|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 26, 2008 22:06:51 GMT
To me it seems pilty is trying to commit many straw men to prove himself "right", and now he is ending this with "I am giving up and selling all my dinosaurs" and paleontology sucks ? "Piltdown's belief in Chinese fossil hoaxing factories is so engrained into his head that he honestly believes that ALL chinese feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes"I know he has said that he believes that all feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes, but again, we are talking about his belief. The facts indicate otherwise. He refuses to acknowledge the facts. If they don't fit his beliefs, then they must be forged or "lies". Anyway, It can all go back to my flintstones comment over in the crypto thread for belief vs facts. His discounting and bashing paleontology as the laughing stock of all the sciences over in "stuff", seems to indicate to me that he wishes to have the last word, and seems to be taking the view now that none of paleontology is valid or legit, ("dinosaurologists were no more than stamp collectors") and also seems to be implying that those who follow its progress (the "oracles") are generally fools. *Shrugs* like I have said, I deal with a similar attack constantly directed at me by young earth creationists, and not only on the net, but in person. These people have actively gotten in my face at programs. Usually they are yelling and screaming and ranting bible verse by the end of our "conversation". I've not yet been punched by one, but that is probably only because I am usually holding the lead of a 7"+ 150lb archosaur. Unfortunately, when I am out hunting fossils, hawking, fishing and birding, I can't seem to locate this elusive god they keep insisting Is everywhere ? It's the strangest thing...AllI can figure is he must be hiding under bigfoot... Not fooled by strawmen.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 26, 2008 22:30:30 GMT
I think what piltdown is saying is that you should not respect a lot those guys as scientists if they made a hoax, you must recognize the other important species but you can't accept the fact of not being informed correctly.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 22:58:23 GMT
I think what piltdown is saying is that you should not respect a lot those guys as scientists if they made a hoax, you must recognize the other important species but you can't accept the fact of not being informed correctly. Richard, it's hopeless. Dinosaurologists can't tell right from wrong. As long as they can cover up their failures with pseudo-scientific pig Latin like 'composite' they'll keep on doing it while befuddling the public into giving them grants at their universities. Suppose I slice off half a Rembrandt painting and half a Vermeer and call them a ArchaeoMondrian. That ok with you? Or if I took a lost fugue by Bach, a slow movement by Vivaldi, and a gigue by Telemann and turn them all into a Mozart-style piano concerto it's hunky-dory? Of course not. No musicologist in his right mind will consider those authentic works, since it's been tampered with so much no one knows which part is by whom. But in paleo it's ok, as long as you can formally describe it later and have it reviewed by peers who are as big a dupe as the writer!
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:03:15 GMT
And everyone who disagrees with them is a straw man creating creationist. Tell that to Storrs Olson! Theagarten Lingham Soliar! The late Ernst Mayr!
These self-proclaimed scientists here are just SNOBS who think that because they have a PhD in paleo they are the only ones who have the right to talk about dinos. They're like Popes invoking the papal doctrine of infallibility.
AND DON'T BELIEVE THEM WHEN THEY SAY THEY HAVE NO OPINIONS. That's just scientists trying to pretend they can float all above us in serene contemplation funded by public money. How can you even begin to do science, if you don't even have a working hypothesis, which absent proof is an opinion?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:09:32 GMT
By the way, Archaeoraptor was NOT presented to the world as a 'composite', it was originally presented by Currie, Xu Xing, NG, and the Czerkases as a single 'missing link' between dinos and birds. Only when the true scientists (i.e. not dinosaurologists) complained did the dino-bird people say, oops, these are actually two (or maybe more, who knows?) critters. So stop lying about how dinosaurology corrected itself by normal scientific procedures. It was SHAMED into doing so.
Consuelo de bobo indeed.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 26, 2008 23:12:35 GMT
I think what piltdown is saying is that you should not respect a lot those guys as scientists if they made a hoax, you must recognize the other important species but you can't accept the fact of not being informed correctly. Richard, it's hopeless. Dinosaurologists can't tell right from wrong. As long as they can cover up their failures with pseudo-scientific pig Latin like 'composite' they'll keep on doing it while befuddling the public into giving them grants at their universities. Suppose I slice off half a Rembrandt painting and half a Vermeer and call them a ArchaeoMondrian. That ok with you? Or if I took a lost fugue by Bach, a slow movement by Vivaldi, and a gigue by Telemann and turn them all into a Mozart-style piano concerto it's hunky-dory? Of course not. No musicologist in his right mind will consider those authentic works, since it's been tampered with so much no one knows which part is by whom. But in paleo it's ok, as long as you can formally describe it later and have it reviewed by peers who are as big a dupe as the writer! Dude, now you are twisting Richard's words to sound like he is disagreeing with most of us--all he is saying is that the two species that formed the composite are still good, but the people that were involved should be more careful/learn their lesson. BUT--would the musicologists or art historians be interested in those half-works by Rembrandt and Vermeer, or the partial works by Vivaldi, Telemann and Bach? Of course they would; even partial information is better than none. Please, pilty, Zero, tyrantlizard, whatever you call yourself. You have a lot of hate here, and I don't know why. More importantly, you appear to really want to turn other people against dinosaurs and 'dinosaurologists' (again, a stupid term that 'paleontology' sums up quite nicely). Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Your posts are starting to develop a troll vibe--you write these things, knowing full well that we won't let it alone. Once we come back at you, you effectively re-post with new phrases, and it starts again. If you are so sick of and disinterested in dinosaurs, why do you keep pushing this? Why do you even stay involved? I thought you were into Star Wars now--why does the Dino Toy Forum still draw you over? I am not actually saying you should leave, but I am confused as to why a topic that makes you so apparently miserable still keeps you ciming back (I don't think you're getting converts here).
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:19:30 GMT
Why am I here? Because Dr Admin says I'm welcome. If he says I am not welcome I will leave, it's that simple. You can ask him to make me leave, but the decision is his prerogative, not yours. If you don't like my posts, then don't read them, as he has advised me.
Oh, I am not trying to twist richard's words. He is the only one in fact who has a sense of what is going on, unlike most of the scientists cooking up composites whenever it is convenient.
If I don't make converts of what concern is that to you or me ? If I am right, then I am right, if I am wrong then I am wrong. A hundred thousand huzzahs or boos won't make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:23:19 GMT
And I use dinosaurologist as a courtesy to Dr Admin, who is a plesiosaurologist ;D I highly doubt anyway we'll find feathers on Cryptoclidus, unless Safari or Procon decides to manufacture them, which given their track record seems very likely.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:30:13 GMT
Besides, other researchers studying the life of the past (birds, plants, reptiles, etc.) that does not deal with dinosaurs seem to be more careful in their assertions and research. Only dinosaurology could cook up a Jack Horner or Bob Bakker or Mary Schweitzer and call their work 'science.' Traditional paleo-ornithologists treat the dino-bird theory with the contempt it deserves. Only the present generation of dinosaurologists brainwashed by John Ostrom's hokum and flapdoodle about deinonychus's alleged bird-like qualities (long ago dispelled) can seriously contemplate the dino-bird theory without laughing--because if they did laugh, the dino-bird establishment would find a way cut off their funding immediately.
That's how science actually works, not this 'objective study of the facts' the dinosaurologists here pontificate about.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 26, 2008 23:34:25 GMT
;D According to the Wikipedia encyclopedia it appears to me that Archaeoraptor was actually made up of 5 different animals one of which was Microraptor zhaoianus. 1. top part 2. left femur 3. tibia 4. both feet 5. the tail which consisted of 5 parts. All of this was cemented together by a Chinese farmer so that it would be worth more money. Steven Czerkas a dinosaur enthusiast and artist who had no university degree purchased it for the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding utah for $80,000. This is $30,000 more then was paid for the Halloween costume in a block of ice purported to be Big Foot. When Currie saw the fossils he immediately had reservations but supposedly was told to be quite about it. Eventually Christopher Stone an Art Editor for National Geograpic wrote the article. Xu another scientist was told to change the word fake to composite, which he did. Eventually the truth came out. So it was a fake . I have to run so unfortunately i have to wait to later to say more. I realize this article is not the last word. The whold thing was a mess with plenty of blame to go around. Maybe Bell can get Currys side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:37:06 GMT
Ah, 5 different animals! Thanks stoneage! I didn't know it was even worse than I thought! So it's not just two frauds, it's 5! Indeed a 'composite!' Liaoning must be proud of its compositing skills.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:37:55 GMT
Compost is a better term for the work of the dino-bird people.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 26, 2008 23:40:46 GMT
See, Xu Xing himself is in the composting--er, compositing game.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 26, 2008 23:57:43 GMT
You know, I got to thinking, This is the dinosaur toy forum, and just for fun, why haven't I tried to use dinosaur toys to explain what I was talking about regarding composite....? This is made up of parts of different bone age figures. Let say someone on ebay had it labeled rare bone age figure "Corky". Those who collect the bone age figures would quickly say, huh ? "Corky" ? Kenner did not make a "Corky", did they ? And in evaluating the photo would be able to see that the parts were a composite of other bone age figures. If they were not, we would say, WOW, a new rare figure we have not seen before. We would then have to research it to make sure it was not a counterfit in any other way. (Just like was done with the fossils that composed "Archeoraptor") The different parts of different figures, circled in color. Trex is the head. Tritops the "neck" and tail. Codus for the torso and legs. There are no reasons why those individual parts should be discarded and considered invalid because they were not attached to each other, is there ? They have not "changed composition" or become indistinguishable any more then any of the other examples I tried to make. They still make up the valid head of T rex, The valid "neck" and tail of Tritops, And the Torso and legs of Codus. In regards to real scientific finds, specifically fossils, like sbell said, the parts of a fossil animal can be used to get a better understanding of the whole of the creatures that they came from. (I know you don't care pilty, I just wanted an excuse to photograph my bone age figures as a composite - No Bonobos named Consuela here
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 26, 2008 23:59:27 GMT
"Ah, 5 different animals! Thanks stoneage! I didn't know it was even worse than I thought! So it's not just two frauds, it's 5!"
No, 2 different animals. 5 different parts of 2 different species.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 2:22:27 GMT
"Ah, 5 different animals! Thanks stoneage! I didn't know it was even worse than I thought! So it's not just two frauds, it's 5!"No, 2 different animals. 5 different parts of 2 different species. And how is this supposed to extenuate or mitigate the fraud? Why, let's just call those separate pieces Yanornis or Microraptor or KFC and everything's hunky-dory! You guys are lucky you don't believe in a god, else Judgement Day is going to be particularly difficult.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 2:24:13 GMT
And so dinosaurology now has descended to playing with Bone Age toys to defend its negligence? Composites indeed!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 27, 2008 2:30:42 GMT
And so dinosaurology now has descended to playing with Bone Age toys to defend its negligence? Composites indeed! Get off your freakin' high horse. It's called a MODEL, a frequent tool in all SCIENCES. Meant to illustrate a point in an easy to see fashion. Oh yeah, ON A TOY -BASED WEBSITE.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 2:42:12 GMT
And so dinosaurology now has descended to playing with Bone Age toys to defend its negligence? Composites indeed! Get off your freakin' high horse. It's called a MODEL, a frequent tool in all SCIENCES. Meant to illustrate a point in an easy to see fashion. Oh yeah, ON A TOY -BASED WEBSITE. If it were an archaeoraptor toy I would see the relevance. So who's mucking around with the argument now, eh? That is a straw man toy and has no relevance to the discussion, which was the propriety of the naming of and publicization of archaeoraptor and how the dinosaurologists tried to cover up their negligence by erecting two new species, valid or not who knows?, and exaggerating their importance in the scheme of things. What does the toy have to do with that?
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 27, 2008 2:45:26 GMT
And let me be blunt, sbell, it's YOU, and often only YOU, who sits on a high horse called 'Science' [sic] and lectures people about what facts they should or should not accept. You 'scientists' here are more close-minded than many born-again Christian fundamentalists I have come across, and far less polite too. "Scientists' in quotes because dinosaurology has not been a genuine science since Bakker said dinos were warm-blooded, it's hucksterism with a PhD.
|
|