skeptictimes errorson the following page

[Logic]

I was thinking about a sedimentary material consisting of very fine particles intermediate in size between sand and clay.

 

[Jet Black]

I was thinking about a sedimentary material consisting of very fine particles intermediate in size between sand and clay.

but shale is more than two letters and you lose the t

 

[Logic]

silt, you bafoon, silt

Shale isn't fine particles

 

[Jet Black]

silt, you bafoon, silt

Shale isn't fine particles

oh silt, silly me

 

[Logic]

oh silt, silly me

It's okay, everybody is allowed one mistake, but no more.

 

[USincognito]

Did you hear about the bedrock they dug up to use to built a lumber plant?

It was schist for the mill.

 

[tkster]

If Jet Black's opening post is incorrect, then show us the facts as he has done, or else admit your "mistake" and change it (or of course you can be like Hovind and pretend like it doesn't exist and lose all credibility).

I am truly beginning to wonder if you CAN read. The orginal stated that "45% do not believe in evolution," which was not what the NY Times had said. They had said that "45% do not accept Darwinian evolution." Originally, I had forgot the Darwinian part, so yes it is true. And it came from 1995 and 2002 NY Times. If you can't find it, use Lexis Nexis as that is more reliable than google!

take care,
tk

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

What form of evolution do these scientists accept if it's not Darwinian?

 

[notto]

I think in this case, I'll take tkster's advice as given on his page.

'As one who is majoring in Biology and Journalism, it is always important to realize that the internet is notconsidered a genuine source of information. People who quote the web often fail to realize that it is easy to make up information on any website. Therefore, I highly encourage anyone who reads this website to check the factoids and the sources that I always list. If I quote a website, which I rarely do, it is because I checked the sources. Still it is important to check the sources. Many people quote internet sites without realizing that the internet is not considered by many journalists to be an accurate source of information. If a website does a good job with its sources, it is fine to quote. Please keep this in mind as reading. Check the sources!"

It would certainly help if a source was given (date, article, reference, anything that would allow a ready to actually see the source of his claim).

Come on tkster, you seem to be avoiding the issue. If you know the source of the claim, give it, otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to trust it. Saying it was in the NY times doesn't quite cut it (especially when you give two years of reference).

I hearby claim that the NY times in 1998 said that 90% of all scientists accept evolution. Look it up, Lexus is better than google - happy hunting.

It is interesting that tkster changed the description to include Darwinian based on the comments here. Does the original article mention Darwinian? Can you give us a reference or quote to the use of the word Darwinian in the Times reference?

I'm not fooled and I remain skeptical of the claim, just as tkster advises us to be.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I think in this case, I'll take tkster's advice as given on his page.

'As one who is majoring in Biology and Journalism, it is always important to realize that the internet is notconsidered a genuine source of information. People who quote the web often fail to realize that it is easy to make up information on any website.

I read that disclaimer too. That's probably the funniest part about all of this.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I am truly beginning to wonder if you CAN read. The orginal stated that "45% do not believe in evolution," which was not what the NY Times had said. They had said that "45% do not accept Darwinian evolution." Originally, I had forgot the Darwinian part, so yes it is true. And it came from 1995 and 2002 NY Times. If you can't find it, use Lexis Nexis as that is more reliable than google!

take care,
tk [Edited by a moderator]

The point is that it is still the same erroneous claim. Adding the word "Darwinian" does not change anything relevant to the error.

Provide the source that gives what you imply is the exact quotation, "45% do not accept Darwinian evolution." The question also becomes 45% of whom?

The only time I find that 45% number is in reference to the general public in the U.S., not scientists themselves who do not accept evolution. In other words, the only information I have found still corresponds with Jet Black's claim.

Here are your options:

1. Provide the facts, as Jet Black has done, that demonstrate that the claim on your website is actually correct. After all, you have yet to even directly address Jet Black's opening post. Why?

2. Admit your "mistake" (or deliberate lie, whichever it is) and change it. Just be honest that the number you present is incorrect.

3. Pull a Hovind and continue to stick your head in the sand, keep dodging the issue, and lose all remaining credibility you might have.

 

[Arikay]

Heh, so much for him following his own disclaimer.

 

[notto]

This should be good.

Site stats from the Skeptic Times forum:
Our users have posted a total of 637 articles
We have 16 registered users
The newest registered user is lucaspa

 

[PhantomLlama]

This should be good.

Site stats from the Skeptic Times forum:
Our users have posted a total of 637 articles
We have 16 registered users
The newest registered user is lucaspa

Those fools! They are meddling with powers they cannot conceive of!


It should be good to see how it pans out though. Some unscrupulous people just ban people who beat them badly on their own forums, but I don't know if tkster would go that far.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Actually, I might not have a problem with the term Darwinian Evolution, as I think there are many sceintists that do not believe in evolution as Darwin First proposed.

Evolution has changed since Darwin as we have found new evidence. So those 45% May not believe in Darwinian Evolution, but still be evolutionists themselves. It would be a classification and clearification error if this is the case.

 

[USincognito]

This should be good.

Hahahahahaa.

tkster didn't seem to be able to stand up to my arguments - and I'm a security guard.

 

[notto]

It is interesting to note that when quoting dawkins, tkster gives us the date, year, name of the article, and name of the publication (also the new york times). Why no adequate reference to his other (seemingly false or misleading) assertion from the New York Times?

(still skeptical - would like to examine the source directly, but need a little bit of help from a fellow skeptic - anything other than a possible year to go by? Name of the article? any direct quote from the article? author? section of the paper it appeared in? Anything?)

 

[Ryal Kane]

Haven't other creationists pulled this trick, starting up a webpage under the pretense of a skeptic site? I don't mean like AIG, at least theyr'e fundimentally ( ) honest about their coals.
But trueorigins is kind of iffy in ripping off talkorigins.
And didn't one of them take the talkorigins name or some such.

Not that I'd expect anything less. The money offer is an impossible disingenuous fraud.

Ryal Kane

 

[notto]

I just noted fromt he website that tkster thinks that Ron Wyatt has found evidence for the Red Sea crossing. So much for being a skeptic.

 

[Dal M.]

It should be good to see how it pans out though. Some unscrupulous people just ban people who beat them badly on their own forums, but I don't know if tkster would go that far.

He invents Vaudevillian debates* between himself and Bizarro-world versions of his philosophical opponents. He insists on the veracity of the "45% of scientists are creationists" claim. He's a fan of Kent Hovind. I don't think tkster would be able to identify a scruple if he saw one.

*Check out this gem, from one of his newsletters:

The Feminist, in the Lou Costello role: "There are extreme feminists like me, who take feminism to the realm that we don’t actually need men. We are aware that men don’t think they need us, and we don’t need them either."

tkster, who's playing Bud Abbott: "So, are either of you married?"

Costello-Feminist: "That’s beside the point."

At this point, it's traditional for the curtain to drop and a bunch of plate-spinning acrobats to leap out onto the stage.