Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

This is a valid complaint: the best thing you can do is study the areas of science you are interested in for a couple of years and the answers will be there for you to examine.A really good thing to do is a lit review.

This isn't unique to scientists though is it? There is no such thing as true objectivity in ANYONE, whether that be a scientist, a preacher, historian, or archaeologist. We are all subject to what we will accept as being valid evidence.

So don't believe any of it then.What's the problem?Why dwell on something that its hard to believe in, sounds like a great waste of time to me.

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher and business man named Samuel Phillips Verner. In the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Verner was sent to Africa in under contract from the St. Louis World's Fair to bring back pygmies for exhibition. Verner met Ota Benga in the Belgian Congo that year and negotiated with a tribal slave trader for the pygmies, returning to the United States with Ota Benga and eight others.The factors motivating Verner to bring Ota Benga to the United States were complex, but he was evidently much influenced by the theory of Charles Darwin, which led to the division of humankind into contrived races. A contemporary account stated that Benga was 'not much taller than an orangutan and their heads are much alike, and both grin in the same way when pleased'.Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man".Two years later, he was taken to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orangutan called Dohung.Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo.On March 20, 1916, at the age of 32, he built a ceremonial fire, chipped off the caps on his teeth, performed a final tribal dance, and shot himself in the heart with a stolen pistol.http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/ota_benga.aspOta Benga - WikipediaTurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal LustSo, the fledgling theory of evolution in the early 1900’s was furthered as fact at the expense of the life on a human being claimed to be an intermediary link between man and ape to prove Darwinian evolution. I would say that this is a public fraud as thousands of people came and believed that Ota Benga was indeed an intermediary species and proof of the evolution of man from apes.Thats one.

Where's the forged fossil in your example?

I love the avatar!Well, then why have this forum? Why post up. Why argue, just believe what you believe and keep it to yourself.How BORRING!No thanks, lets argue more!HAHAPEACE!

“I want them alive, no disintegrations!!”-Darth VaderI know this quote has little to do with anything, but I was influenced by you to post it up...Im not sure why....

I just think that because time is such a precious thing then why spend so much of it on something you cannot bring yourself to believe, why not put your energy into something else?What about taking a science degree and attacking this hugely erroneous theory from inside?There must be a few prizes up for grabs to anyone who can disprove evolution, there's something worth spending time on.The thing is, you seem to have already made up your mind about this and nothing will change it.Good luck anyway.

CRAAAAAP!!!! Ok, my bad!Its still an interesting story on how the Darwinian theory of evolution moved into the main stream of acceptance. Could we dig up Ota Benga? eh...nevermind...

The pursuit of the truth is a noble use of time. I love to hear debate, it’s a passion of mine. To me, its time well spent. It helps me in my own faith in finding the truth. I also enjoy the stimulation of different views on things. Besides, I’m at work, and it looks like I’m working . but . LOL!You are correct, time is precious.

You misunderstand. I said that these fossils are not the basis for the Theory of Evolution. The theory does not rest solely on them, or even very greatly on them at all.The fossil record is actually a very small segment of supporting evidence for the Theory of Evolution.Of course, with regards to the "missing link" statement...technically every new species discovered is a "missing link" between its ancestors and its offspring.A-
....>--?---
B-............>F
C---------.....|
....................>?
D--------D....|
..............>-H
E--------E
G--|Let's use this tree as an example. (Please forgive the .'s, I needed spaceholder characters)Let's say that the far-right examples are species that exist today. The ? species are ones we have never uncovered - so-called "missing links." F and H are both currently extinct, but we have found fossilized remains for them. We have directly observed species G branching from species E - we know from observational fact that G is an offshoot species of E.A, B, C, D, E, and G are all still currently living. A and B are very similar, but are very different from G. A and B are both more similar to C than to D, and D is more similar to E than to G. A, B, and C are all similar to F (with C being more similar than A or B), etc.The theory is that the more similar two species are, the more recently they had a common ancestor species. Some of these common ancestor species still exist.Now, does this theory rest on the existence of fossils F or H?The answer is no. F and H support the theory by matching what was expected and fitting into the evolutionary tree, but if they were discovered to be hoaxes or mistakes or anything else, the theory would still stand - the species we do observe still bear physical and genetic similarities that correspond exactly with the tree model.Likewise, the fraudulent claims you have brought up (mentioning once again that not all of your examples were fraudulent) are not the basis for the Theory of Evolution - in fact, Orce Man would have been a gigantic upset to paleontology and evolution, since it should be impossible to find human remains dated 1.6 million years old.The Theory of Evolution is not based on fossil evidence. Every fossil discovered so far supports the theory, but that's not the only reason scientists accept evolution as a highly accurate model of the formation of the diversity seen in life on Earth. Hell, Darwin himself formulated the original basis for evolution by observing birds currently living, and had nothing to do with fossils. If you search textbooks for inaccuracies, you will find many. Schools can often not afford new books, borads of education must go through political processes to change textbooks and are rarely educated in science themselves, textbooks sacrifice accuracy so that children can gain a basic grasp of concepts too complex to go into too much detail about, etc.It's unfortunate that inaccuracies and yes, even forgeries, can be left in school textbooks for years. But none of the forgeries you have mentioned significantly weaken the position of the Theory of Evolution even slightly, and hoaxes and forgeries are eventually revealed by the very same group that you suggest conspire to assemble the Theory of Evolution from the hoaxes.Tell me: if the Theory of Evolution is a giant conspiracy of fraudulent fossils perpetrated by scientists, why would scientists specifically expose frauds as soon as they are detected?! The heated debate over classification of Lucy is precicely because of her similarities to both humans and apes. Of course, nobody actually suggests she was human, but rather that she was much closer to the common ancestor we share with apes.Controversy over the classification of a fossil does not equate to a hoax or forgery. Anthropologists may debate over how specifically to classify her, but they do not dispute that she is an ancient ancestor to humans. All of them. Even those. They aren't "assumption." You believe they are only becasue you have not studied paleontology or anthropology for your entire life like anthropologists and paleontologists have. All of these things you call "assumptions" are logical inferences supported by observed evidence.For example, when we see a tooth, we can ascertain with reasonable certainty whether the owner of the tooth was carnivorous, herbivorous, or omnivorous; we can determine the rough size, and compare it to reptiles, mammals, etc and see which classification the tooth most closely resembles. A lot of information can be gained from nothing more than a tooth. More can be gained from "half a skeleton."Your tone suggests that you believe scientists sit around a bone and say "Oooh, oooh! I'll bet this one was half man, half bear-pig!" You imply that they wildly toss out ideas from nowhere with no supporting evidence in support of some "sacred cow" pet theory. This is not the case, and your suggestion that scientific theories are based wholly around the assumption that the theories are correct is a disservice to all scientists.As for macro-evolution...please start a new thread if you'd like to discuss that topic. If we discuss it here, it will quickly overshadow the existing topic regarding frauds and hoaxes in science.

Many of your claims are untrue.

quote:

---

Then why was the banner still hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year? Why was National Geographic so anxious to publish this find?

---

If you are talking about a real banner it was for something else. And National Geographic were eager to report it because they were fooled and thought it really was a very important find.

quote:

---

I see pictures of Velociraptor with feathers now. WHY? There is no hard evidence supporting a Velociraptor having feathers! They lack quill knobs and feathers do not fossilize.

---

The reason is that - contrary to your claims - velociraptor bones do show quill knobs. If you are really interested in pursuing the truth shouldn't you be out there finding it instead of posting falsehoods here ?

Are you sure? Complain loudly to them if so!!!!! Popular magazines sell copies on sensation, scoops etc. Publishing without waiting for the real scientific world of peer review was silly, because, while true sensations sell magazines, a false sensation that turns out to be a fraud is damaging to them. They made a mistake, and paid for it quickly, but it didn't matter to the science world. You do realise that it was only a matter of three months before the fraud was exposed. I was replying to your comment about "blindly accepting" what someone says because he's a scientist by advising you not to do so. Check the evidence, and what other scientists think of it. Quill knobs were found on a specimen last year, so that could be why. Before that, the feathers were more speculative, based on their presence in creatures thought to be relatives of the Velo.Remember, lots of artist's impressions based on fossils can be speculative, and do not claim to be exactly how it was. If you're seriously interested in paleontology, take the popular stuff with a pinch of salt, and read peer reviewed scientific papers.I'm no expert, but what you'll find is plenty of debate about how birds evolved and what from, and how the existing fossils fit into the picture. Well, don't you think that if you found a dinosaur with a wishbone, hollow bones, and quill knobs that it might be a bit more than coincidence? I'd say that it would make the "birds from dinosaurs" theory fairly strong myself. So I don't think anyone's intentionally fooling the public, even if they turn out to be wrong. Try using scientific peer reviewed material as your main basic source, and even then, consider it all tentative.Bits of macro-evolution can be observed in real time. It looks like micro-evolution, logically, as you'd expect.

Fossils, remember? Forgeries, remember?Stop trying to change the subject. It won't work.I was waiting for five examples of fossil forgeries, and I spotted you the first two.If there were so many fossil forgeries, as you claimed, you would have come up with some; at least one. Instead you changed the subject.You lost this round.

Based on you post I googled "velociraptor quill knobs" and the first hit was:Just a moment...It even has a picture comparing a velociraptor ulna to a turkey vulture. Fleas should take a look!