Archaeoraptor the fake evidence for Evolution.
The story pretty much speaks for itself as how desperate evolutionists are for evidence of their theory. It shows how they will jump the gun to prove the theory, and will spend almost any amount of money to get the evidence. They really got red faced on this one as even their own peers mocked them. You can read about this here in detail: True origins. But wait until you read my take on this situation below,
It was National Geographic that jumped the gun on this evidence, and really made the Darwinist mad by what was put on the cover of their magazine. I don't think evolution evidence has ever gotten discredited so quickly in evolution history. It shows just how much of a hold Darwinists (people who hold dear to his version of how evolution happened) have in this area of science. And what happens if it's challenged. Why would I say that?
Think about it for a second. Do you really think that National Geographic would make such a blunder? Do you think the scientists that work for them are that stupid? Do you think the story just got published with no debate on what was being said? What's on the cover has a big bearing on any organization that publishes magazines. So to say that National Geographic did this blunder, would also mean that the rest of their magazine is not trust worthy as well. So here's my opinion of what really happened.
The politics of Evolution:
Science has spent a lot of money establishing the ground work for evolution theory. Even though other feasible theories of how evolution works have been presented and looked at. Darwin was the originator that got evolution noticed. So for some it would be a personal abandonment of the theories origins. One were the spot light would go from one person to another. And Darwin would have gone down in the books as someone who thought up the idea, but was wrong just like the magazine cover suggests.
Can you imagine the shock, and then the emotion of getting mad, that every Darwinist had upon just looking at the cover of that magazine issue?
To accept another evolution type theory would have made science have to start all over again. Rewrite everything. Even un-debunk stuff that was debunked. Evolutionists are not into admitting being wrong twice. Neither are they into having to recant all their hard work in research, writing papers, redoing text books, explaining why they were wrong, etc... For a lot of evolutionists put a lot of hours into making Darwin's version of evolution work. To accept the other is like saying: All that work is now only good for the trash can. It will never happen.
National Geographic Magazine just got a taste of what was going to be the "only" version of the Evolution theory for science, that was anchored so deeply in science, it could never be challenged. Not even by other evolutionist scientists in the same field of research. So evolution does not reign supreme in science because it is true, it reigns supreme because it is the theory of choice. One that will always have a personal connection to the one who made it popular (Darwin). And the Darwinists will always make sure of that.
This is why in science the word un-debunk does not exist. To make something wrong (debunk it), then through finding evidence, have to un-debunk it. Is admitting to being wrong twice. This is also why all creation evidence is considered debunked. Evolutionist know that once they can tag creation evidence as debunked, it will never get un-debunked because no other evidence will ever be accepted. Thus the reason National Geographic got so much heat for that issue. The bird evolution theory was considered debunked when that article was written. So all evidence supporting it has to be made a fraud in order for Darwin's version of evolution to survive. Politics and pride keeps real truth at bay. And is the reason science will never contain an absolute, and none of their theories will ever cross over to actually being true.
Side note: If you are a evolution scientist, and this write up has made you wonder about things. And you would be interested in a way to confirm this. There is a way to do it. Go through the channels required to obtain this supposed frauded bird fossil to test for yourself. If Darwinists have nothing to hide, they would probably hurl it at you. But if they are hiding this evidence because it challenges Darwin's version. You will get the more red tape about obtaining this evidence than any Government could ever dream up. I suspect you will get these excuses:
| 1) We are not sure where it is. |
| 2) We are not sure who had it last. |
| 3) We threw it out in the trash (yeah, after they paid how much for it?) |
| 4) Only certain people are allowed to view it. |
| 5) It's kept under lock and key, and only certain people have access (BIG RED FLAG). |
| 6) etc... |
