Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China finds new species of big, bird-like dinosaur
Yahoo News/Reuters ^ | Wed Jun 13 | Tan Ee Lyn and Ben Blanchard

Posted on 06/13/2007 8:09:23 AM PDT by EndWelfareToday

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: Stultis
Good post.

Of course it doesn't mean anything.

Because these fossils have been called a "missing link" we are being told that they are a hoax. As are all other "missing links." Hoaxes all!

Never mind that "missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific one. Never mind that the term is wildly inaccurate -- the newspapers said it, its science! Please ignore the fact that about 99.9% of newspaper reporters are ignorant of the science they are reporting. (If they knew anything about science they wouldn't have to be reporters!)

Somewhere, some creationist website (for religious reasons) decided that Pekin Man is a hoax and that claim has been repeated endlessly on the creationist circuit, so that is what creationists believe. And that is what they parrot on these threads. They don't know this for a fact, they have not personally studied the subject, they have never handled the casts nor read the descriptions of the original scientists -- but they know that these fossils are a hoax! And the scientists who have studied the casts, spent their entire careers immersed in the subject, well, they know nothing. They are non-believers, "evilutionists."

What a crock. Perfect examples of Heinlein said:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


41 posted on 06/13/2007 8:06:43 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; EndWelfareToday
I still think you must be confusing that find with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax.

Just for the record I don't see how that could be the explanation. In the message you were replying to EndWelfareToday says: "In fact he [the original Peking Man] supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again."

That could only be referring to Peking Man (the loss of the pre-War Zhoukoudian fossils during the Japanese invasion).

42 posted on 06/13/2007 8:21:58 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
I still think you must be confusing that find with Piltdown Man, which was a hoax.

Just for the record I don't see how that could be the explanation. In the message you were replying to EndWelfareToday says: "In fact he [the original Peking Man] supposedly vanished during a military action never to be seen again."

That could only be referring to Peking Man (the loss of the pre-War Zhoukoudian fossils during the Japanese invasion).

But Pekin Man was not a "hoax." The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man.

But I have looked back at previous posts, and find that Peking Man was indeed claimed to be a hoax -- because it was a "missing link" and all missing links have been shown to be hoaxes. So, you are correct in your statement.

This is another example of creation "science" at work -- it is obvious that creation "science" has no necessary connection to real science or to the real world; it is based strictly on religious belief. Creationists oppose real science whenever it does not coincide with their religious beliefs.

43 posted on 06/13/2007 8:38:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Oh, Lord. Creationists at one time or another (and often enough at the same time) have claimed nearly everything about Peking Man. It was a monkey, it was an ape, it was human, Zhoukoudian wasn't even a cave but a lime-works (this from a idiotic Catholic Priest who happened to be in the country at the but never even visited the site, and yet whose ludicrous accounts are accepted uncritically by later creationists), that the anatomically modern humans from the upper cave were really found in the lower cave and were "suppressed", and on and on and on.

The only common denominator is resolutely ignoring mountains of fact, and lying with equal resolution about the rest.

44 posted on 06/13/2007 8:50:20 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Thanks Renfield. Added, but not going to ping, just another cr/evo bloodbath.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

45 posted on 06/13/2007 10:53:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 8, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; EndWelfareToday
You claimed Pekin Man was a hoax. Lets see your evidence.

Let's have a look at Peking man. Surprise! It was all packed in a box and lost. But if you go to the Chinese Peking man museum you may, on a lucky day, get to see one of two small skull fragments that are sometimes on display.

46 posted on 06/14/2007 7:44:31 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; EndWelfareToday
Davidson Black, and following his death in 1934 Franz Weidenreich, made highly accurate casts and sent them to scientists and institutions around the world.

Davidson Black previously worked on Piltdown Man, no?

47 posted on 06/14/2007 8:21:52 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EndWelfareToday

You’re a brave man, trying to bring truth to the lie of anti-God Darwinism when Coyoteman and his gang are waiting in the wings to attack anyone who believes that God indeed made “all this” and that the evidence doesn’t support the contention that “meaning” and “complexity” sprang from disordered slime over the course of billions of years.

As for me, I avoid crevo threads because the conversation is fruitless. Pigs and pearls and all that. If people are predisposed to hate God (or at least see Him as irrelevant), they are drawn inextricably to Darwinism. It’s a convenient way to assuage the guilt of sin (which can truly only be dealt with by bringing it to the cross).


48 posted on 06/14/2007 8:47:31 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Stultis; EndWelfareToday
The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man

Two words: Nebraska Man.

49 posted on 06/14/2007 8:50:58 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Davidson Black previously worked on Piltdown Man, no?

Not exactly, but close. Black was a student of Grafton Elliot Smith at the time Smith was working with Piltdown. G.E. Smith was certainly an ethusiatic supporter of Piltdown, but Black, intrigued as he was with human evolution, appears not to have been entirely convinced. And so he left England and instead went to Asia to look for human ancestors.

50 posted on 06/14/2007 9:08:07 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Davidson Black, and following his death in 1934 Franz Weidenreich, made highly accurate casts and sent them to scientists and institutions around the world.

Davidson Black previously worked on Piltdown Man, no?

Yes. He didn't buy Piltdown for a minute.

So?

51 posted on 06/14/2007 9:21:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Theo
The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man

Two words: Nebraska Man.

Please tell me you aren't that silly.

Piltdown was a hoax. Nebraska Man was a mistake on the part of one scientist which temporarily fooled a couple of others and an illustrator. The mistake was quickly corrected. Here is a good article.

Is "Nebraska Man" truly the best you can come up with to try and discredit the theory of evolution?

52 posted on 06/14/2007 9:25:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You’re a brave man, trying to bring truth to the lie of anti-God Darwinism ...

Thank you. I dropped it when those deceived by their own lusts choose to claim that Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was the only evolutionary hoax. I find it often times mistifying how selective their memories are or how ignorant they are; or both. I wonder if they've ever heard of the Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) which was fabricated in the minds of evolutionists after finding the remains of one tooth! A "tooth" that later turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Theo, I appreciate your kind words but know, I know the truth and the fiery darts the deceived hurl at me will NOT dissuade me in any way. I said it before and I'll say it again... every evolutionary "find" has ultimately been proven to be a hoax. What can we expect from those that are so deceived. Like Dan Rather wanting to believe that Bush was a draft dodger like his predecessor Bill Clinton that when someone presented to him some forged documents that seemed to prove his "theory" he was on those documents like white on rice. Evolutionists are no different. These poor people want so badly to believe that they evolved from some primordial pond of sludge that reason and evidence do not stand a chance with them. I know that I cannot fix them and to be honest... I'm not in the mood to try.

Bless you and have a great weekend.

53 posted on 06/14/2007 9:26:46 PM PDT by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn. - Tancredo or Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Theo

One word... Lucy. ;-D


54 posted on 06/14/2007 9:27:37 PM PDT by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn. - Tancredo or Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Theo
The only hoax I know of in evolution is Piltdown Man

Two words: Nebraska Man.

Nebraska Man was not a hoax (a designed or intentional fake or deception or prank) of any kind or description. It was an actual, entirely genuine fossil tooth misinterpreted as having come from an ape* but which in fact came from an extinct pig. The mistake was discovered after only a few years when the researchers studying it at the American Museum dispatched an expedition to excavate the sight where the original, single tooth had been found.

*That's right: ape. Nebraska "Man" was never declared to be a man, or even a presumptive human ancestor, by any of the scientists actually studying it.

That bit of overreaching was left to the English neuroanatomist Grafton Elliot Smith, who was responsible for the human-like "reconstruction" of Hesperopithecus published in The Illustrated London News which creationists love to reproduce. Henry Fairfield Osborn, however, the senior figure at the American Museum where the tooth was deposited and examined, issued a statement to The New York Times declaring that "such a drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

Although Osborn's associate William King Gregory did point out possible human affinities in the tooth, he also acknowledged that the tooth was far too worn for these to be definitive. It was, after all, significant (and controversial) enough to have found a putative ape in America, where no ape, living or extinct, had ever been known before, or since.

It was because the tooth was so badly worn that an expediction was sent to discover more and hopefully more definitive evidence, but instead the researchers disproved their own hypothesis.

Here's a good and fullsome account of the "Nebraska Man" episode:

The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate
by John Wolf and James S. Mellett
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

55 posted on 06/14/2007 9:43:47 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Is "Nebraska Man" truly the best you can come up with to try and discredit the theory of evolution?

No. You just asked for another hoax. I provided it. If I were trying to discredit the theory of evolution, I might talk about irreducible complexity or something more substantial.

56 posted on 06/14/2007 9:44:00 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EndWelfareToday
One word... Lucy. ;-D

One link.

57 posted on 06/14/2007 9:46:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EndWelfareToday
One word... Lucy. ;-D

Sorry. Lucy wasn't a hoax of any sort either. In fact it remains one of the best and most complete Australopithecine fossils ever found.

58 posted on 06/14/2007 9:52:02 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Theo
No. You just asked for another hoax. I provided it.

No you didn't. Nebraska Man was not a hoax. Not in any sense, form or fashion. It was a mistake in the interpretation of a genuine fossil. One corrected by the same scientists who made it. (Why would scientists hoax themselves and cause themselves subsequent embarrassment?)

If you continue to insist that Nebraska Man was a "hoax" then please explain how it was a hoax. What aspect do you claim involved fraud and manufacture?

59 posted on 06/14/2007 9:57:26 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Theo
No. You just asked for another hoax. I provided it. If I were trying to discredit the theory of evolution, I might talk about irreducible complexity or something more substantial.

You are wasting your breath my friend. Have you ever heard Dan Rather admit that the forged documents were a lie or inaccurate?
God sums people like this up this way... "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;" (Romans 1:28)

God's scriptures tell us in the book of Matthew chapter 7 verse 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Let the spawn of slime have their day. It won't last forever. ;-)

60 posted on 06/14/2007 9:57:44 PM PDT by EndWelfareToday (Live free and keep what you earn. - Tancredo or Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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