Why do some people think fossils are fakes?

Question

Certain people think and claim fossils especially hominid fossils are fakes or frauds? Why do they think this?

Propaganda? Ignorance?

Answer 1

Denial.

Piltdown Man was a fake and was eventually revealed as such by scientists, when they were allowed to examine the original. Nebraska man was a badly preserved pigs tooth, written up by a journalist after a geologist said it could be an ape tooth (they are similar). It was immediately discredited as soon as experts got a look at it.

These things give people who are in denial a straw to grasp at, in their head-in-the-sand obliviousness about all the rest of the hominid fossils. And, of course, helped by a bit of flat out propaganda about historically high-profile fossils like Java Man and Lucy.

Answer 2

Because they are told that by religious leaders

Answer 3

They think that because they are stupid!!

Sorry....I would say that because I don't have a better answer

.........

Good Luck with your question!

Answer 4

Well...because some are....

The archeoraptor is one..

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/vie...

http://members.aol.com/gjrum/fakefossil....

The Piltdown man is another

http://x-evolutionist.spaces.live.com/bl...

The Microraptor gui is yet another..

http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessa...

Java Man...Orce Man...Nebraska Man..

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud...

The famous 'Lucy' is a fake...once a 'missing link'...an early man...now even evolutionists have backed off that...she was an ape..

There is such a problem with fakes and fraudulant fossils...especially from China that there are agencies being created to combat the problem.

Now, when scientists, evolutionists, botanists and others can be taken in by obvious fakes...how can we believe much of anything they say...

But thats only part of it..in many cases the fossils are real..but the conclusions are at best..guesses..

eosimias...The discovery of the first primate, Eosimias (which means “early ape”), was announced in August of 1998. The fossil evidence for Eosimias consists of two small bones, each the size of a grain of rice....

The small bones are real...but from this one claims to find the first primate??

If I said I had 2 small bones the size of rice that was from a unicorn..would you believe me??

Look, you believe what you want to believe...but before you insinuate others who believe differently are ignorant...do a little research of your own first.

Answer 5

Jensen Interceptor nailed it on the head.  

The unbelievers have a saying "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

I feel sorry for the poor deluded little monkeys.

Answer 6

Creationists contend that the earth and all it's creatures (to include us) were created at the same time and just as you find them today.

Fossils were created at the same time and were put there to test our faith.

At the same time, creationists make much of the Piltdown Man and the fact that it was faked.

Piltdown Man ranks as one of the most well-known hoaxes in anthropology. While the hoax began in the early 1900s, even today it's not sure who concocted it. In fact the list of possible suspects include Sir Conan Doyle, author to Sherlock Homes.

By 1900, fossil remains of hominids had been discovered throughout the world. There was Java Man, the Neandertals and Cro-Magnon. Those nations that held the sites of such discoveries enjoyed great fame and national pride. England was at that time the greatest power on the planet. At the same time, there were no fossil hominid finds in that country.

In 1908 some fossil finds were made in gravel beds located in Sussex, England. The excavator was Charles Dawson. By 1913 he had discovered two skulls plus other remains.

Based on the skulls he proclaimed Piltdown Man, or Eoanthropus dawsoni "Dawson's Dawn Man." Piltdown Man matched the then current belief that man's brain had advanced quickly while his body remained more primitive. Thus the skulls had large brain cases, like modern man, but with large, ape-like jaws.

Dawson protected the remains closely. After his dig, very few similar fossils were found in the same area, No similar remains were found in England or anywhere else. The only means to study the Piltdown fossils was to use casts made of them. As more hominid remains discovered, it became clear that Piltdown didn't fit. The other fossils had smaller brains and smaller jaws.

In the 1950s the Piltdown remains were finally examined. It was discovered that the teeth were that of an ape and that they had been filed and stained. The jaw was that of an ape but the rest of the skull was that of a modern human. In short it was a hoax and when fully examined, an obvious one.

Nobody ever confessed or explained the reason for the hoax. Numerous suspects have been suggested and a lot written for and against.

One aspect about the case should be noted. The scientific method, that of examination and questioning did work. The Piltdown Man was never fully established in human linage and questions were always being made. Had the fossil bones not been locked away and so well guarded, the hoax would have been discovered much sooner.

    Given your two choices, I'd say propaganda

Answer 7

Beacuse to accept the truth of million year old fossils would undermine the religious claptrap they've been brainwashed with.

Answer 8

BECAUSE RELIGION BLINDS LOGIC!!!!

Answer 9

It says so in the BOOK

Answer 10

Cause they're uncivilized and they dont wanna accept the truth and the reality they dont believe.

Good luck in looking for the right answer mate!

Answer 11

The adverse, ignorant answers above, are typical of how fanatically defencive evolutionists have become of their 'blind faith' belief in their 'theory of evolution'.  They have become brainwashed and gullibly cultish over their mountains of misinformation..

It's well known that all fossil samples of supposed mediatory evidence are either fakes or mistakes, as Steve M points out above. That's why none can ever be produced, by evolutionists, when requested of them!

I am NOT a creationist, nor any other religionist either!!!!

EDIT

Timepond.  Thanks for responding civilly.

You do realise that I am not, nor anyone else is, suggesting that ALL fossils are frauds.  My concern is that there is a serious lack (i.e. none) of supporting 'mediatory' fossil evidence.  Now, could you, please, go a step further and choose just ONE example from the list you've offered, that YOU consider to be the absolute, unequivocal proof of the process of evolution, so that we can thoroughly test it's validity.

Cheers.

EDIT 2

Hi Timepond.  Sorry.  I obviously didn't make myself clear this time.  It's ONLY HUMAN mediatory fossil evidence I'm interested in, i.e. ' the origin of man'.  Because there is so much controvercy about the interpretation of any other mediatory evidence, it tends to get very complicated and confusing when dealing with the copious amounts of available samples, as your exasperation indicates. But by sticking only to the Human speicies (with it's own abudance of samples), it simplifies, and directly targets the problems of proving the theory of evolution to be correct.  (Just because there are ample "signs" that evolution 'may' have occured with micro organisms, it is not an indication, nor unequivocal proof, that Human beings were a part of the evolution process.  Now, if you could pick your very best sample (or samples) of the uniquivocal mediatory evidence of 'human' evolution, I will be one happy man.

I'm off to Budapest tomorrow evening (Cyprus time - It's midnight here at the moment) and won't be back till the weekend.  If you can't find the time to let me have the info before I leave, it would be great, otherwise perhaps you could leave it in "comments".

Thanks.

ATB