No. Not just that you left out the word *hominid* but you substituted the word *all* and presented it not only as what cm said but that creationists weren't able to provide five in evolution at all.
Misrepresentation again.....
What I said also included.... So that it can be as investigated as carefully as possible and caution used in making an announcement of its significance so that scientists aren't sucked in AGAIN and end up making fools of themselves AGAIN. Because every time that happens, their credibility is compromised.
What's wrong with approaching it with the healthy skepticism that it could be a potential hoax? It's a little too convenient that the fossil is so well preserved - kind of like archaeoraptor that scientists got burned on.
But if you're going to misquote cm, and misrepresent creationists, it should come as no surprise that you're going to misrepresent me as well.
Again, I honestly can't believe that I'm being criticized by an evo for suggesting that scientists approach something that has the potential to be so significant in their eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.
Oh wow. Not only did I leave out the word "hominid," I said "in all the fossils we've found" instead of "in evolution." I'm so busted!
Look, I didn't pretend to be quoting Coyoteman. And in fact, I made his challenge easier by extending it beyond just hominid evolution. So do you have any more hoaxes or not?
it should come as no surprise that you're going to misrepresent me as well.
I'm not misrepresenting you. As I pointed out, the whole article is about scientists questioning Ida, so you needn't worry on that count. I'm focusing only on your use of the word "hoax" and the attempt to associate this find with Piltdown Man. I was trying to see if you had any real reason to think this was a hoax, or if you were just engaging in general mudslinging. I think my question has been answered.
I honestly can't believe that I'm being criticized by an evo for suggesting that scientists approach something that has the potential to be so significant in their eyes with a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.
Now who's misrepresenting whom? Suggesting something is a hoax goes well beyond healthy skepticism and caution.
Considering the past record of it--a century of bogus science (Haeckel, Bathybius, Piltdown, eugenics, sociobiology, ev psych, etc), it's reasonable to say that the burden is on the evolutionist to prove that his stuff is real. I don't see why you should be the one to go track down that supposedly vanished box full of Peking Men and prove it was all fake... I mean, it's their box-full-o-evidence, their story, their problem. Not mine. There's no reason on earth why we should be compelled to believe in such stuff.
But thats not how the evolutionist sees it. Their view is remarkably like that of the flying saucer enthusiast or alien abductee. He'll show you pictures of cigar-shaped UFOs and photos of interplanetary vegetables and maybe bits of metal thingies. But if you say, look mate, that's nice but I'm not really buying it... he'll get uppity and challenge you to PROVE that these vegetables did not come from outer space, and so on.