wj writes:
The crux of the issue is that I disagree with Tamara's assertion that Archaeopteryx was uncovered as a fake due to a very fortuitous event. However, on reading her material yet again she does not spell out the "very fortuitous event". And it is inapropriate to identify it as an evolutionist fraud for the reasons previously stated. As an example of the evolutionist frauds which the thread was intended to discuss it is a non-starter.
The crux of the matter
I am trying to resolve is unfair comments about our colleague Tamara.
I am pretty damn sure that I have done this to the satisfaction of most readers. This is one last attempt to let
you see the problem. I'm not trying to cause offense in doing this.
Tamara was accused of calling Nebraska man a fraud. However, she did no such thing; it was an invalid inference on your part from the word "other". Ned used the word first, in the same way, and in neither case is there the remotest basis for inferring a presumption that Nebraska man really was fraudulent.
Tarama has been criticised for speaking of a fortuitous event. It is a matter of public record that she is absolutely correct, and for those unaware of this, the specifics have since been described in some detail in references which should have settled the matter.
Tamara has been criticised for failing to spell out the fortitous event. That is unfair on two counts. First, she
did spell out the fortitous event: it was a scientist who stumbled across the other half of the slab containing the very dinosaur whose tail was incorporated into the forgery. Second, even if she had omitted this matter of public knowledge, it is boorish to berate others for failing to give you the full story in a short post. If you really needed more details; then
ask.
She never called this an evolutionist fraud; she said it was more of a fraud
on evolutionists. She was right about that also.
The whole
point of this thread was to discuss things which Skeptick had in his putative rap list of evolutionist frauds. Since Skeptick's rather amusing self-destruct we have used this as an opportunity to air some known cases habitually cited by clowns like Skeptick. Archaeoraptor is a perfectly valid example of something which creationists like to cite as an evolutionist fraud, and Tamara concisely stated what is wrong with that estimation, and gave a plain statement of the real problem that exists with fossil forgery.
Basically, the crux of the matter is that you owe Tamara an apology. Several, in fact. That is not the end of the world, or a personal attack on you. Anyone can make a mistake. What is more significant is whether or not we are capable of recognizing them!
Cheers -- Sylas
PS. I'm not a team player in the sense of excusing anything by an evolutionist and criticising anything by a creationist. But I am a team player in the sense of happy to meet up with anyone involved in this area. I'm in Brisbane, and my email is in my profile. Drop me a line and I'll shout you a drink.