Beware feathered dino fossils hoaxes

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 30, 2015

Biology, Culture, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Says Cosmos Magazine here:

National Geographic’s senior editor Christopher Sloan had seen a feathered dinosaur fossil or two. But the specimen he described in the magazine’s November 1999 issue, dubbed Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, took his breath away.

…

Archaeoraptor would later be dubbed “Piltdown chicken”.

Cut n’ paste job. But even smart folks have been taken in.

The problem of faked fossils in China is serious and growing. Rather than being excavated by palaeontologists on fossil digs, most of the region’s fossils are pulled from the ground by desperately poor farmers and then sold on to dealers and museums. More.

Gotta have one? Don’t pay more than you would for some other souvenir. How about a stuffed gotta-have-one toy dressed as a Mountie?

Cheaper and maybe just as valuable.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BTW, I have yet to see a single dinosaur chicken fossil with feathers. The pictures that I have seen show some nondescript stuff that could be anything. Does anybody have actual images of dinosaur feather fossils that are half way convincing?Mapou_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Whether or not Science or Nature published the paper is irrelevant. The fact is that a bunch of Darwinist and atheist jackasses at Nat Geo felt it necessary to create and disseminate a hoax. Why? Is it because the theory is shaky and incredible? Is this how you people proselytise, through chicken shit propaganda? Or, are you resident atheists claiming that some closet creationists at Nat Geo pulled the hoax in order to discredit atheists and Darwinists? LOL. So now what will be the outcome of all this? IMO, regardless of the actual science, the whole dinosaur-birdee theory will always have "hoax" and "BS" written all over it. Why? Because of a bunch of dishonest atheists are trying to promote a weak theory based on a chicken shit ideology. Inquiring minds and all that. :-DMapou_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution does not permit the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters. Unless it does. Otoh, the evolution of hoaxes, hoaxsters, or hucksters is a prediction of the theory.Mung_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

It wasn’t published in a journal, but was rejected by Science…
Yep, and rejected by Nature prior to that.goodusername_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?
Remind us, which scientific journal was Archeorapter published in? (It wasn't published in a journal, but was rejected by Science... almost as if folks are plenty skeptical about these fossils)wd400_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

BA77, thanks for those links. I like it when you keep the excerpts or descriptions short and to the point. It makes for easier reading. So this whole feathered dinosaur thing is nothing but a big Darwinist/atheist hoax? Why am I not surprised? The jackasses are known to be allergic to professional ethics and basic decency. But then again, if all you got is a crappy theory, only crap will come out of it. [edit] Nat Geo will never get a penny from me, that's for sure.Mapou_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Fraudulent fossil specimens in museums revealed at the 11:42 minute mark of the following video Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video (11:42 minute mark) - video https://youtu.be/OZhtj06kmXY?t=704bornagain77_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

“The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence” Storrs Olson - curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. - Storrs Olson The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine (In 1999) Excerpt: "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion." - Storrs Olson - curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History podcast - Casey Luskin reports on a 2009 peer-reviewed paper (A. McIntosh) arguing for the irreducible complexity of two systems vital to bird flight -- feathers and the avian respiratory system. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-07-28T15_47_18-07_00 In Touchstone, Luskin Dismantles Giberson and Collins - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: The cover story in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American states outright that difficulties with the scale hypothesis show that the "long-cherished view of how and why feathers evolved has now been overturned." Its authors, two leading evolutionary biologists named Richard Prum and Alan Brush, further admit: "Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers. ("Which came first, the feather or the bird?", p. 86)" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/in_touchstone_l_1065051.html Alan Feduccia, considered an expert on bird evolution, has written, “The major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/04/14/news-to-note-04142012 FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - video clip playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s05koz6adzw&list=PLO673u2zYHhmKlWOnzc6FCbGr42TCB71C But Is It Evolution ? - February 2011 Excerpt: Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network that’s featherlight but remarkably strong. When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110218a Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhOGTgW8q8 The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM
bornagain77_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

a few related notes:
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video (4:18 minute mark) https://youtu.be/OZhtj06kmXY?t=258 When Dinosaurs Flew - February 4, 2014 Excerpt: A study published online by PeerJ on Jan. 2 detailed the examination of a startlingly complete and pristine specimen of an ancient, dinosaur-era bird: Hongshanornis longicresta, which flapped throughout what is now China roughly 125 million years ago during the early Cretaceous Period.,,, “This isn’t a mode of flight we expected from Cretaceous birds,” Habib said, adding that its small size and overall shape are comparable to that of modern birds. “It was pretty much a Cretaceous starling with a larger tail like a mockingbird.” Transported to the modern world, it wouldn’t look like anything special to the casual observer, until a closer examination revealed claws at the end of the bird’s wings and tiny teeth in its beak.,,, http://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/1622/when-dinosaurs-flew/ News for the Birds - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Yanornis is called an ancestor of birds, but PhysOrg reported on April 18 that a fossil found in China shows that “the digestive system of the ancestors to modern birds was essentially modern in all aspects.",,, But if it was already “essentially modern” in the ancestors, and already integrated with the flight systems, where is the time for natural selection to have supposedly produced it? http://crev.info/2014/05/news-for-the-birds-2/ Origins - Formed to Fly with Dr. David Menton (dinosaur - bird evolution refuted) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors - Cornelius Hunter - June 2014 Excerpt: a new massive (phylogenetic) study shows that not only is the problem (for Darwinist) worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently.,,, "Our results suggest that, for Aves (Birds), discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-fossil-molecule-contradictions-now.html Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature “Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function "The first and most complete fossil of archaeopteryx, found in 1855, was misidentified as a flying pterodacylus for 115 years. The newest finding, though, demonstrates that our understanding of even well-studied fossils like archaeopteryx -- scrutinized, measured, modeled for 150 years -- can still be upended." Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch - Oct. 2009 More Vindication for Jonathan Wells - October 8, 2012 Excerpt: Feduccia calls Berkeley dino-bird advocate Kevin Padian "the Elmer Gantry of the theropod crusade," criticizing Padian both for his public advocacy of the dino-bird hypothesis (that's the Elmer Gantry aspect) and for his scientific work. In that respect, Feduccia fully supports Jonathan Wells's critique of the dino-bird theory. He concludes with this: "Small wonder the Creationists are thriving and thoroughly enjoying much of the junk science introduced into the current dino-bird debate. [p. 10]" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/more_vindicatio065031.html
bornagain77_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

"Of the fossils being sold on the open market?" These are faked fossils. Knockoffs. If I buy a Rolex on the open market, I want a real one. If I buy a fossil, I want a Blind Watchmaker one. Blind Watchmaker lol. Like that could ever happen.ppolish_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils?
Of the fossils being sold on the open market? What makes you think they aren't? Of course they are. Any fossil not dug up by professionals is highly suspected. That's why they try to protect the important fossil sites from being dug up by amateurs and treasure hunters.goodusername_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

And yet the evolutionary fairy tale of dinos to birds has received a huge boost of credibility because of these supposed feathered dino fossils. +++ Why are not skeptics very skeptical of these fossils? It's funny how our biases = even in science = influence how we look at data that can be seen to support our particular position. No one is immune from this. It is easy to quickly want to accept findings that agree with our position, but all findings need to be vetted - else we might end up with egg on our face like evolutionists are still trying to wipe off due to the whole vestigial organ and junk DNA fiasco. Piltdown Man is another good example of this in history. It is not only evolutionists who have experienced this type of embarrassment. Creationists at one point, jumped on fossil evidence that, at that point, could be interpreted as supporting man living with dinosaurs in Texas. Paluxy footprints maybe? But later examination showed that conclusion to be questionable. Probably they were too quick to accept those footprints as evidence for their origins beliefs. This type of thing happens in science so we need to recognize that further discovery could undermine our current interpretations of the data. But especially, don't you think that these feathered dinosaur fossils that all come from the same area of China and are totally unverifiable because of how the fossils come into scientists' hands - don't even you Materialists think that these fossils are not really trustworthy?tjguy_{July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply