Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionist Frauds
wj
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 52 (87656)
02-20-2004 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
02-20-2004 12:58 AM


Re: others
Silas, I wonder if the hot weather is getting to you.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 12:58 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 8:52 AM wj has not replied
 Message 48 by Tamara, posted 02-20-2004 8:59 AM wj has not replied
 Message 49 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 10:00 AM wj has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 52 (87684)
02-20-2004 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by wj
02-20-2004 2:59 AM


Re: others
What color is the sky in your world, wj?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by wj, posted 02-20-2004 2:59 AM wj has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 52 (87685)
02-20-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by wj
02-20-2004 2:59 AM


Re: others
From post 29:
"I contacted farmers and asked if they'd seen anything with the body of a bird and a tail of a dinosaur. A lot of them have got private stores of fossils and I thought maybe we'll be lucky and somebody will have something similar."
He did get lucky. A local farmer who was involved also in fossil collecting did have something similar... similar right down to small cracks and marks on the rock.
----
Hello? Fortuitous event calling out to Brisbane! Hello? Earth to Doris?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by wj, posted 02-20-2004 2:59 AM wj has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 49 of 52 (87696)
02-20-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by wj
02-20-2004 2:59 AM


Re: others
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by wj, posted 02-20-2004 2:59 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 2:58 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 52 (88859)
02-26-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Sylas
02-20-2004 10:00 AM


what happened?
You know, Sylas, I've been thinking... maybe this person's strategy is just to attack regardless of what is said? I've run into that before online... basically a way to waste the opponent's time with endless unsupported counterclaims or accusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 10:00 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 02-28-2004 9:36 AM Tamara has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 51 of 52 (89240)
02-28-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tamara
02-26-2004 2:58 PM


It's called the
... after Dr. Duane Gish, a master of the technique.
From Debates:
quote:
Since they have no scientific model of their own to present, they will spend all of their time in what is known affectionately as the "Gish Gallop", in which they skip around from topic to topic spewing out an unceasing blizzard of baloney and unsupported assertions about evolutionary theory, leaving the poor evolutionist to attempt to catch up and correct them all. It is an impossible task. As Scott points out, "The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format." (Scott, "Debates and the Globetrotters", undated) Whenever the scientist presents a valid piece of scientific data, the creationist need simply answer with, "That's not true." It is then incumbent upon the scientist to spend twenty minutes explaining why it is true. Meanwhile, the scientist's basic message will not be getting out; the creationist's will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tamara, posted 02-26-2004 2:58 PM Tamara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 02-28-2004 5:48 PM JonF has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 52 (89295)
02-28-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by JonF
02-28-2004 9:36 AM


Fraud vs Hoax vs Mistake
It might be interesting to try and define categories for the half-dozen or so items usually raised by creationists attempting to discredit the ToE.
I think "fraud" should be reserved for cases where someone seems to be gaining something (monetary or reputation-wise) from the exercise. "Hoax" would be limited to those cases designed to be more of an embarrasment to someone or as a sophisticated practical joke. "Mistake" would be all others. It really comes down to a question of intent, IMO.
For example, I'd label Nebraska and Archeoraptor as mistakes. Oyama and (probably) Piltdown as hoaxes. Haeckel's embryos, since he committed the cardinal sin of fudging his data (or at least the drawings) to prove his point, would be guilty of fraud.
Any others anyone can think of?
Edited to say: this should have been a reply to Sylas. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 02-28-2004 9:36 AM JonF has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024