|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 18:19:30 [Permalink]
|
Very well, then.
The answer I was looking for is: |
Finally! I was at the edge of my seat!  |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/18/2007 18:19:46 |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 19:53:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
So...., Jerome seems to have no answer to my very simple quiz. Very well, then.
The answer I was looking for is: Feather impressions are rare and only show up at all in very fine-grained specimens. They are not easy to see in a photo unless you know what to look for, so most if not all popular publications mainly go with the art work, as they should.
Jerome, at 1900 hours this evening, you will report to Professor Snape's office to begin three days of detention. This will give you time to write your essay, and remember, penmanship as well as referenced accuracy will count toward you final grade.
|
Then why does the extractor of the fossil need to shave away sediment to present an image of fully feathered wings. Artistic license?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 01:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by filthy
So...., Jerome seems to have no answer to my very simple quiz. Very well, then.
The answer I was looking for is: Feather impressions are rare and only show up at all in very fine-grained specimens. They are not easy to see in a photo unless you know what to look for, so most if not all popular publications mainly go with the art work, as they should.
Jerome, at 1900 hours this evening, you will report to Professor Snape's office to begin three days of detention. This will give you time to write your essay, and remember, penmanship as well as referenced accuracy will count toward you final grade.
|
Then why does the extractor of the fossil need to shave away sediment to present an image of fully feathered wings. Artistic license?
|
Huh? Shave away what? For what? What the hell are you on about now?
I'm not sure what you're talking about (are you?), so I'll just take a stab at it and advise you to study the methods of fossil preparation. Some of them take months and even years of careful exacting labor to bring them out of their matrix without damage. Yeah, it's an art, but an art with license to get creative only in method.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 06:22:11 [Permalink]
|
I believe Jerome's now invented (or more likely borrowed from AiG) a slander that paleontologists just carve fossils from blank stone. This dinosaur feathers are just fancy bas relief sculptures. They probably use Dremmel tools to do the fine work. All science is a materialist conspiracy. Psychotic, paranoid troll.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 06:29:02 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah its really getting sad, is there any conspiracy you dont pander? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2007 : 07:50:03 [Permalink]
|
I got to thinking about it last night and came to the conclusion that I really don't know a lot about fossil frauds. Just how pervasive are they, anyway? So I scuffled around the web a little and.... Great gobs o' goose grease, they're everywhere!
Well, it's not quite that bad, but the next time I go to a rock & gem show, I'll look at the vendor's offerings from a little different perspecitve.
The pros, such as the museums, don't get hit often, at least not any more. It's the private collectors who get it in the neck. And let us not forget that it was a private collector who got screwed (but not really) by archaeoraptor after it was smuggled out of Chyna (couldn't resist). Here is the site that first clued me in: FOSSIL FRAUD AND FAKE FOSSILS
PLEASE NOTE: PALEO DIRECT, INC. DOES NOT OFFER ADVICE, OPINION OR VALUE ON FOSSILS OR ARTIFACTS FROM ANY OTHER SELLER OR SOURCE OTHER THAN OUR OWN MATERIAL. IT IS BEST TO CONSULT YOUR LOCAL MUSEUM OR UNIVERSITY PROFESSIONAL FOR SECOND OPINIONS.
FURTHERMORE, WE ONLY ACQUIRE NEW MATERIAL DIRECT FROM OUR AFFILIATED AND TRUSTED SOURCES OR THROUGH OUR OWN COLLECTING EFFORTS. THIS PROTECTS OUR CLIENTS SO THAT WE CAN GUARANTEE WHAT WE SELL WAS NOT STOLEN OR ILLEGALLY COLLECTED AND IS 100% ACCURATELY REPRESENTED.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT US WITH OFFERS TO SELL OR QUESTIONS OF AUTHENTICITY, IDENTITY OR MARKET VALUE
THIS SECTION IS INTENDED FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR OWN INFORMED DECISIONS ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN AND IN NO WAY CAN BE CONSIDERED A COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE AS THE DISHONEST SOURCES ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING THEIR TACTICS AND OFFERINGS.
|
This, from a professional dealer! Jerome is at least right about fraud being rife among private dealers and their suppliers.
But how 'bout the professional paleoentologists and the museums? Here is the lab that did the CT scan on archaeoraptor: | Unfortunately archaeoraptor isn't the only forgery that's come here to our lab for scanning. A few months after the archaeoraptor specimen was here a second specimen came—this was brought to us by a very well-known researcher at one of the world's great universities. This person brought to us the skull of a tiny primate, and it was a beautiful specimen, seemed to be a complete skull, uncrushed, still in the rock matrix, jaws slightly open and all this cranium that held its brain is complete and uncrushed. And what this person was hoping we could do is use our cat-scanner to see inside the fossil skull and to nondestructively pull out some of the information on the shape of the brain. And a few scans later we discovered that the entire thing was a forgery, that there was a little bit of real material in there—the rock matrix was real and some of the teeth real—but the specimen itself, when we looked at it in cross-section, we could see that it was sculpted out of a dental amalgam and the whole thing was a setup to look like a little skull still embedded in the matrix. This gentleman paid several thousand dollars for the specimen—it had come largely undocumented through the commercial dealers. We had a second specimen that we had already scanned, a beautiful genuine primate skull that's about the same size and about the same age, and as he looked at the scans side by side he knew in a flash that what he had really was a forgery. And rather than blasting ahead and publishing on this thing, he wouldn't touch it, he abandoned the specimen in our lab. And that's |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 08:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Then why does the extractor of the fossil need to shave away sediment to present an image of fully feathered wings. Artistic license? |
It is getting pretty hard to believe that you are not combing through creationist sources, Jerome. You said that your not and yet you have brought up flood geology, specifically the erosion seen on Mount St. Helens, the Piltdown hoax, used regularly by creationists to show that science is not an honest enterprise, and have now taken a very similar position as the creationists about one of the biggest bugs up the creationists ass, feathered dinosaurs. (They seek to discredit those finds because they are a smoking gun with regard to the existence of transitional fossils. There are others, and creationists deny those too.) All of these things come right out of the YEC playbook. Also, you have not provided the sources for where your questions are coming from.
Now your latest question seems to be a suggestion that the fossil feathers are faked. You provided no source to support that accusation once again. Not a source to a scientist's blog or even one to the ponderings of a person who might have given you that idea. And I seriously doubt that you know enough about fossil extraction to ask the question on your own. You referred to a method sediment removal. Am I to believe that in your everyday ponderings about dinosaur excavations and extractions, a light went on for you that might be shared only by creationists independently of them? Share your source or I'm calling bullshit on your contention that you are not combing through creationist sources.
A part of me wants to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, with your help, I am fast loosing my battle with that.
Frankly Jerome, after I and others have taken the time to explain Piltdown to you, which you didn't even bother to comment on, it has become increasingly difficult to take you seriously as a person who just wants to discuss things, which is how you like to portray yourself. I have told you before that you give the appearance of one who just shoots from the hip for argument sake. If you really don't want to come off like a troll, don't act like one. You know?
Right now, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If you can't do better Jerome I will be forced to agree with the others here who have come to the conclusion that it is, indeed, a duck…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 09:07:06 [Permalink]
|
"There's a lot of money in faking fossils" is an old creationist claim, too, Kil. It's nothing more than an attempt to discredit any fossil anyone might find anywhere.
So you're right: either Jerome is taking pages from the YEC playbook, or he's come up with the same silly arguments on his own. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:43:43 [Permalink]
|
Lets see if I can make this clear.
I stated the feathered dinos had no apparent feather fossils.
I stated fossils are faked at times. Giving the example of piltdown.
I stated the possibility that science could by built on a fake.
There was information posted about feathered dinos that were faked.
There was information posted about the problems within science caused by the piltdown fake.
The rest of what you are arguing is your speculation as to what I really mean; apparently based on your previous reading of and discussions with creationists.
You are extrapolating my statements and arguing against your extrapolations; then asking me to defend your inference.
Seems a little unreasonable.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 19:01:27 [Permalink]
|
Kil, directly to you. My statements on Mt St Helens were from a television documentary (Discovery channel?) about the eruption. During this program scientist commented on the formation of strata that was very similar to strata that was millions of years old. I could not find any information outside of creationist sites to validate this so I conceded the argument. As I have found mostly when a scientist is in disagreement the the view of this forum, that scientist is discounted for one reason or another. The argument began in chat when someone stated that the strata helps determine age. The point I was going to make if evidence was found is that the strata could not always provide correct aging.
The feather dino question was relatively new to me. I was intrigued by Fithys initial post.
Piltdown was a know hoax, and I only used that as an example of the possibility of a hoax corrupting science at some level.
I think for myself. I do not need to have my ideas set before me like that post in the global warming topic(the list of arguments and counters).
I looked at the picture presented as a feathered fossilized dino and wondered why the shaving of the sediment left the image of "angel" wings. It looks deceptive. Are you are arguing that those are impressions of fully extended fully formed wings?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I think for myself. |
You need to hire more help.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:45:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I think for myself. |
You need to hire more help.
|
At first I laughed.
Your avatar is very distracting. When you write your avatar gives off a feeling that you lack self confidence. I am not sure this is your intention. Others may perceive it as aggression.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:46:36 [Permalink]
|
half said:
Psychotic, paranoid troll.
|
Half, you may want to be carefull. Apparently namecalling is going to be outlawed here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 20:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
half said:
Psychotic, paranoid troll.
|
Half, you may want to be carefull. Apparently namecalling is going to be outlawed here.
|
I do not mind name calling too much. It is generally a sign that the argument can not be met. I would prefer that frustration did not set in and the conversation and evidence would be further examined.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:50:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I stated the feathered dinos had no apparent feather fossils. |
No, you said that there were no "feather fossils" after stating that you think the researchers were making bad assumptions:Filthy, those are the photos I found and still do not see feathers. I am not saying that feathers on dinosaurs are not possible. Only that assumptions were made about the first finds and this assumption has been carried to other finds and a list is now created of feathered dinos without feather fossils. In other words, your attempt to make things clear begins with a re-writing of your own history. Most of the rest of your attempt to make things clear can be ignored as an attempt to shine poop.| I stated the possibility that science could by built on a fake. |
Which historically has had no other intent but to smear all of science as unreliable. Or when we consider your statements, would you prefer that we not consider all of the evidence? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Xing Xu, Big Bird and the Six Day Shuffle
