Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

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. 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. 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. 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. And again, who cares what it represents "to you". The FACTS run opposite your opinion, therefore your opinion isn't worth squat. 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". Who's got more funding? Paleontologists or Creationists? Present your numbers.

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. 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. 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! Not a fake, no matter how damning it is to your argument. 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? ALL of them. 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.

You are being dishonest.You are getting your informations from websites promoting Creationism. That is why the information you have is largely incorrect.Since you are merely repeating the typical Creationist lies here, you don't get to also claim that pointing out that they are typical Creationist lies is out of bounds.You are presenting lies as evidence of other lies - how do you not see the dishonesty in that? Too bad. You came here. You presented lies. You got called on it. We're not just going to sit back and let you falsely accuse us of doing exactly what you are doing. This is true. Piltdown was a hoax. Creationists can (and do) lie all they want, it won't change the fact that Piltdown was a hoax.However, much of the rest of what you are talking about is based solely on Creationist lies.As such, pointing out that they are lies from the Creationists is, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that they are not lies from evolution.

Provide evidence of this banner. So far, all we have for it is your word that you saw it. I'm not convinced that any banner existed, let alone one that advertised Archaeoraptor in the context you are claiming.As for why NG was anxious? They are a MAGAZINE. They want a cover story which is something "NEW" and "EXCITING". NG is NOT a peer reviewed journal (most of which have text and stock photos for their covers).Why is US Weekly anxious to rush to press with rumors about the Olsen Twins? Because it sells copies. No. You don't. You CLAIM that that's the case, but you've present NO evidence for it.In fact, your BEST example, Piltdown, had NOTHING TO DO with institutional funding whatsoever.Yes, a scientist wants to have a big discovery. That's a boost to his career. But, if you can't make a big discovery, the next best thing is to prove that your collegue is wrong.Scientists are CONSTANTLY clawing each others eyes out because it's EASIER to destroy someone else's work than to do work of your own.Every significant find is scrutinized to death by COMPETING scientists which makes forgery not only a bad career choice, but virtually impossible to pull off.Again, Archaeoraptor lasted for 3 months! And that's assuming that it was exposed the DAY the article was published exposing it. Not true, it was obviously exposed EARLIER than that so that the article could be researched and written. Imprints of feathers however DO fossilize. And there have been MANY excellent feather print fossils uncovered in the last decade.Have you been reading up on these finds? No. Of course not. Why bother to research something when blanket accusations are soo much easier? And by "plethora" you mean 3. One of which is nearly 150 years old and is present AS a deception by people TEACHING evolution. More political than the Wedge document? Are you being honest?

Here you are claiming that racism didn't exist prior to Darwin.Darwin published in Nov 1859
Licoln's Emancipation Proclaimation was Sept 1862Are you suggesting that ALL the slaves in America arrived between the time Darwin suggested "racism" and Licoln freed them? No, of course not.Racism has been around for as long as people have been able to travel far enough to meet someone of a different race. And we would say that this is a circus act.Ota Benga wasn't being present by scientists to scientists, he was being exhibited by zoo keepers to a paying public.Just because SOMEONE SOMEWHERE says SOMETHING is proof of evolution doesn't mean that they are speaking for the scientific community.I'm sure PT Barnum said the Figi Mermaid was proof of evolution, doesn't mean we are bound by his claims.

Hardly!Certain types of materials preserve fossils differently.If you took two identical turkeys and buried one in sand and one in ash and came back in a million years - the fossils left by each would have different information.The fossils in the ash would have imprints of the feathers.The region in China where most of the protoavian finds are coming from is an area which was rapidly buried in volcanic ash.It's not that they had more proto-avians, or better proto-avians, they just have the best preserved stuff.And, BECAUSE so many finds were happening, someone was able to find TWO fossils and glue them together - thus the Archaeoraptor forgery.BOTH halves are ACTUAL fossils, they just aren't from the same animal. "superficially"? Yeah, because sooo many birds today have long tails and teeth.By the way, Alan Feduccia's argument is NOT that dinos and birds are NOT related. He believes that BOTH dinos and birds evolved from a common earlier ancestor.Citing his work as some sort of evidence of fraud on evolutions behalf is like citing "Luke" as evidence that "Mathew" was lying about the existence of Jesus.

Yes, at first blush a fruit bat skull SEEMS to be carnivorous.But have you looked closer? Were is the edging on the teeth? Where is the grinding and slicing teeth necessary for processing meat?Not there.The fruit bats pointed but not edged teeth are for piercing and peeling fruit rinds.It's hind teeth are for processing the mushy fruit inside.If YOU found a fruit bat skull, you would be excused in thinking it was a carnivore.However, if a chiropterologist found the skull, they would quickly be able to sort out the confusion.

Are you presenting evidence that scientists falsify data as evidence that they get away with it?Wouldn't the fact that you HAVE the evidence nullify the 2nd half of your claim?

Speaking as someone who holds a degree in Anthropology....NONE.AiG never let's that one out of the bag.The MAJORITY of US archaeological digs are funded by construction projects who are mandated to have field archaeologists review areas prior to new construction.These are FAST, DIRTY jobs where the only bias is "Please don't find anything, and if you do find something, PLEASE don't let it be bones."

Archaeologists do it in holes.

Alright, spinning radically off topic so this is the last Archaeology fun-time post.I had to sort thousands of tiny white fragments recovered from one dig. Some were little white stones. Some were little pieces of bone. They were virtually indistinguishable except for one key factor: Bone sticks to your tongue.

I think it's wrong to characterize this as "your" view.Frankly, you are just reposting the same garbage that every new Creationist copies and pastes of AiG and puts it up.These aren't "your" views. You didn't develop these ideas. They have been handed to you and you are now handing them off to us.You may subscribe to them, but you aren't the first, nor will you be the last.The reason you are getting a high volume of lengthy responses is because most of us have dealt with this junk hundreds if not thousands of times. We can rattle off our responses with one hand on the keyboard and one eye on "CSI: Miami".If, instead of posting, you had spent your time reading previous threads you would have seen MOST of what's been written here already.The only thing new here that I've seen is your (fraudulent?) claim to have seen an Archaeoraptor banner in Nov 06.Still waiting on proof of that.

Big surprise, you're spinning the Nebraska Man yarn trying to make it into something it's not.Here's the real story:A rancher found a tooth and didn't know what it was. He sent it to ONE scientist who was unable to accurately identify it, but noted some characteristics.One of the two of them (the rancher most likely) contacted a popular magazine which hired an artist to draw a picture.The scientist, Osborn, had this to say about the illustration: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".So, EVEN the ONE scientist who was involved didn't buy into the picture YOU are presenting as though it were a fraud.NONE of the rest of the field supported "Nebraska Man".Follow up excavations confirmed that it was NOT a primitive man (which would contradict the finds already coming out of Africa).What's the problem here? A popular non-scientific, non-peer reviewed magazine ran a story and hired someone to draw a picture. THAT'S your criticism?Piltdown, AT LEAST, was considered by SOME to be real. Nebraska didn't even convince the ONE scientist who was involved - AND HE WAS A PILTDOWN SUPPORTER! He'd ALREADY been suckered in by one hoax!How about you list a hoax which wasn't exposed so quickly and which actually swayed scientific thought AT ALL?Got any of those?

Excuse me? Clearly, you are going to kick me no matter what I do, so why should I bow down to your threats?My post is too cranky for you? HOW? BE SPECIFIC.Oh, wait, I forgot. YOU aren't accountable. You get to just ban people because you don't like their position on evolution.Fine. OBVIOUSLY you are going to ban me no matter WHAT I do.I wonder exactly how far YOU have to go before one of the other admins bothers to put an end to YOUR crankiness.As for a link. SCROLL UP THREE MESSAGES - Coyote GAVE one already.Do you REALLY need me to RE-Link the EXACT SAME LINK to the EXACT SAME information?By the way, I can't help but notice that you are asking ME for a link for MY information about Nebraska man, however you are NOT asking Creationist Flea for a link about HIS Nebraska Man information.I'm sure that's just an oversight? Right?I mean, what else could it be. Clearly, you aren't biased. Right?Alright, kick away Captain Jesus.Or better yet, prove how unbiased you are and just delete my posts.

Who did that? An illustrator for a pop-magazine? NOT a scientist. Why should we be held accountable for the actions of this one person?Since this drawing by this woman was NEVER considered evidence for anything, how exactly is this "forgery" part of the evidence for evolution (real or fake). Yes. In the early 1900s, this ONE scientist, presented with ONE tooth from an omnivore, was not able to RULE OUT that it could belong to an unclassified species.That's because there was very little data available for comparison.Did he present the illustration? No, in fact, as I pointed out earlier - He came out AGAINST the publication. The Wiki website is short AND contains the quote I gave.Are you saying you DID read the Wiki site and choose to ignore the quote that contradicts your claim? OR are you lying about reading the wiki site?