Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Archaeoraptor hoax update: National Geographic recants
Answers in Genesis ^

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 100–101], 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 fossil’s 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 I’ve 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 wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ (5)

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t 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 God’s Word never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the fanciful, ever-changing findings of men.

References

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.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: archaeoraptor; creation; crevolist; evolution; nationalgeographic; sowhat; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241 next last
To: Southack

Comfortable Placemarker


201 posted on 04/12/2005 4:12:38 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
and THEY self-corrected, when it was that little Duane Gish that showed us how stupid Archeopteryx was fifty years ago,

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.

202 posted on 04/12/2005 4:19:57 PM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; Coyoteman; Modernman
How many creationist or ID hoaxes can you list?

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

203 posted on 04/12/2005 4:39:43 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.' Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

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.


204 posted on 04/12/2005 4:48:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"this is what separates the creationism and ID from science."

See Post #198.

205 posted on 04/12/2005 4:55:05 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
when it was that little Duane Gish that showed us how stupid Archeopteryx was fifty years ago,

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.

206 posted on 04/12/2005 5:07:01 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.' Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]


Placemarker!

207 posted on 04/12/2005 6:27:59 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

he he he

shades of Piltdown Man!


208 posted on 04/12/2005 6:45:15 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
I'm sure that when Sagan said "evolution is a fact", he was not referring to the theory of evolution.

I'm sure glad you cleared THIS up!!

209 posted on 04/12/2005 8:22:25 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; protest1; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

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.


210 posted on 04/12/2005 10:14:59 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

In that forgeries have occurred in the past, a reasonable person is wary. Fruit of a poisoned tree principle applies.


211 posted on 04/12/2005 10:17:40 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thank you for the ping!

And all the fruit of a poisoned tree is suspect.

Indeed. When a theory is based on interpretations of evidence - rather than laboratory testing - fabrications of evidence are especially troubling. This is true in criminal justice, forensics - if some evidence is proven to be intentionally falsified - despite whatever other evidence may exist - the case itself is at risk.
212 posted on 04/12/2005 10:25:08 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
The fossil record of automobiles?


213 posted on 04/13/2005 6:15:27 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And all the fruit of a poisoned tree is suspect.

I do agree with you on this, xzins. I was just trying to be "polite." :^)

214 posted on 04/13/2005 6:26:31 AM PDT by betty boop (If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

You’re 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?


215 posted on 04/13/2005 6:28:32 AM PDT by 728b (Never cry over something that can not cry over you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
How many creationist or ID hoaxes can you list?

  1. The Cardiff Giant
  2. Carl Baugh's Humanus Bauanthropus (Moab Man)
  3. The Burdick mantrack
  4. W Cooper's Guadeloupe Man:
  5. F Naverra's Wood from Noah's Ark
  6. Don Patton's Malachite Man
  7. Paluxy footprints
  8. Calaveras skull
  9. Daniel Wirth and the power of prayer over pregnancy
  10. The Da Vinci Code
  11. The Bible Code
  12. ‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed’
  13. ‘NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.’
  14. ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’
  15. ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe’
  16. ‘The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand’
  17. ‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’
  18. ‘Women have one more rib than men.’
  19. ‘No new species have been produced.’
  20. ‘Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.’
  21. The speed of light has decreased over time
  22. ‘Gold chains have been found in coal.’

The items in quotes are documented at AIG, a creationist website.

216 posted on 04/13/2005 6:44:24 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
JeffAtlanta - I'm sure that when Sagan said "evolution is a fact", he was not referring to the theory of evolution.

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.

217 posted on 04/13/2005 6:54:13 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Incorrect. Automobile carcasses are dug up every day at junkyards around the world.

Junked automobiles do not fall under the definition of "fossil."

218 posted on 04/13/2005 7:22:03 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You've already seen it from Answer.com (listed and linked above in post #141), and we've established precisely the opposite of your above claim, too.

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.

219 posted on 04/13/2005 7:31:11 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm in favor of limited government unless it limits what I want government to do."- dirtboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I think the creationist website posted the old article on Archaeoraptor because they knew skimmers would read it as Archaeopteryx.


220 posted on 04/13/2005 7:47:45 AM PDT by BootsOnTheGround (A free America is the World's last hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson