Talk:Archaeoraptor was a fake
From EvoWiki
I may say that it comes as a freat suprise that there has not been more hype concerning the fradulent fossil, Archaroraptor. This fossil conveniently filled in a further piece in the scientists theory that dinosaurs descended into birds. It was also found in the famous Liaoning, China, were all other such "sub-species" (Bar Archaeopteryx) were found. In light of Archeoraptor being a fake, why hasnt any one jumped on the above mentioned facts to substansiate an argument against the dino to bird theories?
Archaeoraptor being a fake means that all evolution has is Archaeopteryx, with his fully formed feathers- not an intermediate, the "sino" collection as I dub it, (Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Beipoaosauras)- whos "fur-like filaments" somehow end up being called "feathers", and a few other fossils which most would in fact dub nothing more than birds.
When will the world wake up to the fact that science is about conjecture, theories and guess-work, and that rarely are their theories substansiated with anything a logical mind would actually conclude is evidence?
And as controversial as the idea would be to the bulk of modern scientists, the fact that lies circulate amongst evolutionary teaching does nothing to help the fake archaeopteryxs' cause. For decades it was taught as fact that the human foetas goes through the various "animal" like stages that were a hallmark of our "evolutionary" past, And yet now it is an idea that is openly taught as false, and one cannot help but think that scientists had caught on to the falacitical teaching before that time.
Finally, heres a thought on why the fake archaeopteryx ordeal didnt go bigger than it did. Conveiniently enough, the "bird" half of the fossil (which in general seems a complicated model for a Chinese peasant to of contructed) just happened to be in itselg a new species, "Microraptor". So, in fact, as we are told, the whole fossil wasnt fake. What a nice way to avoid the otherwise embarrassing expose on evolutionary teaching.
Dont worry, Im sure someone will find a new dino/bird dinosaur in Liaoning China soometime soon.
---
Creationists may be surprised "that there has not been more hype concerning the fradulent fossil, Archaroraptor", but that fact is substantially less surprising to persons who realize that making shit up out of whole cloth is perhaps the surest and quickest method by which a real scientist can destroy his own career. As with so many other charges leveled by Creationists against real scientists, this seems to be more a case of projection than anything else.
It should be mentioned that the individual genuine fossils from which the Archaeoraptor composite is derived (specimens of Microraptor and Yanornis) are both very important to the dinosaur/bird evolution debate.
