Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
SqueakyVoice

New fossil dino-bird...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php

See link for details.

Another fossil uncovered, another link in evolution of birds from dinosaurs bolstered, another round of creationists pretending that it shoots holes in the ToE...
cyberman

Re: New fossil dino-bird...

SqueakyVoice wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php

See link for details.

Another fossil uncovered, another link in evolution of birds from dinosaurs bolstered, another round of creationists pretending that it shoots holes in the ToE...


I had a read of the thread following your link. I didn't see a lot of creationists' posts.
Shaker

Re: New fossil dino-bird...

cyberman wrote:
SqueakyVoice wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php

See link for details.

Another fossil uncovered, another link in evolution of birds from dinosaurs bolstered, another round of creationists pretending that it shoots holes in the ToE...


I had a read of the thread following your link. I didn't see a lot of creationists' posts.


If you can stomach it, you can read the usual twaddle from the cretinists via the link here.
cyberman

Re: New fossil dino-bird...

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
SqueakyVoice wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php

See link for details.

Another fossil uncovered, another link in evolution of birds from dinosaurs bolstered, another round of creationists pretending that it shoots holes in the ToE...


I had a read of the thread following your link. I didn't see a lot of creationists' posts.


If you can stomach it, you can read the usual twaddle from the cretinists via the link here.


I think the creationist posts must have been removed. There are some comments in there about trolls and sockpuppets having posts removed, so I think I got there too late.

Never mind.
Shaker

Re: New fossil dino-bird...

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
SqueakyVoice wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/xiaotingia_zhengi.php

See link for details.

Another fossil uncovered, another link in evolution of birds from dinosaurs bolstered, another round of creationists pretending that it shoots holes in the ToE...


I had a read of the thread following your link. I didn't see a lot of creationists' posts.


If you can stomach it, you can read the usual twaddle from the cretinists via the link here.


I think the creationist posts must have been removed. There are some comments in there about trolls and sockpuppets having posts removed, so I think I got there too late.

Never mind.


No, I said that you could read the cretinists comments via that link, not there directly: they're mentioned by name - WorldNetDaily (US swivel-eyed frothing right-winger looney-tunes site) and Uncommon Descent (creationist site).
Lexilogio

Thank you.

This is exciting - although having been aware that a previous one was a hoax, I'm a tentative on accepting it just yet.

Do we know how they are sure it had feathers?
SqueakyVoice

Lexilogio wrote:
Thank you.

This is exciting - although having been aware that a previous one was a hoax, I'm a tentative on accepting it just yet.

Do we know how they are sure it had feathers?


Lexi,

I think the fraudulent fossil you're referring to was 'archaeoraptor'. IIRC, it was fairly quickly found to be a fraud and hadn't gone through the usual process of peer review before it's existence was announced at a press conference. Also, when the actual fossils were examined they turned out to be very important in their own right.

I haven't seen any report that directly indicates how they know xiaotingia had feathers, but if you try...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feathered_dinosaurs

It gives links to nearly 30 fossils with various bird/ dinosaur fossils some of which give descriptions of how we know they had feathers. Mainly (seems to be) because the feathers are fossilised, though I did find one where it's because of the presence of quills. Not sure which it is in this case.
cyberman

It is a pity that people were so silly as to fake a fossil, because of course it only gives support to the creationists' position which is that fossil finds are misleading.
Pukon_the_Treen

cyberman,

Quote:
It is a pity that people were so silly as to fake a fossil, because of course it only gives support to the creationists' position which is that fossil finds are misleading.


It's not really 'silly', as the Chinese farmer who most likely cemented together the separate pieces to create the misleading fossil probably made good money for his efforts.

This wasn't a case of silly scientists and palaeontologists trying to create material to hoodwink the public and support their theories, it was a case of a member of the public trying to fool the professionals, which would have been recognised and debunked without any fuss if the National Geographic (a popular journal rather than a peer review one) had not been in such a rush to get their story.
cyberman

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:

It's not really 'silly', as the Chinese farmer who most likely cemented together the separate pieces to create the misleading fossil probably made good money for his efforts.


So if something makes money it can't be called silly!

Spoken like a true Thatcherite, Pukon.

I stand by my assessment that it was a silly thing to do.
Pukon_the_Treen

cyberman,

Quote:
So if something makes money it can't be called silly!


Except I didn't say that did I.

Quote:
Spoken like a true Thatcherite, Pukon.


I'm not interested in any of your absurd grandstanding, denouncements and histrionics; your post implied that faking fossils was 'silly' because it undermined the scientific / evolutionist viewpoint, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of the fundamentalists. You would be correct, if the fossil had been faked by those with a vested interest attempting to support the scientific / evolutionist viewpoint, but it wasn't. I think it's pretty likely that the Chinese farmer responsible for the fossil couldn't give a toss for the evolution versus creationist argument, and probably wasn't even aware of it, so from that perspective his actions were not silly. They were immoral, greedy and duplicitous, but not 'silly because they support the creationist position' as you suggested.

If anyone acted in a silly way it was the National Geographic in their attempts to corner the story and rush the scientific process.
cyberman

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
cyberman,

Quote:
So if something makes money it can't be called silly!


Except I didn't say that did I.


erm, yes you did

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
It's not really 'silly', as the Chinese farmer who most likely cemented together the separate pieces to create the misleading fossil probably made good money for his efforts.



Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
your post implied that faking fossils was 'silly' because it undermined the scientific / evolutionist viewpoint, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of the fundamentalists.  You would be correct, if the fossil had been faked by those with a vested interest attempting to support the scientific / evolutionist viewpoint, but it wasn't.


So before misusing the story to further their position, fundamentalists are going to check what the motive of the faker was, are they? No, they can use it in any case. They can say "sometimes fossils turn out to be fakes", and they are right.
Pukon_the_Treen

cyberman,

Quote:
erm, yes you did


Nonsense; you have attempted to place those words in my mouth.

You said faking fossils was silly because it supports the creationist position. If (as I strongly expect is the case) the faker was not interested in the evolution versus creation argument and was simply out to make a deal then how has he been silly by supporting the creationist position? He doesn’t give a monkeys about the creationist position, his motivation this affair has nothing to do with the creationist or the scientific position.

Quote:
So before misusing the story to further their position, fundamentalists are going to check what the motive of the faker was, are they? No, they can use it in any case. They can say "sometimes fossils turn out to be fakes", and they are right.


Yes, that is correct and unfortunate; they will and have used this line of argument. Nevertheless, how has the original forger been silly in supporting the creationist position, if he neither knows nor cares about the creationist position? What is the source of his silliness? As I said, he has been immoral greedy and duplicitous, I suppose it is even conceivable that he has been silly because in his greed he may have jeopardised his future business relationships, but he has not been silly by supporting the creationist position.

I know this might seem to be pointless quibbling, but your post clearly states that somewhere along the line in this affair, someone has acted in a silly way by creating a fake which supports creationist arguments, the obvious inference being that in an attempt to strengthen the scientific / evolutionist position, the faker had foolishly scored an own goal and supported creationist arguments. This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened; the fake was made without any interest in fighting or supporting the creationist position, and it was debunked in due course. Who has been 'silly' and why?
cyberman

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:

Nonsense; you have attempted to place those words in my mouth.


Did I place these words in your mouth, or did you write them?:


Pukon_the_Treen wrote:

It's not really 'silly', as the Chinese farmer who most likely cemented together the separate pieces to create the misleading fossil probably made good money for his efforts.


Did you write those words, yes or no? (I bet a thousand pounds he dodges this question!!)

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
I know this might seem to be pointless quibbling, but your post clearly states that somewhere along the line in this affair, someone has acted in a silly way by creating a fake which supports creationist arguments,


That is indeed exactly and all I said. And it is entirely correct, but your knee-jerk desire to contradict has led you down a path with you now cannot justify.

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
the obvious inference being that in an attempt to strengthen the scientific / evolutionist position, the faker had foolishly scored an own goal and supported creationist arguments.


The inference is entirely yours. (talk about putting words in someone's mouth!) Your inference has no connection with anything I actually wrote. I did not imply, yet you inferred (wrongly).

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
This is a misrepresentation of what actually happened;/quote]


Indeed it would have been a misrepresentation, if I (or anyone) had said it. Luckily no-one except you has said it. You are railing against something which hasn't happened. You know, sometimes you are allowed to not disagree with a post of mine. If you had thought before contradicting, you would have seen that I have on this occasion said nothing with which you disagree.

You, on the other hand, DID say that the act was not silly BECAUSE it made money. Run and hide from the facts, Pukon, unless you have what it takes to admit to being wrong.
Pukon_the_Treen

cyberman,

Quote:
Did you write those words, yes or no? (I bet a thousand pounds he dodges this question!!)


Of course I wrote that, but that is obviously not the same as saying that “if something makes money it can't be called silly”; there are many ways of making money that I think are extremely silly, but I don't see how this forgery counts as one of them, at least not for the reason you specify.

Who were you betting the thousand pounds to, or is this just more absurd and vacuous grandstanding?

Quote:
That is indeed exactly and all I said. And it is entirely correct, but your knee-jerk desire to contradict has led you down a path with you now cannot justify.


There is no knee jerk desire to contradict; I am making a serious point. If the forger neither knows not cares about the evolution versus creation argument, how has he acted in a 'silly' way by creating a forgery which supports the creationist position? He may be supporting the creationist position, but if that position is a matter of profound indifference to him then how has he been silly? His actions might be described as immoral and greedy, they might be and selfish and damaging to others, but as far as I can see, he is only 'silly because he has strengthened the creationist position' if his actions have somehow backfired against him and helped the creationists, whom it was not his intention to help, and I don't see how that has happened.

Quote:
The inference is entirely yours. (talk about putting words in someone's mouth!) Your inference has no connection with anything I actually wrote. I did not imply, yet you inferred (wrongly).


If this is not what you were inferring (and I did say inference rather than claiming that you actually said that; see the difference?), then how has the faker acted in a silly way if he knows and cares nothing about the evolution versus creation argument? He did exactly what he set out to do, achieved what he wanted to achieve and at absolutely no cost to himself. He damaged a position he cared and knew nothing about, and strengthened another position that he knew or cared nothing about, but how and why is what he did silly?

This is a very clear point, and I am astonished that you are failing to grasp it. Some comparable examples to help you:

I am a hotelier and two football teams are staying at my hotel. The night before the match I feed the blue team a rather dodgy salmon mousse, and their performance the next day is hampered by violent stomach pains, dizziness, nausea and explosive diarrhoea, giving the red team a clear advantage. I care nothing about football and I neither know nor care who won the game. Am I silly because I strengthened the position of the reds?

I am a Danish arms dealer; in a conflict I sell weapons to the English but not the French, giving one side a clear advantage. I care nothing for the principles of the war; whoever wins, it is of no interest to me. Am I silly because I have strengthened the English?

Do you get it yet? You said whoever perpetrated this forgery has been silly because they strengthened the creationist position. I think that something can only really be called silly or foolish if it may backfire against you in some way, thus demonstrating your lack of wisdom, foresight and judgement. The forger may be many things, but why is he silly because he strengthened the creationist position if he knows nor cares nothing for the evolution versus creation conflict?

This idea of yours that someone has been silly because they strengthened the creationist position is in this situation inappropriate and misleading.
cyberman

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
cyberman,

Quote:
Did you write those words, yes or no? (I bet a thousand pounds he dodges this question!!)


Of course I wrote that, but that is obviously not the same as saying that “if something makes money it can't be called silly”; there are many ways of making money that I think are extremely silly, but I don't see how this forgery counts as one of them, at least not for the reason you specify.

Who were you betting the thousand pounds to, or is this just more absurd and vacuous grandstanding?

Quote:
That is indeed exactly and all I said. And it is entirely correct, but your knee-jerk desire to contradict has led you down a path with you now cannot justify.


There is no knee jerk desire to contradict; I am making a serious point. If the forger neither knows not cares about the evolution versus creation argument, how has he acted in a 'silly' way by creating a forgery which supports the creationist position? He may be supporting the creationist position, but if that position is a matter of profound indifference to him then how has he been silly? His actions might be described as immoral and greedy, they might be and selfish and damaging to others, but as far as I can see, he is only 'silly because he has strengthened the creationist position' if his actions have somehow backfired against him and helped the creationists, whom it was not his intention to help, and I don't see how that has happened.

Quote:
The inference is entirely yours. (talk about putting words in someone's mouth!) Your inference has no connection with anything I actually wrote. I did not imply, yet you inferred (wrongly).


If this is not what you were inferring (and I did say inference rather than claiming that you actually said that; see the difference?), then how has the faker acted in a silly way if he knows and cares nothing about the evolution versus creation argument? He did exactly what he set out to do, achieved what he wanted to achieve and at absolutely no cost to himself. He damaged a position he cared and knew nothing about, and strengthened another position that he knew or cared nothing about, but how and why is what he did silly?

This is a very clear point, and I am astonished that you are failing to grasp it. Some comparable examples to help you:

I am a hotelier and two football teams are staying at my hotel. The night before the match I feed the blue team a rather dodgy salmon mousse, and their performance the next day is hampered by violent stomach pains, dizziness, nausea and explosive diarrhoea, giving the red team a clear advantage. I care nothing about football and I neither know nor care who won the game. Am I silly because I strengthened the position of the reds?

I am a Danish arms dealer; in a conflict I sell weapons to the English but not the French, giving one side a clear advantage. I care nothing for the principles of the war; whoever wins, it is of no interest to me. Am I silly because I have strengthened the English?

Do you get it yet? You said whoever perpetrated this forgery has been silly because they strengthened the creationist position. I think that something can only really be called silly or foolish if it may backfire against you in some way, thus demonstrating your lack of wisdom, foresight and judgement. The forger may be many things, but why is he silly because he strengthened the creationist position if he knows nor cares nothing for the evolution versus creation conflict?

This idea of yours that someone has been silly because they strengthened the creationist position is in this situation inappropriate and misleading.


It is silly to do something which impedes the progress of science, whether you care about the progress of science or not.

Perfectly simple.

You seem to think that something is only silly if it goes against ones own interests. Again, something Thatcher might have agreed with. If ot only bothers people I don;t care about, then it isn't silly.

Furthermore, you DID say that the act was not silly BECAUSE it made money. You are now backtracking by saying that this isn't silly for the reason I specified. But the fact remains, you said it was not silly BECAUSE he made money. IIRC the word you used was "as", not "because". But this was your explicit point. Not an inference. See the difference?
genghiscant

If only being pedantic was an Olympic sport!
SceptiKarl

I notice cyberman has successfully diverted the thread away from the YEC's reaction to this latest, fantastic fossil and its implications.  I believe that cyberman accepts evolution, but I could be wrong. Many Christians don't!

The Pope and the ABoC accept evolution, but they have no explanation for why God waited some 13.7 billion years, and used such a ruthless and uncaring method of selection as evolution, to produce His "flawed with sin" humans.

What's the difference between a YEC and a "proper" Christian?

About 13.7 billion years.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum