|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2007 : 16:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy you provided evidence of fraud.
The point being if fraud can occur for 41 years, and fraud is currently happening; why would you take on faith the fossils not currently classified as fraud real?
|
It's all very simple and if you'd studied the topic you'd see it. The long and short of it is that these days very little if any fraud gets past peer review. Archaeoraptor certainly did not and if Piltdown had been allowed peer review in the first place, it wouldn't have lasted a week. It was rather a clumsy forgery that still had file marks on it. Archaeoraptor only lasted as long as it did because it belonged to a private collector. As soon as it fell under professional examination that included a CT scan, the game was up.
I'm sure that the private collectors take some hits, if they don't have their purchases professionally examined before handing over their cash, but science takes very damned few and those few don't last long.
Are you considering your answer to my question?
Edit: Archaeoraptor is a valuable specimen in it's own right, as it was made from two species previously not well known.
|
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/17/2007 16:29:44 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 17:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
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.
Much in the same way t-rex was most likely a scavenger and not a hunter; but a predator sells better thus hunter he has become. |
With a demonstration of such a clear disconnect from reality (cognitive dissonance?), we get down to the question, is Jerome:
1. Stupid
2. Insane
3. A liar
4. Or some combination of the above
He's certainly not all of the below:
1. Intelligent
2. Rational
3. Honest
I suspect he might be one of the sock-puppets of the Freebies who came here to troll. I think he's certainly a troll or a specimen of some convergent species. The remaining question is what drives him. Madness? Determined ignorance? Mental deficiency? Some kind of mind game targeting skeptics? I hereby request an unscientific poll on the matter, in the hope some light might be shed on this fascinating mystery of a grown man who repeatedly makes a fool of himself but seems oblivious to the fact.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 18:32:56 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote:
1. Stupid
2. Insane
3. A liar
This follows a pattern of truth concealment that has been practiced for many years effectively initiating the lemming effect.
Lemming do not think for themselves.
By the way the famous Disney film was faked; the lemmings were forced off the cliff.
|
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 - 06/17/2007 : 18:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, the public was brought to awareness of fact of evolution in a dramatic way on the evidence of piltdown. Science tends to get funding for areas of public interest. Why is this so hard to follow? Without piltdown much science would not have been conducted.
|
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 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 19:35:31 [Permalink]
|
| Ricky, the public was brought to awareness of fact of evolution in a dramatic way on the evidence of piltdown. Science tends to get funding for areas of public interest. Why is this so hard to follow? Without piltdown much science would not have been conducted. |
Bullshit mr. troll. Evidence, beside the evidence in your disjointed mind.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 19:45:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ricky, the public was brought to awareness of fact of evolution in a dramatic way on the evidence of piltdown. |
Where is your evidence for that claim? Do you have pre- and post-1912 polling data on the public awareness of evolutionary theory?| Science tends to get funding for areas of public interest. Why is this so hard to follow? Without piltdown much science would not have been conducted. |
It's not hard to follow, it's that your premises appear to be wild speculation and poor assumptions, instead of facts. If you could demonstrate your premises to be correct, you'd get a lot less argument. Can you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 20:59:30 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown was a foundation. Piltdown was proof worldwide. I have no clue why this is hard to follow.
|
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 21:34:27 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, you're so ignorant of what science is you think Piltdown was "proof" of something. Hell, you can't even properly articulate what you think Piltdown was a "foundation" of.
Again, this isn't hard to follow at all: the premises for your argument are mostly false, so whatever you build upon them is no more substantial than a house of cards. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 23:56:03 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, try to understand. There was a bias in the science of human evolution that the Piltdown hoax played in to. There were scientists who believed that a large brain came before the development of bipedal walking and jaw development. Piltdown fit the bias.
Right from the get-go it was controversial, largely based on finds that completely ran against the grain of this bias. Some scientists were highly suspicious of Piltdown, even without a particular bias thrown in.
Finds were still happening after Piltdown. And not 53 years later either, that told a completely different story about our origins.
From the Piltdown article at wiki, Piltown and Early Humans:
In 1912, the Piltdown man was believed to be the “missing link” between apes and humans by the majority of the scientific community. However, over time the Piltdown man lost its validity, as other discoveries such as Taung Child and Peking Man were found. R.W. Ehrich and G.M. Henderson note, “To those who are not completely disillusioned by the work of their predecessors, the disqualification of the Piltdown skull changes little in the broad evolutionary pattern. The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.”[2] Eventually, in the 40s and 50s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
Relative importance
According to Robert Parson, “Piltdown confirmed hypotheses about our early ancestors that were in fact wrong, specifically, that the brain case developed before the jaw. The early Australopithecine fossils found by Raymond Dart in South Africa in the 1920s failed to receive the attention due to them for this reason. The entire reconstruction of the history of the evolution of humanity was thrown off track until the 1930s.” |
One point is that it didn't take until 1953 for science to not consider the Piltdown man as something other then either a mistake or a hoax.
Another is that peer review thing you don't like to discuss. Piltdown was dismissed long before 1953 because it just didn't fit. How did they know? Because they were getting more and more real specimens that were not consistent with Piltdown, and nothing, not anything like Piltdown or what Piltdown suggested in subsequent finds.
So you see, the science moved forward as new evidence appeared, well before the hoax was finally verified. No science was built on Piltdown because nothing they found could support it.
It may have been big news at the time but it was doomed from a scientific perspective. The science went on, the search went on, new fossils were being found and not one of them supported the Piltdown bias. And I'm talking about finds as early as the 1920's and onward. Sure, there was confusion over the find. And there were proclamations made about its significance that the press ate up. But most scientists in the field knew that there was something wrong with Piltdown. And they were the ones doing the actual science.
Also, it should be noted once again that peer review killed off that silly fossil. It should also be noted that the methods used to today to determine what is real and what is not are far more sophisticated and accurate than what they had back then.
The feathered dinosaurs, to be considered legitimate, must endure a much more grueling and exacting method of verification then Piltdown was subjected to. So using old Piltdown as an example of what can go wrong in science today doesn't really work.
Even given the 1953 date, when the hoax was absolutely revealed (even though most scientists had given up on Piltdown some 23 years earlier) that is 54 years of advancements i |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2007 : 02:04:14 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown..... I'm all but convinced that the whole thing was an April Fools joke that went awry and, remarkably, is still catching the more bumptious of modern fish. Of course, the fish of today are of a different species; a species that thinks of it as an example of rife fraud in evolutionary science. How quaint.
The creationists love Piltdown even though, as Kil has so nicely pointed out, it was irrevelent long before the forgery was "officially" discovered. They also tout Nebraska Man, a mere mistake in identity quickly corrected by scientists, not preachers, as the same thing. And their whining about Lucy, a genuine hominid, is all but lyrical. Heh, Archaeoraptor brought them out of the woodwork like Disney's lemmings (we know about the lemmings and have since the '50s. It was old news even when his natural history series was running. The whole thing was somewhat spavined, but the photography was without peer). They think they've really got something there. But again, it was science correcting itself that uncovered a very clever forgery, and not the woo-woos at AiG, et al.
Say, if you want to see some real fraud -- I can't believe I wrote that! -- check out the Creation Museum.
And now we have Gigantoraptor erlianensis, and they are all a'twitter over it. I am looking forward to a great deal of enjoyment reading the imaginitive statements and outright lies they will be putting forth. Indeed, it has already begun.
Jerome, have you figured out the answer as to why photos of feathered dino fossils are not nearly as common as artist's conceptions in popular publications? I am eagerly anticipating your answer.
|
"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 - 06/18/2007 : 06:50:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Halfmooner wrote:
1. Stupid
2. Insane
3. A liar
This follows a pattern of truth concealment that has been practiced for many years effectively initiating the lemming effect.
Lemming do not think for themselves.
By the way the famous Disney film was faked; the lemmings were forced off the cliff.
|
And is your mention (again, sources, you numbskull!) of that alleged Disney film fakery supposed to be some kind of indictment of science?
I think you are all of the things I listed, at once, Jerome. Impossible as it seems at first to most rational people, there is a sort of pathological cognitive dissonance that allows people to lie while believing their own lies. It's related to George Orwell's "doublethink." You are also a troll, because your primary purpose seems to be to get a rise out of those whose thought processes you probably secretly envy.
You obviously lied when you said you don't read Creationist propaganda. You never gave another source for your MSH eruption sediment nonsense, because you got it directly from AiG, you lying sack of troll feces.
But it's all good, Jerome. Even though you are a hopless, crazy, schmuck of a trolling nitwit, lurkers are informed from the resulting discussion. You are providing a wonderfully illustrative bad example of ignorance and woo-woo in general, and now Creationism in particular. For this unintended service to critical thinking, I thank you, you moron.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 06/18/2007 06:51:14 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:16:39 [Permalink]
|
In order to counter to Jerome's idiotic ramblings in this thread, I am going to have to repeat and rephrase what has already been explained by other members of this forum but ignored by Jerome, who then switches the topic.
| 42 years of evolutionary science built on a fake. |
Kil already very adequately countered this, saying: But more to the point, filthy provided you with pictures that clearly show feathers on the fossils. The descriptions of those fossils have been substantiated by peer review.
When Piltdown man was finally subjected to the same kind of review that these feathered dinosaurs are being subjected to, the Piltdown hoax was revealed.
Piltdown is an example of how science works. Not an example of how science fails to work… |
and One point is that it didn't take until 1953 for science to not consider the Piltdown man as something other then either a mistake or a hoax.
Another is that peer review thing you don't like to discuss. Piltdown was dismissed long before 1953 because it just didn't fit. How did they know? Because they were getting more and more real specimens that were not consistent with Piltdown, and nothing, not anything like Piltdown or what Piltdown suggested in subsequent finds.
So you see, the science moved forward as new evidence appeared, well before the hoax was finally verified. No science was built on Piltdown because nothing they found could support it. |
To back up these claims of Kil's I refer you to the Wikipedia article on “The Piltdown Man” which offers references and links to many articles about the history of the forgery: | In 1912, the Piltdown man was believed to be the “missing link” between apes and humans by the majority of the scientific community. However, over time the Piltdown man lost its validity, as other discoveries such as Taung Child and Peking Man were found. R.W. Ehrich and G.M. Henderson note, “To those who are not completely disillusioned by the work of their predecessors, the disqualification of the Piltdown skull changes little in the broad evolutionary pattern. The validity of the specimen has always been questioned.”[2] |
The Taung Child was discovered in 1924 and the Peking Man was discovered in 1923, so skepticism over Piltdown man took charge of the scientific community pretty soon after its “discovery”. And even if it did have majority support for a brief period, there were serious skeptics from the start: | Many early scientists actually classified this as a hoax well before these claims were confirmed in 1953. These scientists include Arthur Keith of the Royal College's Hunterian Museum who in 1913 challenged the way the skull fragments had been reconstructed to change the brain's cavity-size (a crucial part of the 'brain-first' argument) which consequently changed the reconstruction of the jaw, and G.S. Miller of the American Smithsonian Institute, who was an expert on primate skeletons and was du |
"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 07:17:22 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 10:52:20 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, I must apologize. We're running way late and it's my fault entirely; I got involved in something else and lost track of the time. Terribly sorry about that. 
Now then, what is your answer as to why, unlike artists conceptions, actual photos of fossils with feather impressions are relatively rare in popular publications? It's a very small subject, so please be brief.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 13:42:28 [Permalink]
|
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.
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/18/2007 13:45:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Xing Xu, Big Bird and the Six Day Shuffle
