Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 10/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 220 (494838)
01-19-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
01-19-2009 1:46 AM


Re: Ossuary Hoax
Regarding the ossuary, the case against the dealers appears to be falling apart (Ossuary hoax case may collapse):
October 30, 2008 - The high-profile trial of two Israeli antiquities experts accused of faking a burial box containing the remains of Jesus' brother and other priceless artifacts faced a humiliating collapse Wednesday after a Jerusalem judge advised the prosecution to consider dropping the proceedings after more than three years in court.
"After all the evidence we have heard, including the testimony of the prime defendant, is the picture still the same as the one you had when he was charged?" District Court Judge Aharon Farkash pointedly asked public prosecutor, Adi Damti. "Not every case ends in the way you think it will when it starts. Maybe we can save ourselves the rest."
...
But under cross-examination by defense attorneys, many experts recanted some of their findings. Judge Farkash's comments, which were excluded from trial transcripts but said in open court, came after more than 80 witnesses and 10,000 pages of testimony including evidence and cross-examination of Golan and leading archaeologists and scientists from around the world.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 1:46 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 8:27 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 39 of 220 (494915)
01-20-2009 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nighttrain
01-19-2009 8:27 PM


Nighttrain responds to me:
quote:
Gulp, Rrhain, if the case is dropped, will this mean that the ossuary is really, really the resting place of James?
Personally? I don't think questions of archaeological authenticity are answered in court. I think they are answered by archaeological scrutiny. That's how all the various hoaxes have ever been discovered.
Why did it take Piltdown man so long to be shown to be a fraud? Because it wasn't allowed to be examined. The only way to find hoaxes and uncover frauds is to open up the results to review.
Look what happened with "cold fusion." Lots of claims, but the plans for the apparatus were held back, kept only partial, etc., etc. As a result, nobody could ever reproduce the results and, sure enough, it was fraud.
The hoax from China regarding early bird fossils was found to be a hoax because the evidence was opened up to scrutiny.
Note, not legal scrutiny but scientific scrutiny. Courts are not designed to find scientific results for they aren't equipped to do so. When the judge goes back to consider the case or the jury goes out to deliberate, it isn't like they're going to be performing their own tests upon things. Instead, they request "expert opinion" to inform them and make a judgement based upon how good they think those opinions are.
Edited by Rrhain, : Trying to get back to topic

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 01-19-2009 8:27 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 220 (545104)
02-01-2010 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by dwise1
01-27-2010 4:33 PM


dwise1 writes:
quote:
like the English misnomer, "asshole" (formed, I believe, from confusing meanings of "ass", causing it to shift from a donkey to an anatomical feature).
No. "Ass" in American English is a derivation of British "arse." This dropping of the "r" isn't that uncommon (compare "cuss" with "curse" and "passel" with "parcel.")
"Ass" the animal comes from a different root word than "ass" meaning buttocks.
We now return you to the regular topic.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 01-27-2010 4:33 PM dwise1 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