Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

[Darwinsbulldog]

academic speculation : hoax fossil : 'real' fossil

As I said before, with so many hoaxes used to prop up the theory, it needs to be rethought.

Most fossil discoveries are near population centers. There are a lot more amateur rock hounds than professionals. Perhaps because of people like you, research based on pure curiosity is not given very much funding. Most geologists and paleontologists have to make a living, and so expeditions for this sort of thing are relatively rare. So an expensive expedition is considered very, very carefully, and the scientists do their homework first.

[Rumraket]

So when scientific inquiry, testing, and experimentation exposes a hoax, somehow it's still a scientific hoax and science should be called into doubt?

Consider the process, finding fossils is not knowing where to dig for what sorts of fossils you are looking for. You find what you find where you think fossils may be. You can't go to a specific area and look for t-rex fossils for example. You certainly can't go to a specific area to find a brand new creature that has never been found before.

Yes you can, it's just that there's no guarantee you'll find what your'e looking for.

Given a theory about how and when a transition took place, you can predict the probable circumstances surrounding the transition. This is how the transitional fossil Tiktaalik was found. It was already known from other fossils that had been found, that fossils with transitional features between lobe-finned fish and true tetrapods had been found in sedimentary rock layers from ~385 to 365 million years old, with more fish-like fossils at the 385 mya period and more teptrapod-like fossils at 365 mya. This of course strongly implied that a transitional species should have existed somewhere around 375 million years ago. Also, since it was more or less half-way between a fish and a terrestrial tetrapod, as in a semi-amphibian type organism, it would probably have lived in shallow waters, like an ancient beach or flood-delta.

So paleontologists pulled out a map of devonian-age rocks and found the type of landscape they were looking for: Approximately 375 million year old exposed sedimentary rocks from an old flood-delta, in the canadian arctic. They arranged an expedition and fuck me, they found what they were looking for: A transitional fossil somewhere between lobe-finned fish and true tetrapods.

[Rumraket]

academic speculation : hoax fossil : 'real' fossil

As I said before, with so many hoaxes used to prop up the theory, it needs to be rethought.

"So many" hoaxes. You mean like what, five? And there are millions of genuine fossils that support the theory.

[Rumraket]

Dino bird theory shows up in academia, then a hoax dino bird fossil, suddenly real dino bird fossils are found in abundance.
Suspicious as fuck.

Makes perfect sense. First you predict something on the basis of your theory and some data you already have collected, then you go look for it to test your prediction. Unfortunately fraudsters exist who will try to score some personal glory before every one else.

Paleontology has grown significantly as a field in the last 3 to 4 decades, combined with advances in systematic classification and technology, it makes total sense that scientists are now much better equipped to find fossils predicted by theory.

[Animavore]

There was only one archeoraptor and it was a hoax made from several other fossils stuck together. The tail turned out to be a fossil of a microraptor.

You really just argued the first dino bird fossil which is a hoax contained real dino bird fossils.

Why did they need to hoax it if finding a dino bird fossil is extraordinary. How did the hoax know that 'real' bird dinos would be found?

The dino bird theory was given to the public as an admitted hoax, why shouldn't the public believe it is a hoax?

It wasn't the first dino bird fossil. And why do you think "they" needed to hoax it? To make money by selling the fossil.
You don't think it was the paleontologists that hoaxed it, do you?

[ElDiablo]

academic speculation : hoax fossil : 'real' fossil

As I said before, with so many hoaxes used to prop up the theory, it needs to be rethought.

Why not just come out and be transparent?
Do you think the Theory of Evolution is a hoax?
Do you think that the Theory of Evolution is a belief?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

So no explanation as to the scientific conclusions which led to looking for dino bird fossils in a particular area.

In other news, a 116 year old fake fossil.

For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff - the fossilised skeleton of a 200m-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas.

It survived the scrutiny of scientists who had known Charles Darwin, and Richard Owen, the Victorian scholar who coined the word dinosaur. It survived revolutions in palaeontology, arguments over evolution and scandals in the world of fossils.

Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up - and realised that they had been taken in.

"When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery," said Caroline Buttler, a conservator. "It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000 ... urs.uknews

[Animavore]

So no explanation as to the scientific conclusions which led to looking for dino bird fossils in a particular area.

Of course there is. The finding of dino birds in an area.

In other news, a 116 year old fake fossil.

And it was paleotologists who figured it out.
If you can figure out why paleontologists have the expertise to tell a fake from a real one you'll be on the right track.

[Rumraket]

So no explanation as to the scientific conclusions which led to looking for dino bird fossils in a particular area.

In other news, a 116 year old fake fossil.

For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff - the fossilised skeleton of a 200m-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas.

It survived the scrutiny of scientists who had known Charles Darwin, and Richard Owen, the Victorian scholar who coined the word dinosaur. It survived revolutions in palaeontology, arguments over evolution and scandals in the world of fossils.

Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up - and realised that they had been taken in.

"When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery," said Caroline Buttler, a conservator. "It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000 ... urs.uknews

So if evolution is a grand conspiracy, why did the paleontologists not just keep it secret?

[ElDiablo]

So no explanation as to the scientific conclusions which led to looking for dino bird fossils in a particular area.

In other news, a 116 year old fake fossil.

For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff - the fossilised skeleton of a 200m-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas.

It survived the scrutiny of scientists who had known Charles Darwin, and Richard Owen, the Victorian scholar who coined the word dinosaur. It survived revolutions in palaeontology, arguments over evolution and scandals in the world of fossils.

Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up - and realised that they had been taken in.

"When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery," said Caroline Buttler, a conservator. "It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2000 ... urs.uknews

Jerome passively asserting a false dilemma here, like he has in other posts.

As others have pointed out read about tiktaalik. It's an excellent example where multiple scientific disciplines were used to pinpoint the location of an important fossil.

[Rumraket]

So no explanation as to the scientific conclusions which led to looking for dino bird fossils in a particular area.

We aren't experts, and we certainly aren't knowledgeable about every facet of evolutionary theory and paleontology. Why don't you write the actual scientists who found the fossil to get the specifics?

You have already been given an explanation for how Titaalik was predicted and then found, based on the predictions. Why do we need to also know and tell you about some particular transitional bird?

On general principles, an area is chosen to look for specific fossils when it is known to be of the right age and when previous expeditions have determined the type of environment the sediments were laid down by. If they look for bird-dino fossils in a particular area, it is because it is of the right chronological age and/or because the environment is likely to contain fossils of that type.

Many organisms are specifically adapted to specific environments, so if you want to find fossils of them, you go to fossil deposits from such enviroments.

Take a guess about what kind of rock you'd look for a transitional whale. Hmm, maybe marine sediments for starters? This really isn't that mysterious Jerome, but you have to allow yourself a little thought first.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

Of course there is. The finding of dino birds in an area.

A hoax feathered dino bird fossil was found, then 'real' feathered dino bird fossils were found. So they went looking based upon the hoax and the hoax just happened to be where the real dino bird fossils where. What luck!

Lucky the hoaxer somehow knew real fossils would be in the same general place despite there not having been any found until after the hoax was found.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

If you can figure out why paleontologists have the expertise to tell a fake from a real one you'll be on the right track.

Obviously they didn't for 116 years.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

As others have pointed out read about tiktaalik. It's an excellent example where multiple scientific disciplines were used to pinpoint the location of an important fossil.

We are talking about the feathered dino bird fossils. Can you explain how they knew to look where they did outside of the hoax being found first?

[Onyx8]

Of course there is. The finding of dino birds in an area.

A hoax feathered dino bird fossil was found, then 'real' feathered dino bird fossils were found. So they went looking based upon the hoax and the hoax just happened to be where the real dino bird fossils where. What luck!

Lucky the hoaxer somehow knew real fossils would be in the same general place despite there not having been any found until after the hoax was found.

The hoax consisted of an amalgam of real ones.

[Animavore]

Of course there is. The finding of dino birds in an area.

A hoax feathered dino bird fossil was found, then 'real' feathered dino bird fossils were found. So they went looking based upon the hoax and the hoax just happened to be where the real dino bird fossils where. What luck!

Lucky the hoaxer somehow knew real fossils would be in the same general place despite there not having been any found until after the hoax was found.

Real feathered dinosaurs were found first. Check out archeopteryx.

The hoaxer didn't know anything. It was pure luck that a one of the fossils in his chimera turned out to be a feathered theropod.

Obviously they didn't for 116 years.

They didn't realise until they had a look at it. The story suggests it was just mounted on the wall and sort of left there and no one really questioned it until they went to clean it.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

Of course there is. The finding of dino birds in an area.

A hoax feathered dino bird fossil was found, then 'real' feathered dino bird fossils were found. So they went looking based upon the hoax and the hoax just happened to be where the real dino bird fossils where. What luck!

Lucky the hoaxer somehow knew real fossils would be in the same general place despite there not having been any found until after the hoax was found.

The hoax consisted of an amalgam of real ones.

Feathers not being connected to a dino doesn't mean anything. Finding bird feather fossils does not lead to 'real' dino bird feather fossils. There is no logic or science in that.

It is the most amazing coincidence that the hoax just happened to direct science to where the 'real' ones are.

[Onyx8]

It really isn't.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

Obviously they didn't for 116 years.

They didn't realise until they had a look at it. The story suggests it was just mounted on the wall and sort of left there and no one really questioned it until they went to clean it.

They didn't investigate if the fossil was real for 116 years? Maybe a reevaluation of all fossils needs to be undertaken if that is the case.

Just tossing it up on the wall, presenting it as real without investigation, this certainly doesn't sound like science. It sounds like a religious relic.

[Animavore]

Obviously they didn't for 116 years.

They didn't realise until they had a look at it. The story suggests it was just mounted on the wall and sort of left there and no one really questioned it until they went to clean it.

They didn't investigate if the fossil was real for 116 years? Maybe a reevaluation of all fossils needs to be undertaken if that is the case.

Just tossing it up on the wall, presenting it as real without investigation, this certainly doesn't sound like science. It sounds like a religious relic.

No. A re-evaluation of all fossils does not need to be undertaken. Mistakes and oversights happen. There will always be the element of human error in everything. You wouldn't say that any other area of human endevour needs to be taken down and re-examined when a mistake is made, why should paleontolgy be any different?

I suspect dishonestly here.