"It is plain again why this subject is called: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals. Kevin O'Brien's strenuous attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel and the falsified embryo data proves again that evolutionists are gross liars and can only survive by supporting each other's lies with even more corpulent lies."
[Sigh.] It's a shame I don't have the time to sue Joseph for libel; it would be interesting to see how he would support this claim. As it is, Joseph has no desire to be confused by facts, so there is nothing more that can be said.>>
Indeed, Joseph in no scientist despite his claims. He uses rethoric, exaggeration, insults to "score points". All of these methods point to a lack of scientific argument. What hurts me most is that he pretends to be a scientist in words only not through his actions.
"Even technicians are taught to observe and report in very accurate detail."
Kevin: At least this time Joseph is much closer to the truth than the last time he said something like this. Even so, even Principle Investigators with decades of experience can make mistakes. It doesn't mean they were deliberately trying to deceive anyone. If Joseph had his way, any scientist who accidentally miscalculated a solution's concentration would be guilty of criminal fraud.
Indeed, according to Joseph's "logic" the people who announced cold fusion are now guilty of criminal fraud
Joseph: "It is common knowledge that a sloppy scientist or technician will produce large errors but those errors will be random."
Kevin: Common knowledge in Joseph's fantasy world, perhaps, but not in the real world. In fact, sloppy scientists tend to commit the same errors kinds of errors over and over again. This does not produce random errors, but specific patterns that hopefully can be detected and corrected for.
Indeed, Joseph relies on "common knowledge" a "logical" argument as far removed from the scientific methods as his use of ad hominems.
"If brought to trial, it would be a civil suit and there is no doubt Haeckel would be convicted. No doubt."
Kevin: Civil courts are notoriously lenient regarding the kind of evidence they allow. Also, they allow the party bringing the suit to define terms like fraud. So if you define fraud as carelessness, then yes you could convict Haeckel of "fraud". But fraud in the true criminal sense, as someone who deliberately tries to deceive other people, would be impossible to prove, even in a criminal court. No doubt.
And of course this is all based on Joseph's appeal to his personal beliefs, not to facts or reality.