Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Jukia]

Nineveh:
Whining? I really didn't think I was whining, I was pointing out the poor science they did and the jump from that work to the claims they made.

I really have no more questions for DeRosa. Although if I can grab some time I will call and ask about the 1% fossilized issue. If I do I will report back but I am a bit amazed that no creationist has managed to step up and provide any information supporting Coral Ridges and CSI's claims about the mammoth.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

of course, 90% of these post have been about creationists whining about an "evolution hoax". one that was put forth by non-scientists and, thankfully, real scientist have uncovered and moved on.

so what makes Juke's posts whining and your's something else?

Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger.

 

[Stratnerd]

[qutoe] Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger. [/quote]

1. A'raptor was uncovered by evolutionary biologists so we did our job

2. You haven't provided any evidence that A'raptor is still on display

3. When you try to show that it is - you show that "feathered dinosaurs" are on display. A'raptor certainly is not the only evidence that dinosaurs have feathers.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia
Whining? I really didn't think I was whining, I was pointing out the poor science they did and the jump from that work to the claims they made.

No, you were whining about how you don't like how they dated the bone(s). Not once (when OEJ responded), but twice, (when I responded).

I really have no more questions for DeRosa.

No, you'd just rather whine here in this thread than get your answers straight from the man himself.

Although if I can grab some time I will call and ask about the 1% fossilized issue. If I do I will report back but I am a bit amazed that no creationist has managed to step up and provide any information supporting Coral Ridges and CSI's claims about the mammoth.

If you put half the effort dialing the phone as you did in this post, your questions would have been answered. (and you would have had new whine fodder )

 

[Jukia]

And again, Coral Ridge puts out a press release about 4000 year old mammoths based on bad science and that is OK? Not whinin, just trying to understand.

 

[Nineveh]

Me: Except the hoaxters exibit is on display. It seems evos would be the ones whining, instead of shooting the messenger.

Stratnerd
1. A'raptor was uncovered by evolutionary biologists so we did our job

2. You haven't provided any evidence that A'raptor is still on display

3. When you try to show that it is - you show that "feathered dinosaurs" are on display. A'raptor certainly is not the only evidence that dinosaurs have feathers.

Me: Hey, it's the "origin of flight" for evo that's on display, the "theory" expounded upon by hoaxters who wrote the book (with the "A'raptor" on the cover, selling for $35) and made the exhibit. If ya'll need that kind of "science" to prove your theory, pardon if I'm not shocked.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

And again, Coral Ridge puts out a press release about 4000 year old mammoths based on bad science and that is OK? Not whinin, just trying to understand.

Aww still whining about how you don't like the methods instead of dialing the phone?

 

[Jukia]

OK, OK, I'll call and will report back, anything in particular you want me to ask about?

 

[Stratnerd]

Me: Hey, it's the "origin of flight" for evo that's on display, the "theory" expounded upon by hoaxters who wrote the book (with the "A'raptor" on the cover, selling for $35) and made the exhibit. If ya'll need that kind of "science" to prove your theory, pardon if I'm not shocked.

someone else had already shown that Nature, the top science journal, ran the piece on the fossil being a hoax.

theories, regardless of how well-validated they are, are still called theories. Facts are observations. Again, and I know I have said these well over a dozen times, SCIENCE DOES NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THINGS POSITIVE BUT WE TRY TO PROVE THEM FALSE. This is why we do experiments and make observations.

AGAIN, Archaeoraptor is not necessary as evidence that dinosaurs and birds are closely related. I already gave numerous examples of specimens that play this role.

If certain people still want to display A'raptor, if they are, then they are doing it out of spite. Scientists know they are wrong. If the general public get duped then shame on them for not being critical and keeping up with science but I look at it as any other fraud.

Have you called the authors of the book to whine to them?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Jukia

OK, OK, I'll call and will report back, anything in particular you want me to ask about?

Your problems with him and his bones.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

someone else had already shown that Nature, the top science journal, ran the piece on the fossil being a hoax.

We all know it's a hoax, remember National Geographic? For crying out loud.

theories, regardless of how well-validated they are, are still called theories. Facts are observations. Again, and I know I have said these well over a dozen times, SCIENCE DOES NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THINGS POSITIVE BUT WE TRY TO PROVE THEM FALSE. This is why we do experiments and make observations.

So the kids, whom this exhibit is designed for (by hoaxters) are supposed to know "The Origin of Flight" is a theory? Not even the San Deigo museum has the word on their exhibit page.

AGAIN, Archaeoraptor is not necessary as evidence that dinosaurs and birds are closely related. I already gave numerous examples of specimens that play this role.

Funny, National Geographic hailed it as "the missing link" for the dinos to birds theory.

If certain people still want to display A'raptor, if they are, then they are doing it out of spite. Scientists know they are wrong. If the general public get duped then shame on them for not being critical and keeping up with science but I look at it as any other fraud.

The San Diego Natural History Museum is putting on this display "out of spite"? For who? Evos?

Funny! :ha: One one hand no credit to those who can't seem to grasp evo theory, on the other they are supposed to grasp evo theory.

Have you called the authors of the book to whine to them?

Heck no. This is evo at it's finest. I think it's funny watching you make excuses (including blaming the public) about hoaxter's exhibits in San Deigo.

 

[Stratnerd]

from http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs/birdbook.html

Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight

There are six papers within the volume:

A New Toothed Bird from China
(Archaeovolans repatriates - formerly Archaeoraptor)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Xing Xu

An Arboreal Maniraptoran from Northeast China
(Scansoriopteryx heilmanni)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Chongxi Yuan

Flying Dromaeosaurs
(Cryptovolans pauli)
Stephen A. Czerkas, Dianshuang Zhang, Jinglu li, and Yinxian Li

A Preliminary Report on an Omnivorous Volant Bird from Northeast China
(Omnivoropteryx sinousaorum)
Stephen A. Czerkas and Qiang Ji

so even Czerkas, the guy that was originally duped is no longer using A'raptor and sticking to the top part of the fossil and calling it a bird. The cover isn't supposed to be A'raptor but a generic feathered dinosaur that we can presuppose existed.

So, again, there's no evidence of A'raptor being used.

 

[Stratnerd]

So the kids, whom this exhibit is designed for (by hoaxters) are supposed to know "The Origin of Flight" is a theory? Not even the San Deigo museum has the word on their exhibit page.

ALL scientific explanations are theories. Kids should know this. YOU should know this, but you didn't so now you do and you don't have any excuse in the future.

Funny, National Geographic hailed it as "the missing link" for the dinos to birds theory.

they're not a peer-reviewed journal either and are out to sell as much as possible. something else I had already pointed out.

The San Diego Natural History Museum is putting on this display "out of spite"? For who? Evos?

I failed to see where A'raptor was on display.

I went to their website and there is no mention of A'raptor. Do you have any evidence they're using it?

 

[Jukia]

Nineveh: Why dont you call the San Diego Museum and report back to us?

 

[Stratnerd]

J-

There's no need to - A'raptor isn't there. But maybe she should just to convince herself!

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

ALL scientific explanations are theories. Kids should know this. YOU should know this, but you didn't so now you do and you don't have any excuse in the future.

they're not a peer-reviewed journal either and are out to sell as much as possible. something else I had already pointed out.

I failed to see where A'raptor was on display.

I went to their website and there is no mention of A'raptor. Do you have any evidence they're using it?

Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

J-

There's no need to - A'raptor isn't there. But maybe she should just to convince herself!

So it doesn't matter that these folks, who are known hoaxters are having their exhibit on display?

 

[Nineveh]

...wating for email reply about the Archaeoraptor being part of San Diego exhibit.

 

[Stratnerd]

Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home?

do you have evidence that alians haven't appeared in your shorts? What kind of question is that? YOU made the accusation and YOU should back it up!

So it doesn't matter that these folks, who are known hoaxters are having their exhibit on display?

if you paid attention to the posts that explain what actually happened you wouldn't have made that statement. So let me explain, AGAIN: Someone in China made the fossil composite and sold it to a dealer who brought it back to the US. It was then purchased in the US by a paleontologist (Czerkas) who then brought it to the attention of National Geographic. Czerkas wasn't a hoaxster but we was duped and not careful. I looked at some chatter and he isn't that well respected amongst his peers (probably for that very reason).

But Czerkas is not presenting A'raptor and as far as I know noone is. AGAIN, I never defended the hoax and I wish you would stop saying that I was.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Do you have evidence the hoaxters left their prize "missing link" at home?

Um, Nineveh, I already quoted the Nature report that said the hoaxed fossil was sent back to China in 2000. Why are you being so testy about all this?

The hoax was pulled on a non-professional fossil hunter. The hoaxed fossil was rejected by the two top-tiered scientific journals, but accepted by a surely well-known, but nonetheless non-peer-reviewed popular magazine. Evolutionary biologists caught that it was a hoaxed fossil, the story was retracted, the fossils sent back to China. No museum is basing any statements about the origin of flight on the hoaxed specimen. Not a one.

The victims of the hoax are still interested in fossils (are they allowed this?), and particularly in fossils that illuminate the bird-dinosaur connection, so they have written a book on the subject (are they allowed this?), and put together a traveling exhibit (are they allowed this?) that includes other fossils that are as far as I know not hoaxes (and you can bet they have been looked over carefully with this in mind!). It does not sound like they are basing statements about the origin of flight on the hoaxed specimen in their book. If they are, and are trying to concealing that fact, then you are right in calling them hoaxters. if not, then you have no basis for calling them hoaxters, and implying that all of science is therefore in on the scam. Regardless, the scientific community is justifyably wary of their claims and their evidence.

I was never attacking you personally. I was trying to point out that your indignation was based on a false understanding of the situation. It perplexes me that you are just as indignant at the same people for the same reasons, regardless of what really happened.