|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Embarrassed Creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. Why all these lies if evolution is so very factual? At Not Found:
quote: If you follow that footnote 7,
BBC - 404: Not Found
, you will find the transcript of a BBC report, The Dinosaur that Fooled the World, first shown on BBC Two 9.00pm Thursday 21 February 2002. That report details the examination of the fossil and the publishing of the findings (in National Geographic which had exclusive rights having funded the research), the research that led to discovery of the fake (by a Chinese paleontologist who was offered a similar "complete" fossil for sale by a local farmer, a fossil with an identical tail, since it was the counter-slab to the fossil in question), and the scientific community's reaction and corrective actions. It was not paleontologists (not archaeologists as you said -- shouldn't you bother to learn something about science before you start to make false statements about it?) who had created the fake, but rather a Chinese farmer. From the BBC report (link provided above, so do please read it on your own):
quote: And yet, towards the end of that BBC report:
quote: You ask "Why all these lies if evolution is so very factual?" We find that the lies were not told by the scientific community as you claim, but rather by professional fakers. And just who exposed this lie? Was it creationists? No, it was by scientists. In all human enterprises, both scientific and non-, we cannot keep frauds and fakes from ever occurring. It's impossible since they all involve people. But what we can is to seek out fraud and fakery, expose it, and remove it and correct the damage done by it. That is what science does. And that is what creationism refuses to do. That is why there are so many PRATTs, false creationist claims that have were exposed decades ago and which creationists unscrupulously continue to spread. If creationists serve the God of Truth, then why all the persistent lies? BTW, you should visit the Genesis Panthesis site at No webpage found at provided URL: http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/main.html by D. Jon Scott. Select the The Inspiration for Genesis Panthesis link. Scott was a young (pre-college) young-earth creationist who was so active in arguing for the cause that he set up a site and forum for it. Here is part of his story:
quote: That page is a decade old and has been abandoned, I'm sure, for as long. I had found it a few years after it had been written and via Google I found some more pages by and about D. Jon Scott. He had become very strongly anti-Christian. He had also become an atheist, but at some point in college had pedelled back to Wicca, becoming a Red Witch, centered on Odin as I seem to recall, with "Corvus" as part of his Wiccan name. Now 7 or 8 years later, I couldn't conclusively locate him via Google, so I don't know where he is at now. Please note that what had deconverted him was not evolution or fossils, but rather it was solely creationism. It was creationism that had taught him to base his faith on false claims that are contrary-to-fact and to believe that if those contrary-to-fact claims are not true, then he must abandon his faith. Creationism did its job of destroying faith and it did it well. And it would have destroyed his faith just as well if D. Jon Scott had seen Archaeoraptor liaoningensis instead of the actual fossil that he did see, Sinornithosaurus millenii.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tupinambis Junior Member (Idle past 4906 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
I find your lack of ability to stay on topic rather disappointing BarackZero.
The Cambrian Explosion, feathered lizards and Haeckel's embryology drawings have absolutely no relevance to your attempts to utilize "gaps in the fossil record" as a case against evolution. Lets focus on these "gaps" first and THEN proceed to the other topics.Let it be known that there has been no fossil yet discovered that is incompatiable with or otherwise debunks the Theory of Evolution. The fact that we haven't found an intermediate form to please you is absolutely meaningless for a few reasons. 1. We haven't uncovered literally all of the fossilized animal remains ever created in the history of geologic time. 2. As soon as a transitional form between two types of animals is discovered (like Najash) all it really does is create two more gaps to either side of it. And 3. people like who you already have a pre-conceived notion of what is right and wrong will simply ignore the fact that an intermediate form was found an insist that more intermediates be found in the new gaps that were just formed. Najash was a basal snake with diminutive limbs, showing an obvious link between lizards and snakes. Talk to the average creationist about it and the'll demand that more transitional forms between monitors and Najash, and Najash and true limbless snakes be found to satisfy the new gaps. I wouldn't put it past you to demand the same thing intentionally or otherwise. Your lame attempts to simply change the subject are not new to me. Try something else next time. Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given. Edited by Tupinambis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
You do realize that the post was still carried on this brilliant forum, don't you? You do realize that there is an opening post and your posts are suposed to be related to it? From the OP:
quote: Do you have any comments on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tupinambis Junior Member (Idle past 4906 days) Posts: 18 Joined: |
quote: For someone who's profile pic is a lizard I was very slow to catch this.Archaeoraptor is NOT a lizard. I repeat, NOT a lizard. Dinosaurs are NOT lizards. Lizards are Lepidosaurs, have a three chambered heart and their legs are slung to the sides of their bodies. The Archaeoraptor is an Archosaur, has a four chambered heart and its legs are held beneath its body. The two are about as closely related as you and a platypus. Am I nitpicking details? Why yes I am. But hey, its not the same as nit-picking typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1595 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hi tegu,
Tupinambis writes: For someone who's profile pic is a lizard I was very slow to catch this.Archaeoraptor is NOT a lizard. I repeat, NOT a lizard. Dinosaurs are NOT lizards. Lizards are Lepidosaurs, have a three chambered heart and their legs are slung to the sides of their bodies. The Archaeoraptor is an Archosaur, has a four chambered heart and its legs are held beneath its body. The two are about as closely related as you and a platypus. Am I nitpicking details? Why yes I am. But hey, its not the same as nit-picking typos. no, that's not really a nitpick. it's a very, very large difference between a flying theropod dinosaur and a lizard. he might as well have confused you with crashfrog. but while you've briefly covered the important differences, i'd like to cover the often neglected part of this old creationist canard. "archaeoraptor" is not a faked specimen in the way that a creationist might expect. it is not a dinosaur (or "lizard") that someone has carved feathers onto. rather, it is a chimera, and combined from two genuine specimens. one of those, the rear half, happens to be the earliest discovered specimen of microraptor zhaoianus (or perhaps gui, as they might be synonyms). the front is another genuine specimen of yanornis martini. the forgery was discovered, in part, because of the fact that it wouldn't have fit the evolutionary lineage -- it had a tail very much like a non-avian dromaeosaurid dinosaur, but a beak like a bird? yes, read that closely barackzero. the whole back half of the forgery was a legitimate flying dinosaur, and it was discovered because of the theory of evolution. why the forgery? well, contrary to what the creationists would like, it wasn't committed by scientists. rather, it was the scientists who quickly discovered it, and yanked publication of the article in all but nat. geo. (which sort of jumped the gun) the forgery itself was committed by an unscrupulous chinese fossil prospector, who was selling such items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why don't you look up the Cambrian Explosion. Why don't you say what mistake you want to make about it? We could all use a good laugh.
Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. They didn't. You are lying. This is exactly what the OP is about. It must be profoundly embarrassing for any honest creationist to find himself on the same side as liars and frauds like you.
One of the most enduring of frauds was Haeckel's drawings. This fraud was perpetuated for over 100 years. A more honest man would have said that it was intermittently successful for over 100 years.
Biologists should be ashamed of themselves, but instead, simply come up with flimsy excuses. Biologists exposed Haeckel's blunders, omissions, and equivocations, and in return ungrateful and dishonest creationist morons who have never contributed anything to science snivel about how "biologists should be ashamed of themselves". You guys wouldn't know that there was anything wrong with Haeckel's drawings if not for the fact that biologists, who, unlike you, know about biology, had spoonfed this fact to you. And instead of showing gratitude, you whine about them. Small wonder that Vercingetorix is ashamed to share a religious dogma with people like you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1595 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
BarackZero writes: Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. man, every time i look at this statement, another error dawns on me. paleontologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To call it an error and to suggest a correction is to suppose that there is some sense in which one complete lie can nonetheless be more accurate than another.
It would not actually make that sentence more accurate if he substituted "paleontologists" for "archeologists" than it would if he substituted "a bucketful of tiny lemon-scented anteaters called Gerald".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
This topic is about creationists who accept creationism for reasons that are demonstrably wrong. Please take the off topic discussion to another thread. Perhaps someone could suggest one, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024