Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 31 of 346 (469214)
06-04-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
06-04-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Hey Coyote, Ever heard of this?
Did you not see my apology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2008 2:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2008 3:50 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 32 of 346 (469218)
06-04-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kjsimons
06-04-2008 2:46 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist but a critic of the dino to bird theory, sounded a note of caution about the "feathered dinosaurs" in general in an interview with the evolutionary Discover magazine It certainly seems strange that all these specimans come from a single province of China, the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from. The holotype of Microraptor was part of this hoax.
“When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact related to dinosaurs. That’s a difficult issue to deal with right now, given the existence of fake fossils”-Dr. Alan Feduccia
Like I said, who can you trust? So much data, so many opinions. Fake fossils out of china. Should we trust anything coming out of China?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kjsimons, posted 06-04-2008 2:46 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 3:53 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 33 of 346 (469222)
06-04-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rahvin
06-04-2008 2:37 PM


Re: Rahvin
First off, thank you for the detailed reply. I am reading it with interest. A quick note:
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."
Have you ever seen a fruit bat?


QuickPost
Based on this skull, one would think that this animal is carniverous. Wanna take a guess what it eats?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2008 2:37 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 3:36 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied
 Message 35 by bluescat48, posted 06-04-2008 3:44 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 06-04-2008 4:28 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied
 Message 51 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 4:02 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 34 of 346 (469224)
06-04-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 3:33 PM


To you it "looks carnivorous".
Not to an expert.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 3:33 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 35 of 346 (469225)
06-04-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 3:33 PM


Re: Rahvin
If I didn't know what it ate, I would assume it was either carnivorous or evolved from a carnivorous ancestor. With the second choice being correct. It eats fruit but its ancestors were carnivorous as are many of its related families of the order chiroptera.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 3:33 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 346 (469227)
06-04-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Hey Coyote, Ever heard of this?
Did you not see my apology?
Only after I posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 2:55 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 37 of 346 (469230)
06-04-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 3:33 PM


Re: Rahvin
quote:
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."
Have you ever seen a fruit bat?
Based on this skull, one would think that this animal is carniverous. Wanna take a guess what it eats?
The opinions of an amateur are irrelevant. Biologists don't base such determinations on the same criteria you or I do - it isn't only a matter of what the teeth "look like" to the casual observer.
As bluescat mentioned, fruit bats (and there are several species of fruit bats, by the way) are descended from carnivorous species, which is a large part of the reason amateur opinion cannot be depended upon.
To an uneducated person who doesn't know any better, the Earth appears flat and the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth.
There's a reason you want an actual, trained surgeon to operate on you when you need an appendectomy, as opposed to a gas station attendant. Why then would you seriously believe that the opinions of a casual observer like you or I would by of equal or greater value than the conclusions of a trained biologist when it comes to classification of teeth?
Your determination of whether the teeth of a fruit bat are carnivorous or herbivorous are based only on your observations, which are extremely limited with regards to the topic at hand. You see a pointy tooth (particularly large pointy teeth) and conclude "carnivore," and in many circumstances you would be correct - but not in all, and there are far more considerations made when making such a determination. For example, most of the teeth are not pointy - the rear molars look like those of an herbivore. Real biologists examine such things far more closely and with a far broader range of previous observations to draw conclusions from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 3:33 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 38 of 346 (469248)
06-04-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 1:31 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
Then why was the banner still hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year?
Which one? The one in NYC? And by last year do you mean May 2005-January-2006?
Was it this banner?
From your paleontological standpoint is that an example of the fraudulent Archaeoraptor liaoningensis under discussion? Or is it a rendition of a valid avian dinosaur? Which one? Do you know or are you just parroting AiG claims? I'm thinking the latter since you claimed to have visited this museum last year and seen the banner with your own eyes when it has been well over 2 years since that exhibit was up and Archaeoraptor isn't mentioned on the banner. I live in NYC and went to the AMNH multiple times to see that exhibit and don't remember seeing anything about Archaeoraptor.
Why do you feel the need to lie? If you have a problem with the whole "bird to dinosaur" idea, then why don't you just say that (and explain to us exactly why) instead of making false claims about a respectable museum?
Why was National Geographic so anxious to publish this find?
Because National Geographic (while they do publish some wonderful and enlightening articles) exists to sell magazines. They can have a tendency to sensationalize some of the science to make it more interesting to the lay public, although they usually do a lot better job than many of the other pop-sci magazines. According to TalkOrigins, "[t]he main author of the article about it was National Geographic's art editor, not a scientist. Nature and Science both rejected papers describing it, citing suspicions that it was doctored and illegally smuggled (Dalton 2000; Simons 2000). Normal scientific procedures worked to uphold high standards."
The relevant scientists had not yet been able to examine the fossils as it had traded hands from a private seller (not a paleontologist, but an unscrupulous "fossil hunter") to a private collector. National Geographic indeed jumped the gun, but, as soon as the specimen came to the attention of scientists who could tell the difference, the forgery was exposed. What is your seemingly extreme problem with how this went down? You make it seem like scientists are conspiring to fool the public, but they are the only ones who have EVER exposed any frauds. Why would they do that if they are so keen to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?
I would love to believe that this is how it actually happens, but I find it hard. It seems more likely that whatever evidence would further a foundations’ funding would be more acceptable.
You see (and others have said this, but it bears repeating as many times as necessary), the problem with this scenario is that it is really easy for other scientists to find out about fraudulent evidence. And when that happens, the person or "foundation" who perpetrated the fraud are stripped of their grants, positions and all of their credibility. They will never be able to do science again!
How in the heck are we to believe the validity of claims and data, from a group of scientists voting on what other groups of scientists claim to have found? Sounds more like politics to me!
Wherever did you get the idea that scientists voted?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM Dont Be a Flea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:07 PM Jaderis has replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 39 of 346 (469297)
06-04-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by molbiogirl
06-04-2008 3:36 PM


Hello molbiogirl
What is the area of your expertise? (besides having pretty cool hair) I’m just curious. You statement brimmed with confidence that this type of thing is up your alley.
I am opposed, I am arguing, but Im always searching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 3:36 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 11:49 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Dont Be a Flea
Member (Idle past 5762 days)
Posts: 79
From: Merritt Island FL
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 40 of 346 (469298)
06-04-2008 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jaderis
06-04-2008 7:12 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
I checked with my wife and we were there in November of 06. I can't believe that time can get away from me that fast. I did not intentionally lie about when I was there, I simply lost track of when I was there. It seemed like yesterday! I must be getting old. Please accept my humble time correction of two years instead of one. The banner I saw was not that one. It said "Archaeoraptor" on it. I remember commenting to my wife when we saw it that it was a fraud. She remembers it as well.
Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Mispelled wurds suck
Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : sigh...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jaderis, posted 06-04-2008 7:12 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jaderis, posted 06-05-2008 12:24 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 41 of 346 (469299)
06-04-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 11:04 PM


It matters not what my area of expertise is.
What you "think" skulls look like is right next to worthless.
PS -- That is Laurie Anderson, nimwit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:04 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-05-2008 12:10 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 42 of 346 (469303)
06-05-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by molbiogirl
06-04-2008 11:49 PM


Please be nice
Those one-liners are not contributing to moving the topic along in a fruitful manner.
Re: Laurie Anderson - I don't think LA and her image is really in the general public knowledge. Dont Be a Flea's thinking that it was actually a photograph of you was a understandable mistake.
No replies to this message, unless your fishing for a 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by molbiogirl, posted 06-04-2008 11:49 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 43 of 346 (469304)
06-05-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 11:07 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
I checked with my wife and we were there in November of 06. I can't believe that time can get away from me that fast. I did not intentionally lie about when I was there, I simply lost track of when I was there. It seemed like yesterday! I must be getting old. Please accept my humble time correction of two years instead of one. The banner I saw was not that one. It said "Archaeoraptor" on it. I remember commenting to my wife when we saw it that it was a fraud. She remembers it as well.
I appreciate that you got a second opinion from your wife, but she either got the date wrong or you are not telling the truth. There were no special dinosaur exhibitions in November of 2006 (as you can see here ). The most recent dinosaur exhibit was the one corresponding to the banner I displayed. As there were no special dinosaur exhibitions of any kind in November of 2006 and the AMNH does not put up banners advertising their permanent exhibition (in which one cannot find any trace of Archaeoraptor, past or present), I am inclined to go for the latter explanation.
Again, I also have my own testimony as a frequent visitor to the AMNH (at least twice a month) in addition to the link to past exhibitions I provided above. I remember no reference to Archaeoraptor (and I definitely would have noticed it because I am an avid reader of Nat'l Geographic and clearly remember the debacle).
{ABE: There is also no way that the AMNH would have had risked displaying a known fraud. They are one of the most prestigious science museums in the world and their paleontologists would have most definitely been aware of the brouhaha surrounding Archaeoraptor. You may have convinced yourself you saw the word "Archaeoraptor" on a banner outside the AMNH, but I don't think you actually did.}
What about the rest of my post? Anything to say about that?
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:07 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 44 of 346 (469315)
06-05-2008 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 10:55 AM


Re: Dr Adequate is in the house!
My point is more, if it happened in the past, it more than likely is still happening.
Piltdown was a relatively successful forgery ONLY because it happened in the past. If that same skull was presented today, the presenter would be laughed out of the room.
That's because AT THE TIME, there were only a handful of fossils. And, even then Piltdown was suspicious.
Today, there are literally TONS of fossils. Piltdown is soo far out in left field as to be obviously a fake.
And, ALL of that is thanks to scientists DOING their jobs.
A great example would be Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis
Actually, it's not a great example. It's actually two different fossils. A fact which was pointed out in short order after it's presentation.
In response to your statement “there aren’t”, I would disagree wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, your opinion doesn't count. It's a matter of math. You've named 3 hoaxes and 3 things which you wrongly claim to be hoaxes. That's out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FOSSILS.
“Lucy” for example, who has no hands or feet bones but is claimed to walk upright.
Habitual bipedalism is not determined by the feet, but by the knees, hips and the hole in the base of the skull. ALL three of which are present in the Lucy fossils.
To me, this is a false representation of the evidence to support their theory.
And again, who cares what it represents "to you". The FACTS run opposite your opinion, therefore your opinion isn't worth squat.
Why make displays and draw pictures of entire races of intermediaries that are merely fragmented incomplete fossils
Which would you consider to be MORE dishonest?
A) I have 20% of the fossils needed to rebuild an animal and I extrapolate in order to build the model.
B) I have 90% of the fossils needed to rebuild an animal and I intentionally leave out features I don't like.
Yes, in scenario A it's possible that I am wrong. For example, raptor models are last at the 90s had NO feathers. Currently they have feathers. One of these two scenarios is incorrect.
However, in scenario B, Creationists are removing the TEETH and TAIL from Archaeoptryx in order to pretend that it is "just a bird".
I think these are calculated moves, done deliberately to insure further funding for their studies.
Who's got more funding? Paleontologists or Creationists? Present your numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 10:55 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 45 of 346 (469319)
06-05-2008 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Rahvin
I beg to differ, anytime you put the title “missing link” on something, it becomes “evidence” for evolution.
Incorrect. It's evidence on its own. The fact that the press likes catch phrases like "missing link" has nothing to do with the evidence.
Scientists don't like the term "missing link", firstly because it's singular, secondly because it we HAVE it, it's certainly NOT MISSING.
Look how long Haekle’s embryos were in science textbooks for the up and coming students to just “believe” in.
How is this a forgery by scientists? Are you at all aware of how the textbook publishing industry works? Scientists aren't even a factor in determining what is or isn't in textbooks.
The chief factor in determining whether or not something is going to go into a textbook is whether or not it's in ANOTHER TEXT BOOK.
That's because text book company A is competing with text book company B. If A has the Haekle sketch and B doesn't, B is afraid that the committee will select A because of that.
Yes, SOME of Haekle's suggestions were wrong. However, SOME of what Haekle proposed was, in fact, correct. Comparing the embryos of various species HAS educational value in a biology class.
How long will Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis hang around in the mainstream before it is completely removed.
Presented in Oct '99, revealed that it was suspiciously exported in Nov '99, exposed as a fraud in Jan '00.
WOW! That was a long time! A whole 3 months!
How long is fake Lucy going to be on display?
Not a fake, no matter how damning it is to your argument.
How long are pictures of Piltdown man going to be around?
Hopefully forever. How long are "pictures" of Abe Lincoln going to be around?
Are you now complaining that Piltdown is being shown in text books where they are talking about the forgery?
Out of the “millions” of fossils found, how many actually support macro-evolution
ALL of them.
There are a lot of assumptions made based on a single tooth, a footprint or one leg bone.
I'm not a paleontologist, yet even I know that from those three things the following can be discovered:
Age, diet, stress, weight, height, ancestry, speed, and hunting style.
And that's just off the top of my head.
There is A LOT of information available if you are educated in what to look for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:22 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024