How is that any different than putting your faith in a bunch of fossils and what scientists are telling you. Believing in evolution requires trusting people you've never met telling you about evidence you've never seen. After Piltdown Man and Archeoraptor, we are to trust the discovery of new fossils? Creationists are often accused of distorting science to support creation but here are deliberate attempts to decieve people about evolution through manipulating the fossil record by those esteemed scientists. Hardly a situation where evolutionists can afford to point fingers.
"How is that any different than putting your faith in a bunch of fossils and what scientists are telling you."
It's interesting that you would use the word "faith" regarding fossils. No faith is required. Fossils are real, tangible evidence. I've seen them, both in nature and in collections. I've even dug quite a few of them myself. When assembled into a series, they make a pretty darned good evidentiary case for evolution.
On the other hand, "faith" is definitely required to believe that supernatural entities, such as deities, exist at all. Many people do believe that they exist, in all sorts of forms and varieties, of course. They have "faith."
The Theory of Evolution does not rely on "faith," but on phyysical evidence.
Also, the two examples you cite weren't committed by scientists but exposed by them. What's even more interesting is the fact that the methods they used to examine these "fossils" aren't even accepted by most creationists.
So as far as those creationists are concerned we should still not be able to tell whether those fossils are fake or genuine.
"..Piltdown Man and Archeoraptor..."
Peer review sussed out the truth. Thank you, Science!