Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: pby
Olson wrote, "...protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct..." Is this fine group of scientists marginalizing themselves as well? Only in VadeRetro's/Dimensio's little world (and at Darwin Central, of course).

A short bio of Olson. It starts nice. Here's how it ends.

In the past decade Olson has gained a degree of notoreity for his bitter opposition to the theropod origin of birds, including an unprofessional and scathing open letter to National Geographic which has presented a treasure trove of quotes to mine for creationists.
Getting called unprofessional is something like getting marginalized, maybe. A degree of notoriety is good if you're a Howard Stern school radio personality but it can make you sort of marginal in science. It's a picture of a man going from mainstream to crackpot.
786 posted on 11/10/2005 5:46:59 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Calling Olson unprofessional because of his scathing letter to National Geographic seems somewhat ironic...don't you think?

Who, in the case of Archaeoraptor, appears to be unprofessional...Olson or National Geographic?

Olson was dead on right about Archaeoraptor, but the evolutionary zealots at National Geographic were too blinded by their desire to provide definitive evidence for "their" evolutionary theory that they were foolishly sucked into promoting a hoax. (And he was right about that too!)

And if the existing evidence for theropod to bird evolution was already so strong, then why was National Geographic so desperate and careless?

National Geographic should have heeded Olson's warning to perform more study and research before going to print with their outrageous claims and artist renderings relative to Archaeoraptor...but they didn't.

I have seen many of you, from Darwin Central, previuosly post and tout that it was good science, conducted by evolutionists, that caught and fettered out previous evolutionary hoaxes. But in this case, you seem to castigate Olson for passionately applying sound scientific principles and standards and thereby assisting in revealing the fraud.

What is the lesson here...If you dare, if you have the temerity to get in the way of a good evolutionary fraud, Darwin Central will lable you a "crackpot" and Howard Stern-like? (Are you guys channeling Lyshenko again or did the Darwin bust I dropped from the Darwin Central ivory tower fall on your collective head?)

Olson's actions appear to lend credibilty to the scientific community...He did evolutionists a favor.

If anybody was marginalized in this debacle...it was National Geographic and the scientific community that promoted Archaeoraptor...not Olson!

If National Geographic had behaved like scientists instead of fools, this "treasure trove of quote mines for creationists" would never have been created.

Your mischaracterizations of Olson are just unfair, unreasonable and unfounded...but hey, your VadeRetro...we're used to that type of thing from you.

And talk about Howard Stern-like...National Geographic's Archaeoraptor article is their stained blue GAP dress legacy!

790 posted on 11/11/2005 7:42:52 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson