Tactics Poll

  Nick, honey. No one here is buying what you have to sell.

  Anyone listening to the radio spot, or reading the second Whale of a Tale can easily spot the deceptive tactics.

   Both the radio spot, and Safarti's newer essay go out of their way to give their audience the impression that the Ambulocetus fossil is incomplete, and thus that any claims made about it are based on nothing but airy speculation.

  If you don't think that's lying, then you must have been outraged by Clinton's impeachment, because Clinton also told the literal truth in a way designed to leave his audience believing a falsehood, and according to you that's not a lie at all. Clinton's not responsible just because the American people believed "I did not have sexual relations with that women" covered oral sex too, just like AiG isn't responsible for the fact that their words make people (like you, I read your initial posts) believe that Ambulocetus was incomplete and out-of-order.

   It's obvious to anyone that knows the Ambulocetus fossil is virtually complete (missing only the tip of the snout and part of the feet) that both the radio spot and the second article deliberatly gives a false impression, that of Ambulocetus being an incomplete fossil missing the most vital parts.

   You can justify those lies anyway you want, Nick. But all the capitals, italics, bold-fonts, and anger in the world will obscure the fact that your sources told you a lie. A lie you bought hook, line and sinker. You believed their claims that it was incomplete, and you believed their claims that it was found out of order.

  Don't get mad at me because they decieved you.

  I think Nick's embarassed and angry about being lied to. He was quite thrilled when he posted that whale stuff, and not only did it get torn to shreds pretty handly, but he found out his source (which he undoubtably respects) flat out lied about it.

   It's hard to accept when the people you trust lie to your face.

 

  What should we do, UWO? Let obvious deception pass us by?

  Science is done in journals. Do you know what happens to scientists who falsify data? Who try to omit inconvient facts?

  It's how your career ends. Falsify data once, and your career is in the toilet.

 Further, the whole point of peer-review is to deal with lesser offenses. Scientists who were more hopeful than rigorous, data that was statistically massaged. All of this comes out because of peer-review and repitition.

   Science has no tolerance for liars, for self-deception.

   Yet here comes Nick, quoting pieces that were not kept up to date, that deliberatly decieve the audience (including him) and make false or misleading claims, and continue making the old claims well after the truth was out, and still making claims about the truthfullness of science.

   The deception is one-sided here. Nick got suckered by a liar. It happens. Nick, however, doesn't want to face it.

   The original piece (and it's follow ups) accused science of being deceptive, when in reality they were the ones making false claims.

   Be disgusted all you want, UWO. But keep in mind who is doing the decieving. Not scientists, of whatever faith. But Creationists. Devoted Christians all.