nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 156:
Line 156: +
→When even Creationist sites disagree...: Was the team qualified?
: It wasn't just Hoyle, though he's impressive enough alone. It was a team of scientists who examined the specimens firsthand. Have their critics done that? I'm open to valid, meaningful criticisms of their findings, but I don't see any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)
: It wasn't just Hoyle, though he's impressive enough alone. It was a team of scientists who examined the specimens firsthand. Have their critics done that? I'm open to valid, meaningful criticisms of their findings, but I don't see any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: Yes, it was a team, although as has been pointed out, Hoyle was an astronomer/astrophysicist, so his competency (in the correct sense of the word) in this matter is suspect. The same applies to the rest—as far as I can find out, the rest were mathematicians, a physicist, a medical doctor, and a photographer. By way of contrast, those that reject the fraud claim include (as mentioned above) an anatomist and a paleornithologist. And some of those opposed to the fraud claim ''have'' examined the specimens first hand. As for valid arguments against fraud, Feebasfactor supplied some above. Incidentally, what appears to be your [http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist09.htm source] claims that the team comprised "some of the leading scientists in England", which is an interesting claim to make about a photographer, at least one of the team was from Wales, and one was from Israel. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)