WoW!! You've posted the two famous "faked science" cases, and make a generalized statement that this is somehow only two of many. Not quite true, is it? If you think or know so, then name me 10 more. OK, then, five. OK then, two more. Betcha can't, but even so, then tell me exactly who discovered the fakery and reported it. The church? Or the honest and ethical scientific community?
But now, let me tell you the number of cases of honest, correct, repeatable and peer-reviewed research (Peer review being precisely what "outed" the only two examples you provided, BTW...)
. No, wait....
I can't give you the humber of defensible research study results because, hell, they've been pouring out of the science system at about 1000 a day, and have
been doing exactly that for the past oh.... 150 years at least! That's quite a big number though, huh?
In other words, science is
demonstrably reliable, and it finds it's own problem cases without the church's help, and then quite openly publishes those fakery cases for the world to see. That makes them inherently
honest and thus believable when they do
say some research study IS believable and repeatable.
Now also let me correct you on your lonely second case study about the Chinese mini-dinosaur. It was not found to be a completely faked report, only that the bones, which were
very real, had been incorrectly assembled, and an incorrect conclusion drawn. It still
represented a unique and very small bird-like dinosaur
. It was not all a lie, just some of it's conclusions, which again, the peer-review part of the SM did in fact detect and advise everyone about..
But that did not stop the popular Christian Press from jumping on the "Bad Science!"
bandwagon, and that is exactly why you post it here, because you found it on some incorrect and categorically dishonest, fundamentalist Christian website. They needed it to be fake, so they purposefully hid the complete story. In other words, unlike the honest scientists who clarified the conclusion errors, the fundy Christians just outright lied about the study's problems.
And you want to use that as the means to make your point? With Christian lies? Hmmm...
Thirdly, you again demonstrate your special ignorance on the subject of Evolution. You show an ape, then you show a human and comment that you need to see one change into another. One day an ape, the next, a human. That is NOT how it works, squall
, and you know it because you've been advised of it many MANY times.'
'To summarize the obvious (again.... sigh...)
, Evolution's a very slow iterative
process (click on that word please, and try to read up a bit on this topic so you don't make the same major mistake again and again!)
. To back that statement up, we now clearly have many intermediate fossil examples, as well as currently living forms whose DNA genome maps clearly show interdependence and links
that can be precisely back-traced through recent and ancient paleontological history. All available for the inquisitive and honestly interested reader.
But those traits [being inquisitive
necessary qualifiers: Christian apologist-denialists won't read such conclusive proofs in evidence, so why should we obther to talk to them? It's like trying to convince a small illiterate child about how a DVD player works, or that there are tiny dangerous bacteria on water tap handles!
This also raises a point to you: why are you here
? To listen and learn from those who know far more than you on a highly technical subject, or just to cut and paste nonsense from dishonest Christian or Islamic websites, stuff we've listed and debunked many times before? Do you not get tired of re-telling known fabrications? I mean, really? And then do you feel that you can call yourself an honest and ethical being?
We now have direct
and easily measured
evidence of the migration pathways and genetic chronology of our ancestors, out of Africa, all the way into the continental United States, as well as up into central and northern Europe. You deny this?
To quote your Chinese fossil case-example, to make the inferred claim that most of science cannot therefore be trusted, is to happily demonstrate one's complete and pathological ignorance on the subject. Or otherwise, to demonstrate that you have no real
interest in honesty and personal ethical integrity.
; Which is it with you this time, or can you actually openly admit
you've made a mistake, as scientists do when they make one?
Specifically, read this summary:
Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says
... but also note these important paragraphs:
"Prior to their appearance in the false Archaeoraptor fossil, both Microraptor and Yanornis were unknown species.
"Yanornis is an important new species, and is going to receive more attention in the future," said Julia Clarke, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and one of the study's co-authors.
"Every new species coming out of China brings us closer to understanding the anatomical changes that occurred on the evolutionary path between raptor-dinosaurs and living birds," she said. "And that was a really long road."
The fossils come from the Liaoning Province of China, where thousands of flying and non-flying dinosaur fossils have been uncovered. The site has provided compelling evidence confirming the bird-dinosaur link."
In other words, squall
, an important new previously unknown species WAS
found there, and will be covered by ethical research scientists (not the easily discovered faked-up assembly of some bones by a farmer who then thought he'd become rich...).
See the obvious differences? Be very careful of anything
you just cut and paste out of the denialist
Christian press, squall
. They are known liars, and I'd hate for you to fall victim to their deceptions!