Debate : 9222


Off-Topic / Debate / 9222	9221 \| 9223

Subject:	Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:50:58 GMT
Viewed:	622 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes: > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes: > > > Taken in the right perspective, this faked fossil really bears no relevance > > > in the whole evolution / creationism debate. > > Helps establish the link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolution. > > Um, it just throws a known fabrication into the debate. I'm sure that it's > possible that it *could* benefit one side of the argument over the other, > but I fail to see how. Fakes happen. Defaking stuff is fun, as Bruce alludes to. Investigating why people do fakes is interesting. But the question is not whether a particular observation is faked. The question, rather, is whether there the preponderance of evidence is faked. It's not. The literal creationists seize on the fakes because they think it bolsters their case while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence which, while perhaps less dramatic, isn't faked and which is overwhelming. What really is *fake* in all this is the literal creationist pretense at understanding the scientific process, pretense at wanting to actually evaluate observations honestly, and pretense that literal creationism has equivalent scientific validity with evolution while systematically mugging the truth. That sort of fake "thinking" leads to travesties like the State of Oklahoma textbook disclaimer: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5438_dissecting_the_disclaimer_12_7_2000.asp Note that the literal creationists prefer that it be called scientific creationism. I prefer to call it what it is, cause it ain't scientific. Note that I have a lot less truck with IDCers than I do with the woolyheaded and freedom denigrating bunch of literal creationists. By gosh, if I am going to be forced to pay for public schools I am darn well going to insist that we don't confuse kids by presenting religious beliefs as well founded science in them. ++Lar

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) Kinda throws things into confusion, but it also reminds everyone to be wary. (...) Pretty much. If they want to seize on the small number of fakes, they'll have to answer to the large number of fake faith healers as a disproof of God. I don't (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) It tells one a lot about the scientific profession--and academia in general--when things like that happen. Thanks to Jeremy for providing the cites; I read both the "original" and the followup in National Geographic. As in religion, vanity can (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) Dave! (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
(...) Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that one at anyone specifically -- just hoping for some colattoral damage. An old nasty habit. :-, (...) Wow, chilly. Touche. OK, I thought that since you were familiar with the first Geographic article ("Feathered (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

95 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search