Talk:Fred Hoyle

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Although the edit I made changed Aschlafly's original edit, the reference he cited does not explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the Nobel Prize was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a claim now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. LardoBolger 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. LowKey 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "missing link" fossil. Those who strongly believed in Evolution did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --Ed Poor Talk 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had something do with it as well :).LowKey 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)
The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--Andy Schlafly 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it was a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.LowKey 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here. Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century. When he declared the Archaeopteryx to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud. The fact that some evolutionists cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the Piltdown man) does not change these facts.--Andy Schlafly 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions. That is not evolutionary bias. Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution), and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is). The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for exposing a fraud if they believed it was a fraud. Are you saying that this is what they believed? If not, then they could only be punishing him for his claim and its controversy. One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.LowKey 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)
"Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the Archaeopteryx fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. LowKey 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)
"LowKey", I don't have more time to waste on this. Hoyle exposed the fraud. I hope you're making substantive additions to this encyclopedia.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Why waste time supporting assertions when one can simply keep repeating them? I try to make substantive additions, but I keep running into New Standard number 1. Next time please support the accusations or don't make them in the first place.LowKey 21:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, if Hoyle's scientific pre-eminence is sufficient justification for accepting his conclusions about the Archaeopteryx, should we also accept his conclusions about a steady-state universe and deistic evolution? He ultimately did not reject evolution, merely naturalistic evolution. I on the other hand reject evolution altogether.LowKey 19:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Reversion explained

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)

"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. LardoBolger 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Intelligent design

The section on his views re: ID imply that ID is a form of creationism. As everyone knows (except those duped by liberals), ID says nothing about creationism. Although it may be an offshoot of "scientific creationism" (or Creation Science), it now stands completely independent as a scientific theory. Even some agnostics and atheists are ID supporters.

So I'm going to revise this implication out of the Hoyle article.