Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[Herman Hedning]

Isn't the theory of evolution the BIGGEST fairy tale being told today?

No it isn't

Apparently, there is a verse in the bible telling us that there r no monkey men.
Ecc. 7:29 "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes

You are kidding, right? You do realise what "upright" means in this context? Or maybe not, so here it is:

Upright: strictly honourable or honest: an upright member of the community.

That hardly has any connection to evolution, has it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you not the slightest bit worried about fossils that are found in China? after all, they have fooled science before.

No, they haven't. There isn't a single peer reviewed paper where Archaeorapter is presented as a real fossil species. The fraud was spotted by scientists right away. The problem was that the people at National Geographic ignored the scientists and presented it as a real fossil.

It also seems a bit of a coincidence that fossils being searched for just so happen to pop up in China. They are the world leaders at producing fakes, good enough to fool almost anyone. In fact, some of their fake products are so convincing that they have to be sent to the REAL producers of the goods for verification. Just stating facts. You would be surprised at how many fake goods are smuggled into the UK from China, anything from top brand watches to televisions and mobile phones.

Just more excuses for ignoring the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it isn't silly at all. That fossil was sent for the best minds in the business to examine and authenticate it BEFORE publication was made. It was given the most detailed examination possible. It fooled the best scientists even after examining the fossil for THREE MONTHS.

No, it didn't. Please stop telling lies.

"During the initial examination of the fossil on March 6, 1999 it had already become clear to Currie that the left and right feet mirrored each other perfectly and that the fossil had been completed by using both slab and counterslab. He also noticed no connection could be seen between the tail and the body. In July 1999, Currie and the Czerkases brought the fossil to the High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility of the University of Texas (Austin) founded and operated by Dr. Timothy Rowe to make CT scans. Rowe, having made the scans on July 29, determined that they indicated that the bottom fragments, showing the tail and the lower legs, were not part of the larger fossil. He informed the Czerkases on August 2 that there was a chance of the whole being a fraud."
Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientists spotted the fraud before it was ever presented in National Geographic.

 

[lasthero]

Just more excuses for ignoring the evidence.

Yeah, seriously, I don't get the logic, here. Even if I assume that China is the leader in fake goods, that's hardly a reason to reject every single fossil that comes from China out of hand. Lots of places make fake goods.

 

[Split Rock]

No it isn't silly at all. That fossil was sent for the best minds in the business to examine and authenticate it BEFORE publication was made. It was given the most detailed examination possible. It fooled the best scientists even after examining the fossil for THREE MONTHS. Of course, when it was eventually found to be a hoax, those scientists started to change their story. They even removed the rock around some bones to see the thickness of them. What they found was a lower half of dinosaur and upper half of bird. No matter how you dress this up, they were fooled. They are human and prone to being misled and this is why the so called evidence for dino to bird is taken lightly. Even some experts still don't believe it.

Your account is completetly fraudulent. The experts were not fooled. Their advice was ignored by Nat Geo, and Nat Geo learned a hard lesson about publishing claims that have not gone through scientific peer review (like all claims by "creation scientists"). I also think its funny how you compare THREE MONTHS to decades of research on bird evolution.

 

[nuttypiglet]

National Geographic pride themselves on ensuring everything they put to print is very accurate, and that's why they waited 3 months for the scrutiny by the best in the business. Even a PET scan was taken of the fossil with no clue it was fake. The scientists were simply over excited that at last there was clear evidence of birds being evolved from Dinosaurs. What do you think was happening in those 3 months? nothing? They funded the investigation and then put more funding into the projects for the 3rd month. They wanted to ensure this thing was genuine. You honestly think they would have gone to print if it wasn't thought of as genuine by the experts? what part of their tack record are you basing this on?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yeah, seriously, I don't get the logic, here. Even if I assume that China is the leader in fake goods, that's hardly a reason to reject every single fossil that comes from China out of hand. Lots of places make fake goods.

nowhere near the scope of China

 

[nuttypiglet]

No, they haven't. There isn't a single peer reviewed paper where Archaeorapter is presented as a real fossil species. The fraud was spotted by scientists right away. The problem was that the people at National Geographic ignored the scientists and presented it as a real fossil.



Just more excuses for ignoring the evidence.

Well let's look at that evidence for a minute. We have some dinosaurs with some bird like features, and we have some birds with some dinosaur features. It is now believed that many species of dinosaurs had feathers. So that's it. That's the so called evidence. But what does it say? Well it says that birds could have evolved into dinosaurs, or dinosaurs could have evolved into birds, or that these were totally independent species of both. What you are asking me to do is forget all that, but just accept that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I thought science relied on evidence? Heck, even experts are still arguing among themselves over this, and you expect me to just drop everything and believe it because you say it's so?

 

[lasthero]

National Geographic pride themselves on ensuring everything they put to print is very accurate, and that's why they waited 3 months for the scrutiny by the best in the business. Even a PET scan was taken of the fossil with no clue it was fake. The scientists were simply over excited that at last there was clear evidence of birds being evolved from Dinosaurs. What do you think was happening in those 3 months? nothing? They funded the investigation and then put more funding into the projects for the 3rd month. They wanted to ensure this thing was genuine. You honestly think they would have gone to print if it wasn't thought of as genuine by the experts? what part of their tack record are you basing this on?

They did a column admitting they messed up, explaining the story, and verifying that they'd rush to print without properly checking things.

Read the link. The entir story is laid out . They were warned it was probably a fake and went ahead. Kick and scream all you want, it's not the example you want it to be.

 

[lasthero]

But what does it say? Well it says that birds could have evolved into dinosaurs, or dinosaurs could have evolved into birds,

It's not just the fossils , it's where they're found. As we go higher in the geologic column, we see theropods disappear and birds appear. That makes no sense if birds are turning into dinosaurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not just the fossils , it's where they're found. As we go higher in the geologic column, we see theropods disappear and birds appear. That makes no sense if birds are turning into dinosaurs.

Wouldn't that make sense?

As the waters rise, the theropods (whatever those are) drown & fossilize, then the birds drown & fossilize.

 

[lasthero]

Wouldn't that make sense?

As the waters rise, the theropods (whatever those are) drown & fossilize, then the birds drown & fossilize.

Then we'd have to explain why we find pterosaurs below theropods, when they can fly just as well as any bird. Never mind aquatic reptiles.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then we'd have to explain why we find pterosaurs below theropods, when they can fly just as well as any bird. Never mind aquatic reptiles.

I solved one dilemma, it's someone else's turn.

I'm sure evolution has more questions and catch-22's than any other philosophy.

 

[lasthero]

I solved one dilemma.

Actually, no. I forgot one thing - flightless birds appear after birds with flight.

 

[EternalDragon]

Wouldn't that make sense?

As the waters rise, the theropods (whatever those are) drown & fossilize, then the birds drown & fossilize.

There are several scenarios. It could be that mammals lived together away from dinosaurs. So got buried in a different layer. Plus there is sorting action that goes on with waves and moving water.

I've seen lots of fancy fossil charts with drawings but suspect that things are not that neat and tidy in the actual fossil record one digs up in the field.

 

[EternalDragon]

Actually, no. I forgot one thing - flightless birds appear after birds with flight.

Are you sure about that? From what I have read they are found just above dinosaurs in the fossil record. Also that the fossil record of those birds is very incomplete.

Extinct Birds

 

[lasthero]

It could be that mammals lived together away from dinosaurs.

They didn't. We find early mammals mixed with dinosaurs all the time. Not to mention that dinosaurs lived all over the place, even Antartica. They've been found on every continent, in every area of the world. Mammals couldn't have avoided them, even if they were smart enough to purposely go about doing so, for some strange reason.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/

Plus there is sorting action that goes on with waves and moving water.

And this sorting action would effect fossil distribution...how?

I've seen lots of fancy fossil charts with drawings but suspect that things are not that neat and tidy in the actual fossil record one digs up in the field.

For the millionth, no one ever said that it was that neat. The charts you keep looking at are, well...charts. They're meant to give you a basic understanding of what we find, but no one ever said the geologic column actually looks that neat and tidy all over the world.

You keep bringing this up, it keeps getting explained to you. It's not a difficult concept. You saw charts and representations all the time in school.

 

[lasthero]

From what I have read they are found just above dinosaurs in the fossil record

What have you read?

I read this.

Natural History Collections: FLIGHTLESS BIRDS

And it indicates that flightless birds, like the ostrich and emu, came from flying ancestors. But I'm interested to see your source.

 

[nuttypiglet]

They didn't. We find early mammals mixed with dinosaurs all the time. Not to mention that dinosaurs lived all over the place, even Antartica. They've been found on every continent, in every area of the world. Mammals couldn't have avoided them, even if they were smart enough to purposely go about doing so, for some strange reason.

Dinosaur Fossil Locations - EnchantedLearning.com



And this sorting action would effect fossil distribution...how?



For the millionth, no one ever said that it was that neat. The charts you keep looking at are, well...charts. They're meant to give you a basic understanding of what we find, but no one ever said the geologic column actually looks that neat and tidy all over the world.

You keep bringing this up, it keeps getting explained to you. It's not a difficult concept. You saw charts and representations all the time in school.

oh so because it was seen in school it must be true. That would be the same place which says the appendix is a relic from our past.

 

[lasthero]

oh so because it was seen in school it must be true.

I said nothing of the kind. It's a chart. A representation of what we actually find. It doesn't look exactly like the real fossil record and it's not supposed to. This is a simple concept.

That would be the same place which says the appendix is a relic from our past.

If you mean 'vestigial', yeah, it is. What about it?