Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ardipithecus" data-source="post: 265434" data-attributes="member: 2305"><p>Gee, if you actually read what I wrote you might have noticed that I was mainly replying to an article written in September of 2001 and a radio spot from August 2001.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp;former&nbsp; claimed there was no pelvis and the latter claimed there most of the skeleton is missing even though it had been known for years&nbsp;not to be true.&nbsp; Obviously 1997 publications by AiG can't be held responsible for information not availiable&nbsp;until 1998.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Publications in 2001 can be though.&nbsp; </p><p> </p><p></p><p>He did not neglect to mention it.&nbsp; He outright claimed the pelvis was not found. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>This claim is not what I claimed.&nbsp; A timestamp reflect the last time the file in question was written to (assuming the computer's clock is accurate).&nbsp; The 2002 timestamp is not evidence that an article was written in 2002.&nbsp; The&nbsp;timestamp for my article would be less than a month old though it&nbsp;has not been modified since October 26.&nbsp; The reason was&nbsp;a change in ISP that required&nbsp;the article be moved to another server.&nbsp;But a 1999 timestamp is evidence that the article existed in 1999.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thewissen's website, <strong>which Sarfati cited</strong>, mentioned the find by 1999 at the latest. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>There&nbsp;was no claim that Sarfati was aware (or not aware) of the findings in September 2001 (not 1999).&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed my article&nbsp;explicately mentions&nbsp;that it is most likely that he was not aware of it.&nbsp;Either way, he screwed up.&nbsp;&nbsp;That piece of information was not obscure.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In any event by the time my article was written this had become a common creationist claim that needed debunking.&nbsp; (There were several debunkings before my article was written but to my knowledge only in discussion forums.) </p><p></p><p>It should be noted that since my&nbsp;article was written,&nbsp;AiG has&nbsp;added an note about the new bones (and a rather dismissive one at that).&nbsp; I will have to&nbsp;add a note to&nbsp;article mentioning it.&nbsp; The article also needs an updating to mention Thewissen's article in the December&nbsp;2001 issue&nbsp;in <em>BioScience</em> which mentions in addition to the rather complete&nbsp;type specimen there&nbsp;now nearly 20 fragmentary finds.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ardipithecus, post: 265434, member: 2305"] Gee, if you actually read what I wrote you might have noticed that I was mainly replying to an article written in September of 2001 and a radio spot from August 2001. The former claimed there was no pelvis and the latter claimed there most of the skeleton is missing even though it had been known for years not to be true. Obviously 1997 publications by AiG can't be held responsible for information not availiable until 1998. Publications in 2001 can be though. He did not neglect to mention it. He outright claimed the pelvis was not found. This claim is not what I claimed. A timestamp reflect the last time the file in question was written to (assuming the computer's clock is accurate). The 2002 timestamp is not evidence that an article was written in 2002. The timestamp for my article would be less than a month old though it has not been modified since October 26. The reason was a change in ISP that required the article be moved to another server. But a 1999 timestamp is evidence that the article existed in 1999. Thewissen's website, [b]which Sarfati cited[/b], mentioned the find by 1999 at the latest. There was no claim that Sarfati was aware (or not aware) of the findings in September 2001 (not 1999). Indeed my article explicately mentions that it is most likely that he was not aware of it. Either way, he screwed up. That piece of information was not obscure. In any event by the time my article was written this had become a common creationist claim that needed debunking. (There were several debunkings before my article was written but to my knowledge only in discussion forums.) It should be noted that since my article was written, AiG has added an note about the new bones (and a rather dismissive one at that). I will have to add a note to article mentioning it. The article also needs an updating to mention Thewissen's article in the December 2001 issue in [i]BioScience[/i] which mentions in addition to the rather complete type specimen there now nearly 20 fragmentary finds. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists
Top
Bottom