Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Examples of Dishonesty
wj
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 55 (103664)
04-29-2004 3:39 AM


Careless disregard for the truth
My favourite example of dishonesty or careless disregard for the truth is the claim from the AIG clowns about the missing Ambulocetus pelvis.
A full explanation can be found in this article.
As a summary:
In 2002 or 2003 PBS aired their series Evolution. In episode 2 mention was made of the evolution of whales from terrestrial to aquatic mammals and the transitional fossils which evidence this process, including the change in method of locomotion.
Johnathon Sarfati of AIG wrote a rebuttal (2002 or 2003) claiming that one of the source scientists for the Evolution series, Kenneth Miller, was being deceitful and unreliable because for the Ambulocetus fossil "the all-important pelvic girdle was not found ..". Sarfati was relying on in-house material produced by Ken Ham and Carl Weiland called A Whale of a Tale circa 2001 and Don Batten called A Whale of a Tale? (Ambulocetus) 1994. The latter article was in response to Thewissen et al paper in Science 1994.
What a pity for the AIG clowns that further fossils have been found since 1994 which they choose to ignore. Thewissen uncovered the spine and pelvis of Ambulocetus in 1996, the discoveries were mentioned in scientific literature in 1998, photos were available on his website in 1999, and the paper published in Nature in 2001.
Despite this, Batten bleats in an Addendum (dated 4/1/2002) to his 1994 article that the additional fossils have not been peer reviewed. Another 2 years have passed and Batton's erroneous article is still on the AIG website.
Sarfati seems aware of Thewitten's 2001 Nature paper because he cites it in his article. But he chooses not to ignore the material which contradicts his, and his colleagues', assertion of the missing Ambulocetus pelvis fossil.
Deceitful and unreliable? It's obvious whom this more accurately describes.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024