid fossils.  It links to a semi-detailed essay on the Nebraska Man controversy.  The article also provides a good overview of the misconceptions that creationists try to use about well-known hominid fossils.

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html

 

-brett

 

[webboffin]

I sometimes wonder about some archeology finds that are on tv.
Some wirey bearded man will pick up a stone out of a dig and suddenly say, ah this is an ancient arrow head just because it happens to be triangular in shape. Might of been just a natural stone with similar shape.
Or on tv the BBC is doing a show called "Walking with cavemen" and it portrays how things WERE not what might have been.
It's all a lot of assumption I think.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:56 PM webboffin said this in Post #3

I sometimes wonder about some archeology finds that are on tv.
Some wirey bearded man will pick up a stone out of a dig and suddenly say, ah this is an ancient arrow head just because it happens to be triangular in shape. Might of been just a natural stone with similar shape.
Or on tv the BBC is doing a show called "Walking with cavemen" and it portrays how things WERE not what might have been.
It's all a lot of assumption I think.

Personally, I take with a grain of salt stuff that shows up on tv specials or in the media regarding anything scientific (since there's usually some element of sensationalism within such presentations).

At the same time, I trust that archeologists, paleontologists, etc, are far better trained than the average laymen and know what they are doing. It may be personally comforting or self-gratifying to think that they might be making stuff up, but I think they deserve more respect than that.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are some very technical and specialized analyses that go into determining whether or not a stone functioned as a tool. Tools leave microscopic (and some macroscopic) clues as to their function. Edges become polished in ways characteristic of their use and the material on which they were used. Fractures in the stone are rather readily distinguished as natural or fabricated. If you would like to learn about them, you might read "Making the Silent Stones Speak".

Simple enough for a beginner, but very interesting, with a good amount of detail.

Check it out. It's a lot more involved than you might suspect.

 

[webboffin]

I was not knocking the specialists as a whole but yes it is TV sometimes.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah. One of my addictions is swords. TV (both entertainment, and history shows) have handled them so poorly that I dont really trust too many TV PhDs anymore unless I already know some about the subject.