Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

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!

Ok, deny the hoaxters aren't having their "origin of flight" on exhibit at San Diego. Unless you want to reach and and make the claim the Web Master of San Diego Natural History Museum is in need of being fired for not doing his/her job.

I'm in Indiana, wanna float me some cash for a plane ticket so I can go to San Diego? I seriously doubt it. And even if I went, took pics of the hoax fossils (should they be on display or whole cloth drawings and models), and posted them, you would still argue with me. Why? Because shooting the messenger makes everything ok. (that, and you would owe me $50)

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.

We all know it's a hoax. REMEMBER National Geographic? Why are you still beating that dead horse? The matter is the exhibit these hoaxers have on display in San Diego.

You seem to be the one not paying attention:

The Czerkas are the people who made the exhibit now on display in San Diego. Their book Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origin of Flight still has a "missing link" gracing it's cover. Unless of course all this can be reasonably blamed on a Web Master for not doing their job.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey
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.

A false understanding San Diego is putting on the exhibit of the "origin of flight" by the Czerkas?

 

[Stratnerd]

Ok, deny the hoaxters aren't having their "origin of flight" on exhibit at San Diego.

THEY ARE NOT THE HOAXSTERS AND A'RAPTOR IS NOT ON DISPLAY. THE BOOK COVER HAS A GENERIC DINO-BIRD

Why is this stuff going over your head?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

THEY ARE NOT THE HOAXSTERS AND A'RAPTOR IS NOT ON DISPLAY.

But Czerkas is not presenting A'raptor and as far as I know noone is.

There are no pics, no models and no fossils being presented in the "origin of flight" exhibit?

Please explain how you know this.

(I've emailed, and I'm waiting to find out if the Archaeoraptor has been dropped from the San Diego exhibit)

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

There are no pics, no models and no fossils being presented in the "origin of flight" exhibit?

Please explain how you know this.

There are no pics, no models and no fossils of Archaeoraptor in the origin of flight exhibit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Archaeoraptor was the single hoaxed fossil!!!!!!!!!!!! It was sent back to China in 2000!!!!!!!!! If the Czerkases were stupid enough to include in their exhibit anything that would even imply that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor told us anything useful about the origin of flight, and if the San Diego Museum of Natural History was stupid enough to take on a seven-month contract for an exhibit that made such a stupid mistake, then I will do everything I can to make sure the scientific community knows about this, and that the SDNMH deals with this problem as swiftly as possible.

But I'm willing to bet that this exhibit presents its case using other, legitimate fossils. If these other fossils are not hoaxes, are they allowed?

Oh yeah...

Originally posted by Nineveh

(I've emailed, and I'm waiting to find out if the Archaeoraptor has been dropped from the San Diego exhibit)

I'm glad you've done this. Maybe you'll get it when they tell you that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor was never part of this exhibit!!!!!!

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

There are no pics, no models and no fossils of Archaeoraptor in the origin of flight exhibit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On what are you basing this claim? I'm waiting for email conformation if they are or are not being presented in the exhibit.

wow... talk about being "testy"....

Archaeoraptor was the single hoaxed fossil!!!!!!!!!!!! It was sent back to China in 2000!!!!!!!!! If the Czerkases were stupid enough to include in their exhibit anything that would even imply that the hoaxed fossil Archaeoraptor told us anything useful about the origin of flight, and if the San Diego Museum of Natural History was stupid enough to take on a seven-month contract for an exhibit that made such a stupid mistake, then I will do everything I can to make sure the scientific community knows about this, and that the SDNMH deals with this problem as swiftly as possible.

But I'm willing to bet that this exhibit presents its case using other, legitimate fossils. If these other fossils are not hoaxes, are they allowed?

Ok, well until we know for sure if it's being included, it seems like specualtion on your part. I read where the exhibit is going to Canada next.

 

[Nineveh]

C'mon, let me in, how do you two know all this stuff? Call? Email? Visit? What?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

On what are you basing this claim? I'm waiting for email conformation if they are or are not being presented in the exhibit.

wow... talk about being "testy"....

Yes, I admit to getting testy. You seem to be impervious to the facts. If the dang hoaxed material was sent back to China 4 years ago, then how could it be on display here? And if everyone knows it was a huge, embarrassing hoax, then why on earth do you think the victims of the hoax would try to pass it off on the public, especially after they themselves have published papers on the separated, post-hoax material? And why would a respected scientific institution knowingly guarantee destroying its credibility by displaying or even discussing a hoax as if it were the real thing? I worked for years at both the California Academy of Sciences and the American Museum of Natural History, and can tell you from personal experience that museums may like the occasional controversial exhibit, but they live in fear of scandalized exhibits (e.g., frauds or thefts).

Originally posted by Nineveh

Ok, well until we know for sure if it's being included, it seems like specualtion on your part. I read where the exhibit is going to Canada next.

Yes, but please be assured it's highly informed speculation on my part. And remember what I said about the fearfulness of museums towards the whiff of scandal? Well, the Royal Ontario Museum, which had signed on to display the exhibit, is reconsidering until it's determined whether the fossils in the exhibit were legally acquired.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey
If the dang hoaxed material was sent back to China 4 years ago, then how could it be on display here?

The exhibit includes 34 original fossils, 15 life-size sculptural restorations of the fossils, historical models, and over two dozen large photomurals and graphics

The fossils are brought to life in a collection of stunning life-size sculptural restorations by the well-known dinosaur sculptor Stephen Czerkas. In addition to the beautiful and realistic sculptures, viewers are aided by a series of huge photo blow-ups that reveal aspects of the fossils, which are not readily visible to the naked eye, including microscopic details, X-rays and ultraviolet illumination.

It seems it could be presented.

Yes, but please be assured it's highly informed speculation on my part.

So you really dunno, then. I guess I will have to wait on the email replies, unless Strat has some compelling evidence.

oh... another blast to the San Diego Web Master:

The exhibition will travel to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada and be there for seven months starting in the Spring of 2005.

*all quotes from San Diego Museum of Natural History.

 

[Stratnerd]

N-

I can't show there's evidence of something not being presented. I can't show evidence that bigfoot, loch ness monster, yeti, alians, ghosts, etc etc are being presented.

However, as it has been presented to you over and over and over and over and over, there's no evidence the A'raptor is on display. YOU made the acccusation and YOU should back it up. And we've said, over and over and over and over and over, that there are other fossils that support the dino-bird link so your continuous allusions to these are pointless. So either find some texts, pictures, etc from the webpages that show that the fossils, pics, etc are indeed A'raptor or please admit that you goofed and let's please move on.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

N-

I can't show there's evidence of something not being presented.

So basically you don't know, you are just making the claim it isn't being presented.

However, as it has been presented to you over and over and over and over and over, there's no evidence the A'raptor is on display.

The people who made the exhibit and wrote the book on the Origin of Flight are the same folks who snookered National Geographic. There is no evidence it isn't being displayed other than the claims of you and aharvey. How about some evidence? (which I am waiting for now in my email)

YOU made the acccusation and YOU should back it up.

Um, no, you said they aren't there, I say you don't know.

And we've said, over and over and over and over and over, that there are other fossils that support the dino-bird link so your continuous allusions to these are pointless. So either find some texts, pictures, etc from the webpages that show that the fossils, pics, etc are indeed A'raptor or please admit that you goofed and let's please move on.

Interesting you would say that, I was just reading a link off SDNHM's site:

The bird-dinosaur link was first proposed more than a century ago by Thomas Henry Huxley, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. The idea got a considerable boost in the 1970s when a Yale University scientist named John Ostrom documented close similarities between dinosaurs and the skeleton of a well-defined early birdlike creature.

Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution's Natural History Museum, is one of the most highly vocal critics of the theory that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. He and others of a like mind say the theropod origin of birds has been oversold on the basis of "wishful thinking," and that fossil evidence suggesting that some dinosaurs had feathers is too sketchy to bear out the claims. Any true feathers that have been documented could have come from birds that nested amid theropods, some suggest.

In an open letter he sent in 1999 to National Geographic's Committee for Research and Exploration, which has funded some of the recent dinosaur fossil discoveries, Olson called the theory of feathered dinosaurs the "paleontological equivalent of cold fusion."

He issued the highly critical letter after National Geographic magazine published a story in November 1999 reporting on several feathered dinosaur specimens that scientists claimed were "a missing link" between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could fly. One of the specimens from China was later found to be a composite, which prompted an internal investigation of the incident.

Among his comments, Olson said that "none of the structures illustrated in [the] article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers." cite

So your "peer review" wound up as a letter to the editor. I wonder if San Diego has any lil placards presenting the "birds to dinos" as less an the "origin of flight". What with all the "evidence" (minus the missing link (?) ), it seems like they wouldn't make such bold pronouncements as "The goal of this exhibition is to present new fossil evidence and stimulate both the scientific and the popular understanding of what dinosaurs were like and how they are related to birds," You can see the quote from SDNHM's site.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

It seems it could be presented.

Nope. Nothing in the text you quoted gives the faintest hint that they will be presenting anything to do with the hoaxed fossil, and it would be professional suicide for both museum and Czerkases to do so.

Originally posted by Nineveh

So you really dunno, then. I guess I will have to wait on the email replies, unless Strat has some compelling evidence.

Nope, I only have my own personal opinions, supplemented by reporting from the top-tier scientific journal Nature, and the years of firsthand professional experience I gained from working in museums, knowing curators from museums around the world, and helping make decisions about what to exhibit and how. Now if I was a Creationist, and told you that Archaeoraptor could conceivably be part of this exhibit (but had no support or experience to back it up), how skeptical would you be of that claim?

Originally posted by Nineveh

oh... another blast to the San Diego Web Master:
quote:
The exhibition will travel to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada and be there for seven months starting in the Spring of 2005.

Yep, that was the original plan, but as I told you ROM may not show it after all. What's your point?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey
Nope, I only have my own personal opinions, supplemented by reporting from the top-tier scientific journal Nature, and the years of firsthand professional experience I gained from working in museums, knowing curators from museums around the world, and helping make decisions about what to exhibit and how.

Thanks, but I'll wait for conformation from the museum, rather than take your "educated guess" at it.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Thanks, but I'll wait for conformation from the museum, rather than take your "educated guess" at it.

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth!

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by aharvey

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth (sorry about this extended sidetrip, Jukia)!

 

[aharvey]

Oops! Don't know how that glitch happened! I didn't mean to post a blank reply to my own post!

 

[Nineveh]

Yeah!! One email reply so far:

From: S. Czerkas emailed at: <Featheredinos@Dinosaur-Museum.org>

No, the Archaeoraptor is in China, and not on view in San Diego. A plastic replica is on view at The Dinosaur Museum.

Now, I await the email from San Diego letting me know if any "plastic replicas" of this unicorn are included in the exhibit.

Looks like it can be displayed, huh, aharvey?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

And then what will you do? It seems to be very important to you that this exhibit tries to pass off the hoaxed fossil as real; otherwise I can't imagine why you would be so incredibly resistant to the idea that it probably doesn't. If the SDNMH does answer back and tell you that the exhibit makes no use of the hoaxed fossil, will you even believe them? And if you do believe them, will it affect your mindset about anything? Or will you still insist that the scientific community makes a habit of perpetrating frauds, including Archaeoraptor, on an unsuspecting public? Hopefully not, but I am very curious how you go about evaluating "evidence."

In any case, once the SDNMH sets your mind at ease, I look forward to getting back to the 3,000 - 4,000 year old Coral Ridge mammoth!

What will I do? Laugh that evo needs the Czerkas to have displays on the "Origins of Flight" cuz' that's the best they have.

And guess what? That mammoth is really a mammoth, and it's not being promoted as proof of a theory like "elephants to long haired hippies".

Anyway... I need to go shopping I'll check for the SDNHM's reply when I get back.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Yeah!! One email reply so far:

From: S. Czerkas emailed at: <Featheredinos@Dinosaur-Museum.org>



Now, I await the email from San Diego letting me know if any "plastic replicas" of this unicorn are included in the exhibit.

Looks like it can be displayed, huh, aharvey?

Did you ask whether it is displayed as a hoax or as the real thing? Do you see why this would be an important thing to know? I'm off to lunch with my wife. Upon my return I'll give a call to Tom Demere, curator of Paleontology at SDNMH, and ask him the right questions.

 

[aharvey]

Minor change of plans. Remembering that OEJ accused Jukia of lying about calling Tom DeRosa, I sent an email to Tom Demere instead. That way I'll have better documentation of his response than a mere phone call could provide.