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!
Archaeoraptor lasted IIRC two months. Nobody brazened it once it was questioned. Yes, National Geographic was hasty and has changed its procedures so that it always waits for peer review before calling the press conference. Olson was very late to the game and was only involved after the announcement of the find and long after others had raised the red flags. Olson simply tried to capitalize to flog the dreaded mainstream science establishment for ignoring his unpopular person views. You are not being cautious in your claims. You misspeak too much.
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.
There you go again. I have never denounced anyone for exposing Archaeoraptor, especially not the people who actually exposed it. I have no attachment to fakes. I am not the creationist here.
National Geographic was correctly criticized from without and within for its lack of procedural rigor and they have made changes. Olson I think is correctly criticized for his blustery crackpotism. People whose ideas are unpopular in science want too much for Archaeoraptor, but that's not surprising. They still want a pound of flesh for Piltdown Man (1912).
Your mischaracterizations of Olson are just unfair, unreasonable and unfounded...but hey, your VadeRetro...we're used to that type of thing from you.
I'm getting very used to the idea that every other sentence from you is false. That probably puts you above average for a creationist.