Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Archaeologists' wages are sh!t too.

Maybe, but we never had to give up playing in the dirt!Also there are those fringe benefits: Think Dirty -- Shower with an Archaeologist

Just had a scary image of Mary Leakey flash through my mind!

Archaeologists do it in holes.

Two of my favorite bumperstickers:

(That last one gets some odd looks.)

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.

Back to the topic theme. Adminnemooseus

I believe we should wait for Dont be a flea to reply, it seem that the experts on this thread have destroyed his position so there really isn't a topic anymore...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

First I want to say thanks to the admins for allowing my topic for discussion. I am new to this forum and honestly, I am surprised at the amount of responses this thread has gotten. I have not had time to read and research everyone’s posts yet. I also want to say thank you for the respect I am getting form all of you (most of you) with an opposing view point. Usually people resort to mud flinging and name-calling. I am a tad overwhelmed over the sheer numbers of you that are responding. I am also feeling a little “alone” because with the exception of one, on this tread, you are all opposed to my view. Its cool, I like the challenge, however I want to respond intelligently and not just passionately, and with the number of you opposing me, I tend to write from the heart and not the facts sometimes. Again, thanks for this opportunity and allow me to read and study a little bit more and I will respond very soon.PEACE!!

Nebraska ManA single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska in 1922. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus, and modern man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, Professor of Anatomy of Manchester England, fully supported Osborn’s claim.“The Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes.” - Politician W. J. BryanThe Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of Hesperopithecus and his mate, all from the remains of one tooth. Five years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig. Little publicity was given to the error.A discovery is made, prominent scientists interpret the data in relation to current scientific thinking. The popular press or politicains (or National Geographic) bridges the gap between the scientist and the layman. Average people are presented with an image, that will be retained, that man and ape shared a common ancestor, or perhaps even other forms of evolution.I find it interesting that a whole race of ape-man, for a time, with a complete artist rendering, was created by a single tooth.

First, I asked you to provide, as you originally accused, examples of forgeries in the fossil record. You claimed some huge percentage of the fossil record was forged, and so I challenged you on that claim, and asked you to come up with five forgeries. I even gave you a head start with Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor.And all you can come up with is Nebraska Man. It was not a forgery, and it fooled a couple of people for a short time.Here is a more accurate version of the Nebraska Man story than the one creationists tell: Creationist Arguments: Nebraska ManYou still need to come up with three examples of forgeries in the fossil record. (And I warned you about relying on those creationist websites -- they lie about science. Given what they believe, they have to lie about science or admit that some of their beliefs are just not true.)And by the way, you didn't provide the source for the Nebraska Man quote you posted. But thats OK; it was easy to find on the web.

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.

Welcome to the fray, Dont Be a Flea. Can you explain to me how this makes evolution false?Is your paradigm that anyone that relies for even a miniscule moment of time on something that turns out to be false can't be trusted in the slightest bit at all?Then you need to abandon all creationist websites that list things like Nebraska Man, Ernst Haeckel's Embryos, and the like. Why are the creationist sites so full of fruads and fakes even after they have been exposed? At least science discards false information when it is shown to be false. But you aren't curious at all about a story that a woman was made out of a rib?Perhaps you would rather discuss what is true and how you test for truth?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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?

Where did you get this info? A reference link would be a nice touch.And I would really like you to be cautious about expressing you crankiness tendency. Right now, I think both Admin and I have pretty short fuses concerning you.No replies to this message. You don't even need to post a message saying you've added the link to the message. Just add the link.Adminnemooseus