Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Credentials vs. credibility
Originally posted by aharvey
It's called context and completeness. You focused on a couple sentences in the press release that seemed to support your views on "chuck" and "evo" (both meant with the utmost of respect and civility, I'm sure!), which would have been extraordinarily difficult to defend if you had tried to use the actual research reported on by the scientists themselves. Again, see your post 8 about whether it is wise to assume press releases tell the whole story.
I only pointed out all the differences they found, which is what the whole article was about. Why is it the scientists can be "amazed" but I can't? BTW,
because you took issue with quoting from
Nature.com, when I found out there was even more news along the same lines, I went to the scientists own page (I didn't have access to
Science.com). But the findings there were the same in the news about the news. So I still don't get why you are so vehement about posting from Nature, unless you feel they aren't telling the truth about the research.
You read about a review of a book at a news site? What "news site," pray tell, considers book reviews to be news? One with an agenda, perhaps? Like, maybe a creationist agenda?
First, answer
my question about the review. Did it
really put down sexual selection or was it agenda driven according to the book review in the paper pages of
Nature?
So to you, the statements "The archaeoraptor is on display in Utah," "The archaeoraptor has been returned to China," and "A plastic model of the archaeoraptor is on display in Utah."? And there's no difference betweeen "The archaeoraptor hoax is being used to indoctrinate children that birds evolved from dinosaurs," and "The archaeoraptor hoax is being shown as an important, but embarrassing, illustration of how frauds are perpetrated upon, and recognized by, the scientific community"? I'm guessing that you do not think these are equivalent, which is why you made a point not] to ask Czerkas the context in which the replica was being displayed. Am I right?
No, I asked Czerkas
and San Diego the same question "is the archaeoraptor on display". That was your argument you calimed it wasn't on display in Utah, but it is. As for
how Utah is showing the archaeoraptor model, only your conjecture is answering that question. Here is another opportunity for you to find out instead of guess.
Well, it does run deeper than that. Your own definitions of civility and attitude dependent entirely on whether you are disagreeing with someone (in which case, the more insulting the better) or else someone is disagreeing with you (in which case, they'd better be very, very nice!).
I'm sorry we won't agree. This is a very long thread with mostly evos replying (if you haven't noticed). So if you want to say I got "bent" because I tired of wading through your 'tude to get to your points instead of replying to other people who can just drop the 'tude for the most part and state their case, so be it. It's not like this is the first thing we haven't agreed on
Honestly, Nineveh, I've only answered this about 100 times. There is a journal called Nature, printed on real paper, which preceded Nature.com by only a couple hundred years. Nature.com is the web face for the actual journal; it is not the actual journal. Nature.com shows you press releases and abstracts of the full research reports that are in the actual journal Nature. You've looked at, maybe 5% of what was actually in the paper.
The point is they represent the research honestly, or else, that is your apparent claim. Unless they are lying about the research I can not get why you have a problem with them. Anyway, there is much more about the chromosome comparisons
at Nature.com. That's why I kept asking you what it was you thought I needed to read that would make the "press release" mean more/less than what it said. Chances are I could have looked up whatever article you had infront of you on their site.
The great irony is that, although you chided Jukia for relying on the superficial content of the Coral Ridge press release re: the mammoth bones instead of searching the site itself, the Coral Ridge press release does in fact contain the complete discussion of the mammoth bones! And then there's good 'ol Brewer. His article was about the same length as the Nature abstract you read, but does in fact represent Brewer's entire report.
Firstly, the "press release" about the museum was at Coral Ridges site. Looking for info on mammoth bones at the ministry's site would be sort of silly, wouldnt it? So I suggested he go to CSI's site to look, there he found a 1-800 #, he could call toll free to get his questions answered from the man himself.
Um... I'm looking at Coral Ridges "press release" right now. The only thing about the mammoth's age is in the caption under the picture.
I was asking
you what more I needed to read about the chromosome study and met with little more than, "more than the press release".
So maybe I have been assuming too much (although this wouldn't explain why you took Jukia to task for stopping at the press release...).
The press release wasn't about mammoth bones. It was about a museum. If he had wanted more info about the museum, I would have suggested he contact the people from the page covering the press release. So much for apples and oranges...
So let me say this yet again: when it comes to real scientific research publications, press releases and abstracts posted on web sites are at best brief, incomplete summaries; this is true even of the web sites of the journals themselves, and they would never argue otherwise (if for no other reason because that would be bad business; why subscribe to the journal if you can get the complete story for free online?). Tell you what; I will make a PDF file of the actual report briefly available so you can see for yourself.
Two things:
First, give me the title of the article I've been asking after all this time, and let's see if it isn't at Nature.com before you go through the trouble of scanning it.
Second: What is said in the article that unsays there are over 60,000 differences in that one (human chimp) chromosome comparison?
You know, the stuff you posted from AS, as inflammatory, biased, and dripping with attitude as it is, does not say that "someone" made claims about the fossil but refused to let anyone else look at it for 30 years!
"Calling his find the Java Ape-Man or "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the ape-man that walks upright), evolutionists swallowed his "proof" without question and arrogantly declared to the world that the Ape-Man was 750,000 years old! Many leading scientists eagerly went to his Holland home to see for themselves those amazing bones, only for Dubois to turn them away at his door.
Finally, after about 35 years,..."
Revealing question. There aren't many, are there? Lucy, Nebraska, anything that you've previously called a hoax.
You said:
But more importantly: Archaeoraptor and Piltdown man were hoaxes. What about the others? Do you now consider them to be mistakes or hoaxes? (post 602 for reference)
You are implying there are "others", maybe I should ask, "other what?" Other hoaxes or other "evidences" of "transitionals/missing links"?
