Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Xing Xu, Big Bird and the Six Day Shuffle
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 11

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/19/2007 :  23:21:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

half said:
Psychotic, paranoid troll.


Half, you may want to be carefull. Apparently namecalling is going to be outlawed here.


Well, that is interesting. Though I could live with that, I might feel a bit claustrophobic. I suppose the long-hand way of stating this would be okay?: "I detect irrational, even pathological, thinking at work here. Or maybe he simply likes to stir up ant nests for his own amusement."


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/19/2007 :  23:46:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave, I just want to be clear. You think these two statements are different.


"I stated the feathered dinos had no apparent feather fossils."


"those are the photos I found and still do not see feathers. I am not saying that feathers on dinosaurs are not possible."

apparent:clear or manifest to the understanding
from Websters


Dave, what is your game? Are you attempting to obscure what I said with a falsehood about the meaning. What are you afraid of? You have played with words before, but this is an outright deception. I demand an apology!






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
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  00:37:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
half said:
Well, that is interesting. Though I could live with that, I might feel a bit claustrophobic. I suppose the long-hand way of stating this would be okay?: "I detect irrational, even pathological, thinking at work here. Or maybe he simply likes to stir up ant nests for his own amusement."


Oh, I agree that sometimes the best way to deal with a psychotic, paranoid troll... is to call him a psychotic, paranoid troll.

And your clever thinking clearly illutrates the futility of outlawing overt namecalling


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
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  02:44:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome, must I go through this shit again?

Piltdown was never much of a problem for science because it was soon made irrelevent by other finds. And finally hauled out of it's drawer and debunked. It hung around the textbooks until the schools could afford to replace them.

Archaeoraptor was never a problem for science because as soon as a scientist got his hands on it, it too was debunked. Oh, and lest we forget, National Geographic is not a scientific publication.

Nebraska Man was an honest mistake corrected before it made it into the textbooks.

And so forth -- do you begin see a pattern emerging here?

For your assignment tonight, look up as many of the "frauds" as you can and note the dates. This will tell you that it as getting more difficult to get garbage past review. Scientific review, that is, not creationist clap-trap; you can get anything through that.

It shouldn't take long -- you can do it during detention and it can even enhance your essay. Erm, you are working on that essay, aren't you?




"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!

Go to Top of Page

JohnOAS
SFN Regular

Australia
800 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  05:43:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit JohnOAS's Homepage Send JohnOAS a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

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. ...
(emphasis mine)

Seriously, you think that this forum has "a view"?

If you believe that, it seems likely that you have:
A: a serious persecution complex,
B: a serious comprehension problem,
C: a serious case of cognitive dissonance.
D: Some combination of all of the above.

However you choose to group SFN contributors, be it by age, post count, gender, post frequency, political alignment, race, there are few topics for which there is any sort of consensus view, other than trivial statements like "Britney Spears fans have no taste in music, but are good spellurs."


John's just this guy, you know.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  06:06:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Dave, I just want to be clear. You think these two statements are different.

"I stated the feathered dinos had no apparent feather fossils."

"those are the photos I found and still do not see feathers. I am not saying that feathers on dinosaurs are not possible."

apparent:clear or manifest to the understanding
from Websters
Did you or did you not write, "...and a list is now created of feathered dinos without feather fossils?" There was no qualifier.

Besides, your statement about the apparent lack of feathers on fossils comes from apparently admittedly having examined only photos of fossils, so your conclusion is based upon your ignorance of the actual evidence. Your arrogance, however, demands that it is the researchers who are making poor assumptions, not you.
Dave, what is your game? Are you attempting to obscure what I said with a falsehood about the meaning. What are you afraid of? You have played with words before, but this is an outright deception. I demand an apology!
I have deceived nobody.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  07:04:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Dave, I just want to be clear. You think these two statements are different.

"I stated the feathered dinos had no apparent feather fossils."

"those are the photos I found and still do not see feathers. I am not saying that feathers on dinosaurs are not possible."

apparent:clear or manifest to the understanding
from Websters
Did you or did you not write, "...and a list is now created of feathered dinos without feather fossils?" There was no qualifier.

Besides, your statement about the apparent lack of feathers on fossils comes from apparently admittedly having examined only photos of fossils, so your conclusion is based upon your ignorance of the actual evidence. Your arrogance, however, demands that it is the researchers who are making poor assumptions, not you.
Dave, what is your game? Are you attempting to obscure what I said with a falsehood about the meaning. What are you afraid of? You have played with words before, but this is an outright deception. I demand an apology!
I have deceived nobody.
Could'a fooled me....

(hahaha) Sorry. Couldn't resist, hehehehe.

Hey Jerome, it's against my better judgment, but as you seem to be running a little short, I'm gonna give you some more material to work with. Dig this:


In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic
Oh, yer gonna love this'n. It's fresh out of the creationist blather-bucket and chock full of just what they want to hear. Enjoy.




"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!

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13477 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  08:16:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome:
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?

Perhaps they should have invited you to see the fossil itself. That is a common practice among paleontologists. It is an informal peer review process, a discussion really of what the find really is and what is actually there. Sometimes other expert eyes can be very helpful and can catch things missed or not thought about. It helps with the description of a find and of course, it is always good to get an outside perspective before moving on to the more grueling process of peer review.

I suggest you write a nice letter to Dr. Xu Xing and ask if you can be included in the examination of future finds since the pictures published and the description of the extraction processed used seems a little fishy to you. I'm sure he would welcome your expert eyes and a critique by someone with your background in spotting possible flaws that might be embarrassingly discovered in peer review, before going to print with a description of his find.

Frankly, I'm shocked that he hasn't invited you, or me for that matter…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  19:08:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote



Are you honestly telling me that those are accurate imprints of 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
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13477 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  19:55:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What should they look like?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  21:14:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Feathers hook onto one another in wings. They do not look like rounded sections next to one another. This looks like a representation of wings. This does not look like feathers.



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
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  21:47:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome.... atleast you are good for a laugh.


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
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  22:15:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
piltdown man was not a foundation of evolution.

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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2007 :  22:16:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Are you honestly telling me that those are accurate imprints of wings?
Apparently, you can't be bothered to go look at the actual fossils, and so routinely base your conclusions and incredulous questions upon the incomplete data presented in a photograph or two.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  01:27:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME




Are you honestly telling me that those are accurate imprints of wings?


You better have something better than your uneducatable, paranoid, antiscientific opinion to back up that statement, Jerome. Even most Creationist nutjobs accept that the feathers and fossil of archaeopteryx is real -- they just claim it's a regular modern bird.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000