Admin: It wasn't sheer perversity that led me to suspect The General of plagiarism. There were clear indications, among them that his initial posts were tightly written and argued, but his subsequent defense diffuse and uneven. The signs from Anti-Climacus are somewhat different, but they point in the same direction. I'm sure it is possible for an honest scholar to exhibit some misleading signs, and I'm truly sorry if Anti-Climacus's integrity has been unfairly questioned and will apologize, but I've been doing this job long enough to have some pretty fair instincts, and I'm going to trust them until shown that in this case they're wrong.
Reply: The only misleading sign that I consider to be marginally substantiated is my inability to identify the quotes that were primary from those that were secondary. Any other signs that you perceive appear to be the product of fundamentalist intransigence — the point-of-view that I (a creationist) could not possibly be intelligent enough to write the article.
See my post in the Proposed New Topics Forum; I can provide to you the excel schedule I used to compute the ranges and averages shown in the original article (it is also safe to say that such tables formed much of the basis for the entire article). The chances that a plagiarer would research a primary source, compile 432 lines of data, and compute averages and ranges for each line (and cumulative) for an article that he never wrote is vanishingly small. Isn’t the whole point of plagiary to side-step time-consuming research? If that doesn’t completely demolish accusations of plagiary, I don’t know what will. And if providing the backup schedule for tables that formed the backbone of my entire article aren’t enough, then I simply won’t contribute to this forum.
Crashfrog: I'm sorry you feel that way, as I had hoped you would take my suggestions in the spirit in which they were offered - as genuine efforts to smooth your acceptance into the EvC community. But if you simply must take an adversarial tone, then you need to realize that this "accusation" is self-evident - you quoted scientists with absolutely no context.
Reply: The context was already provided by my article. Each subsection was backed up with a compilation of quotes that supported the assertion at hand. One of my first assertions was that geochronologists often reject discordant ages despite the absence of evidence to substantiate them. I then provided specific examples where scientists did just that.
Crashfrog: Of course, now that you've excised those portions from your post, it's impossible to prove, I suppose.
Reply: The reasoning for my deleting the original article was not so much for covering my tracks of invalid quote-mining as it was saving myself from the trouble of plagiary accusations. The article I wrote was for my own understanding of radiometric dating and the geologic column. When I began posting to on-line forums, I thought that my article could be used to assist others in my point-of-view regarding these topics. Apparently, it’s causing me more problems than good — so I deleted it.
Crashfrog: How convenient for you.
Reply: Yes, how convenient for me. Staying up til about 2:00 am making posts to counter accusations of quote-mining and plagiary. Just what I had planned.
Roxrcool: Crash is right on about getting rid of those out-of-context quotes. One or two, fine, but from what I saw of the other forum, that was down right ridiculous. Not only does it NOT led any credence whatsoever to any argument (your own words and knowledge should suffice), but who the hell wants to look them all up?
Reply: Not the following forum rule:
quote:
Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.
Yet, when I provide a substantial amount of supporting evidence, I am accused of quote mining even though no one provided an example of one of my quotes actually taken out of context. Probably because no such substantiation is necessary. Since I am a creationist, I ipso facto take quotes out of context. Not to mention the accusations of plagiary that are based for no other reason than the presumption that I (as a creationist) am too stupid to write anything of any value whatsoever.
The EVC forum is not making a good first impression on me. It seems more and more like a biased evolutionist-driven round-table for which any effective arguments for creation are stifled at the front door.
This, that a man’s eye cannot see by the light by which the majority see could be because he is used to darkness; but it could also be because he is used to a still clearer light, and when this is so, it is no laughing matter.
™ Version 4.2