Skip to comments.Archaeoraptor hoax update: National Geographic recants
Posted on 04/12/2005 8:28:12 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
In stark contrast to their sensationalistic Feathers for T. rex article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:
After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body. (1)
National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:
Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossils reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed. (2)
As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, almost every one that Ive seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier. (3)
The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot. (4)
The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. I wasnt sure what was wrong with it, Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. On the surface you really couldnt see that. (5)
Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, I dont trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays. (6) Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:
The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery. (7)
Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx, have been used as proof of evolution and thus disproof of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We must remember that Gods Word never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the fanciful, ever-changing findings of men.
1. Xu Xing, Response to Feathers for T. rex? National Geographic 197(3), March 2000, Forum Section (pages unnumbered).
2. Response to Xu Xing, National Geographic 197(3), March 2000, Forum Section (pages unnumbered).
3. Jeff Hecht, F is for fake, New Scientist 165(2226):12, Feb. 19, 2000.
Just in passing, what does Archeopteryx have to do with the topic at hand? I know there are big words in the article, but the article is about Archaeoraptor.
The Cardiff Giant
Carl Baugh's Humanus Bauanthropus (Moab Man)
The Burdick mantrack
W Cooper's Guadeloupe Man:
F Naverra's Wood from Noah's Ark
Don Patton's Malachite Man
Wrong. You see, if you base your entire belief on the bible, then it cannot be falsified. There can be no hoaxes. And this is what separates the creationism and ID from science.
See Post #198.
why denigrate the Bullfrog like that?. Fifty years ago Gish was a grown man (barely).
Of course at the time he had nothing to do with Creationism - obviously, as it didn't yet exist.
he he he
shades of Piltdown Man!
I'm sure glad you cleared THIS up!!
While the reason, money or cause, is of interest, it nonetheless indicates a poisoned tree.
And all the fruit of a poisoned tree is suspect.
In that forgeries have occurred in the past, a reasonable person is wary. Fruit of a poisoned tree principle applies.
I do agree with you on this, xzins. I was just trying to be "polite." :^)
Youre link- http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
In the footnotes were it says, "modified from", and "substituted for", what does that mean?
Would you agree that there is a great amount of interpretation involved in the sequencing?
The items in quotes are documented at AIG, a creationist website.
Elsie - I'm sure glad you cleared THIS up!!
This shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. The theory of evolution will never become a scientific fact - scientific theories, facts and laws are different animals and one never becomes the other.
Junked automobiles do not fall under the definition of "fossil."
Actually, no. The link you provided in #141 gives a current definition of "fossil" which reads, in pertinent part:
A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.
So, even your own link backs up my point that the term "fossil" does not include junked automobiles.
Agricola established the term "fossil" to explain METALS that were dug up, not life forms. It's his term, by the way, not yours, and certainly isn't owned by Darwinists.
In the 16th century, the definition of "fossil" would have included junked automobiles. However, that definition is archaic and not in use anymore.
Please provide a source that shows that the definition of "fossil," as currently used, would cover junked automobiles.
I think the creationist website posted the old article on Archaeoraptor because they knew skimmers would read it as Archaeopteryx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.