8
edits
Changes
a little balance to the fraud idea
When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />
When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />
The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.
The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.
Scientists who have since inspected the London ''Archaeopteryx'' and other specimens have conlcuded these fossils are not forgeries<ref>Charig et al. 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626</ref>. In particular, the found the feathers on the Maxburg fossil continue underneath the bones - precluding the possibility of them being added to a reptile fossil, tiny fractures that could not have been seen at the time of Archaeopteryx's discovery matched in the plate and counter-plate and the 'blobs' cited by Hoyle are also have matching impressions on the counter plate (suggesting they weren't added). The evidence that ''Archaeopteryx'' is not a fraud is so strong that creationist site Answers in Genesis suggests creationists don't use this argument <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use</ref>
===Not a transitional===
===Not a transitional===