Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
science has manufactured ida to try to provide the missing link. it turns out it is not.. i believe science stance now is that, missing link does not exist/not important coz they have dna mapping now. they did the same trick in the big bang theory in that the origin is not important. they admit they dont know what started the big bang.
my thread is about how science has manipulated and manufactured fake fossils before so that is my basis of doubting it. with the many scientists supporting that evolution theory is indeed a fact. i find it highly unusual why some of their peers still try to make fake fossils to prove a theory that to the science world has already considered a fact. i dont understand the reason behind these fake fossils and to continue making them when at these day and age of technology they are bound to be discovered. maybe because it worked before?
Last edited by evofreaks; 06-05-2010 at 05:53 PM..
Just because there is a dispute among scientist regarding the status of "Ida" as a missing link does not make the fossil fake. "Ida" is a real gosh darned creature that lived 47 million years ago...I have no idea why you would use that report to back up your insane idea that it was manufactured when it clearly says the opposite.
From your link.. Ida is a skeleton of a 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany. Ida represents a previously unknown primate species called Darwinius. The scientists who formally announced the finding said they weren't claiming Darwinius was a direct ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans.
science has manufactured ida to try to provide the missing link. it turns out it is not.. i believe science stance now is that, missing link does not exist/not important coz they have dna mapping now. they did the same trick in the big bang theory in that the origin is not important. they admit they dont know what started the big bang.
my thread is about how science has manipulated and manufactured fake fossils before so that is my basis of doubting it. with the many scientists supporting that evolution theory is indeed a fact. i find it highly unusual why some of their peers still try to make fake fossils to prove a theory that to the science world has already considered a fact. i dont understand the reason behind these fake fossils and to continue making them when at these day and age of technology they are bound to be discovered. maybe because it worked before?
NO you made a statement, back it up! The fact that some other delusional person posted similar nonsense provides NO credibility to your stance, or theirs.
You said
Quote:
there is an obvious white thingy in the joints. i think they were the glues that hold these fake fossils together
, I love the technical terms you x-ray specialists use, such as thingy, but again you made the statement based on your observation, please provide some insight into your expertise in the field.
What training and expertise do you possess to make such a claim?
Last edited by Asheville Native; 06-05-2010 at 06:36 PM..
science has manufactured ida to try to provide the missing link. it turns out it is not.. i believe science stance now is that, missing link does not exist/not important coz they have dna mapping now. they did the same trick in the big bang theory in that the origin is not important. they admit they dont know what started the big bang.
my thread is about how science has manipulated and manufactured fake fossils before so that is my basis of doubting it. with the many scientists supporting that evolution theory is indeed a fact. i find it highly unusual why some of their peers still try to make fake fossils to prove a theory that to the science world has already considered a fact. i dont understand the reason behind these fake fossils and to continue making them when at these day and age of technology they are bound to be discovered. maybe because it worked before?
Science has not looked for a missing link for decades. More evidence came down the pipe, showed the idea was overly simplistic and irrelevant, so they admitted they were wrong and moved on.
Fundamentalist Chrisitianity could learn a lot from the scientific approach to understanding the world:
"So, there's no sign of talking snakes or talking buring bushes in field explorations, nor was it possible to fit 2 of every animal on a wooden boat 300 cubits long in experiments, the lab tests conclusively show these human bones are more than 6000 years old and in 5 billion instances not a single dead person has arisen again after three days of putrification. Sorry folks, but looks like we need to get ourselves a new book to read on Sunday!" How would that be?
as i can say the same for evolution in that in thousand recorded years. there has not been an actual evolution of any human or animal. AND YEAH INDEED they have to move on from manufacturing fake fossils coz the advanced technology now to test the authenticity of fossils makes it easy to detect their fraudulent activities.
how did the diff language, dialects and accents evolve? we all know how we speak, our accents, the language we know came from what we hear in our formative years during our childhood.. i cant say the same during our supposed evolution into human as we are now billions of years ago. where does language fit in the evolutionary stage?
Last edited by evofreaks; 06-05-2010 at 11:28 PM..
Evofreak, you seem to be ignoring the great wealth of actual fossils that support evolution. Just because a select few are faked doesn't indicate some conspiracy of scientists. Most fossils are real. Case in point, australopithecus garhi, australopithecus Afrensis, homo habilis and homo erectus. http://www.sciencemusings.com/upload...me2-772519.jpg
as i can say the same for evolution in that in thousand recorded years. there has not been an actual evolution of any human or animal. AND YEAH INDEED they have to move on from manufacturing fake fossils coz the advanced technology now to test the authenticity of fossils makes it easy to detect their fraudulent activities.
how did the diff language, dialects and accents evolve? we all know how we speak, our accents, the language we know came from what we hear in our formative years during our childhood.. i cant say the same during our supposed evolution into human as we are now billions of years ago.
You should take a class on the anthropological discipline of linguistics which will answer your question.
science has manufactured ida to try to provide the missing link. it turns out it is not.. i believe science stance now is that, missing link does not exist/not important coz they have dna mapping now. they did the same trick in the big bang theory in that the origin is not important. they admit they dont know what started the big bang.
my thread is about how science has manipulated and manufactured fake fossils before so that is my basis of doubting it. with the many scientists supporting that evolution theory is indeed a fact. i find it highly unusual why some of their peers still try to make fake fossils to prove a theory that to the science world has already considered a fact. i dont understand the reason behind these fake fossils and to continue making them when at these day and age of technology they are bound to be discovered. maybe because it worked before?
Ida not being a missing link, doesn't mean its not a real fossil, and a missing link to another species.
Ida was found to be a lemur like creature, and not related to the human branch of evolution. Its still a valid fossil, and fascinating to study that modern lemurs came from such a creature.
And, this proves you're absolutely wrong about scientists. It was scientists that determined that it wasn't a human relative.
science has manufactured ida to try to provide the missing link.
[WRONG]
it turns out it is not.. i believe science stance now is that, missing link does not exist/not important coz they have dna mapping now.
[right]
they did the same trick in the big bang theory in that the origin is not important. they admit they dont know what started the big bang.
No "tricks" required. We've just realized that such a search is futile, since everything we find is, in fact and obviously, a transitional. You just demand a fossil of a Croc-o-Duck, don't you?
(I particularly like his scientific credentials: "soap opera child actor"...)
Such silly and superficial demands are quite telling of the source's level of understanding, that much is proven.
i dont understand the reason behind these fake fossils and to continue making them when at these day and age of technology they are bound to be discovered. maybe because it worked before?
Fake? How do you know it's fake? Who said it was? Link?Here is, in fact, what the very link you provided concludes:
"Darwinius is an example of a group of primates called adapoids, and "we are happy to start the scientific discussion" about what Ida means for where adapoids fit on the primate family tree..."
Obviously somewhere, to be sure, but Hmmm... no mention of "fakes" anywhere in your own linked article! You trying to mislead us, on purpose, evo? How ...how... unethical!
There's just the comment that it's now thought to not necessarily be directly in the hominid ancestry, but still very close. More of a proto- [i.e.: early...] lemur, from which we, the apes and the later lemurs did, in fact, arise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Science has not looked for a missing link for decades. More evidence came down the pipe, showed the idea was overly simplistic and irrelevant, so they admitted they were wrong and moved on.
Well not so much "wrong", Chango, as in pointless pursuit of a very contentious singular item, which is not, as we now know, likely. This was popular back in the late 1800's in British Scientific Gentlemen's Clubs, looking for reasons to mount hideously expensive expeditions, well funded by others, to unusual places like Africa, etc. Expeditions that would forever grace one's "great white scientist" ego trip.
Even if we found "it", the nay-sayers here would just predictably close their minds and yowl at the moon. And purposefully mis-interpret links, as we've seen above.
Evolution is not beholden to provide us with neatly arranged, organized and laid out in sequence fossils. We have to apply logical forensics, and now have that incredible DNA mapping technology, which obsoletes a lot of previously problematic or difficult methods.
Without scientific advancements, after all, we'd still believe in the biblically defined Flat Earth, and Noah's Ark and Insta-Genesis. Hee hee ; in retrospect, pretty humorous stuff, huh?
Fundamentalist Christianity could learn a lot from the scientific approach to understanding the world:
"So, there's no sign of talking snakes or talking burning bushes in field explorations, nor was it possible to fit 2 of every animal on a wooden boat 300 cubits long in experiments, the lab tests conclusively show these human bones are more than 6000 years old and in 5 billion instances not a single dead person has arisen again after three days of putrification. Sorry folks, but looks like we need to get ourselves a new book to read on Sunday!"
How would that be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evofreaks
as i can say the same for evolution in that in thousand recorded years. there has not been an actual evolution of any human or animal.
So... how do you explain how all these different species got here then? Your comment is nonsense, and again...[WRONG]. Let me help you: what you meant to say was that you personally have not actually seen a new species pop up overnight. Again; the silly "Croc-o-duck Syndrome" ..
As well, it's obvious you never read Lenski's 2008 report, where he actually did witness and document a natural evolution speciation of an organism. Of course, you'll just deny it, once you asked for, and were then shown, conclusive proof. Of course...
AND YEAH INDEED they have to move on from manufacturing fake fossils coz the advanced technology now to test the authenticity of fossils makes it easy to detect their fraudulent activities.
Again, where's the determination that this one is a fake? Perhaps misplaced in it's chronology, but even that's not been established. But a "fake"? Huh? Well, since you wish to do a GORE™, you also include all the other fossils we've found as fakes. Like this one?
(Wowowowoo! That's a lot of carving, eh?. But now, at least we have it on record that you also don't believe any fossils are real, or that any dinos existed. All "manufactured" fakes! huh?)
how did the diff language, dialects and accents evolve?
Answer: over time, silly!
we all know how we speak, our accents, the language we know came from what we hear in our formative years during our childhood.. i cant say the same during our supposed evolution into human as we are now billions of years ago. where does language fit in the evolutionary stage?
Yup. This is relevant, to be sure. Another deflect/deny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Ida not being a missing link, doesn't mean its not a real fossil, and a missing link to another species.
Quite so, Memphis. It is, of course, a "transitional" going somewhere (aren't we all?). only the truly ostrichian amongst us deny that.
Ida was found to be a lemur like creature, and not related to the human branch of evolution. Its still a valid fossil, and fascinating to study that modern lemurs came from such a creature.
And, this proves you're absolutely wrong about scientists. It was scientists that determined that it wasn't a human relative.
2. By comparison, whenever a money-grubbing dishonest prankster who is selling some faked religious artifact (those ICA stones come to mind...) shows up, all the Christians circle him when the inevitable attacks come, like a Musk-Ox herd protecting it's young. Fellow Christians, even the bad ones (OMG!) must be protected at all costs.
This is what surprises me about LiferTexan. An honest-to-God (lol) Christian that despises ignorance as much as many of our local heathens here do. I heard Christians existed that accept evolution--but I haven't met many.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Q: How's it feel to be constantly proven wrong?
; in retrospect, pretty humorous stuff, huh?