EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Hi Archangel,One key part of your premise is that evolution as "legitimate science" is a "blatant and unmitigated lie" because frauds have been committed in its name, and I think I can explain why no one is buying it.For the sake of discussion, let us say that 1% of the world's population are liars, frauds and cheats, and that they're equally distributed amongst all occupations, from policemen to lawyers to bricklayers to scientists. Does the fact that some policemen fabricate evidence and give false testimony mean that criminals are innocent? Does the fact that some lawyers are dishonest shysters mean that our legal system doesn't work? Does the fact that some bricklayers take a deposit and disappear mean that contracting is a lie? No to all these, right? So in the same way, does the fact that some scientists fabricate evidence or misrepresent their findings mean that science is lie? Again, no, of course not.Another way to look at it is by considering some aspect of science that you have no problem with, astronomy, for example. Let's say I'm an astronomer and I issue a false report about an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and a bunch of other astronomers commit similar frauds. Does their fraud mean that the science of identifying threatening asteroids is a lie?Unfortunately, some proportion of the effort in all human endeavors must be dedicated to separating truth from fiction because some people are more competent than others and some are more honest than others, and it's no different in science. The broad acceptance of evolutionary theory within the scientific community is due to the large amount of supporting evidence that has been judged both authentic and compelling. Huge amounts of evidence and inferences based upon evidence have been cast aside for various reasons ranging from being inconclusive or insufficient (Ida, for example) to being outright frauds like Piltdown, but the evidence that has passed muster has been more than sufficient for scientists to conclude evolution for well over a century.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add concluding clause.

Hi DA, Yeah, I know, but we've seen this before. Archy's in the early over-enthusiastic phase we often see where he's all over the place and feels it important to repeat his accusations in almost every post, in his case that acceptance of evolution is based upon lies and fraud.I'm not moderating this thread and I haven't discussed this with AdminNosy yet, but I think AdminNosy's intent is to give Archy some time and some room for his fervor to diminish. As an observer just following discussions I greatly enjoy your ironic counters, but I think they can leave you vulnerable to moderator action.--Percy

Hi Archangel,I don't think anyone could argue with the position that the Biblical accounts are true as an article of faith, or that evolution is false as an article of faith, but that's not all you're saying. You're also claiming that the evidence for evolution is fraudulent or purposefully misinterpreted.One of the things you keep saying about evolution is true, and that is about our degree of confidence in what we know. You say there are some things we cannot know with "absolute assurance," or that there is no "absolute evidence" for evolution. About this we can all agree - nothing is absolute in science. An important property of science is tentativity. All theories, indeed even all hypotheses, interpretations and facts, are open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight. If you're seeking absolute certainty you must look elsewhere than science.The degree of confidence we have in any scientific finding varies according to how compelling the evidence is. If it is very compelling, like that the Earth orbits the sun, then our confidence is high. If it is not particularly compelling, like that extreme dilutions of poisons are cures (homeopathy), then our confidence is low, and in fact we would in this case instead say that homeopathy has been falsified. Note that it hasn't been disproven, only falsified, and that the falsification can itself be falsified. Tentativity is rampant within science.So when you ask for absolute assurances you're asking for something that science cannot provide. All science can do is build as compelling a case as possible upon the available evidence, and in the case of evolution that is what has been done. So if you believe the evidence is actually "indecipherable gibberish" then we'd like to understand what it is about the evidence that leads you to believe this. After all, if we don't understand how you're making your interpretation, how are we to be convinced? You have to give us your rationale so that we can incorporate it into our own thinking.Look at it this way. Let's say I became convinced you were right and began trying to convince others. How many people do you think I'm going to convince if all I can say is, "There's this guy Archangel on the web who says because of what he witnesses in his daily life he knows that the Bible is true and evolution is false and fraudulent." That's not only not going to convince anybody, it isn't even science.Which brings me to my last point, one that I think has been made a couple times already. This *is* a science thread, so we're supposed to be exploring and discussing the topic using a scientific approach, which means introducing, examining, dissecting and discussing the evidence.--Percy

Hi Archangel,You're confusing engineering (Apple's MacBook) with science, but they do have a lot in common. Engineering takes a scientific approach to design and construction. Science attempts to extend our understanding of the natural world. Like I said, there's some overlap, but in general engineering doesn't often have much to do with the falsifiability and tentativity of theories concerning the nature of the real world, while science does. Apple, for the most part, isn't doing scientific research, they're doing engineering. That's why their hardware and software people are called hardware and software engineers. Your other examples of "the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the V type Harley engine" are also examples of engineering. Your example of flu vaccines is an example biological engineering, though the original research revealing the role of viruses in nature was certainly science.Evolution is science because it applies the scientific method to our study of the natural world, just like all other science. Whether we're talking about theories of relativity or gravity or germ disease or evolution, they're all science and they're all tentative, open to change in light of new evidence or improved insight.The principle of tentativity of scientific theories derives from the requirement that scientific theories be falsifiable, which means they can never be proven. They can be supported by evidence, even considerable evidence, and they can become accepted by a great many scientists, but they can never be proven. Newton's laws of motion were never proven, they were just supported by evidence and tentatively accepted until something better came along, as was the case when Einstein introduced relativity. Evolution is science in the same way Einstein's theory of relativity is science, tentatively accepted because of the broad array of supporting evidence and because of successful predictions, but only until new evidence or improved insight forces us to modify or even replace it.This is why you have to start talking about the evidence. You can see the early signs of disgust in the reactions of some of the other participants as you ignore the evidence and instead just bluster along with repeated unsupported accusations that evolution is based upon frauds and lies.--Percy

Hi Archangel,Thanks for the comic - that was pretty good! Well, this is our fondest hope, that we don't learn that a scientific theory is false and must be replaced, but it does occasionally happen. Up through the first third of the 20th century geologists believed that continents were static and did not move, that it was impossible that continents should move through the crust of the sea floor. Only in that last part were they correct, but the theory of motionless continents had to be discarded as evidence gradually accumulated that they did indeed move, on the order of a few inches per year. Static continent theory was tossed out and replaced with plate tectonic theory.But I don't think theories are discarded very often. More commonly it is as you say, that theories are instead refined, modified or improved. Newton's laws were not wrong but simply incomplete because they couldn't properly model relatively high velocities. I believe the paths of most space craft are still calculated using only Newton's Laws, relativity only being a necessary consideration on close approaches to the Sun or one of the Jovian planets, or for extremely high accuracy, such as is required with the GPS satellites.But scientists must always be prepared for the possibility that a beloved theory may one day have to be modified or discarded. It isn't easy to give up on a hypothesis or theory in which one has invested much time and made great sacrifices. When Einstein was asked what he would have thought if Sir Author Eddington's eclipse measurements had not confirmed relativity, Einstein replied to the effect that the experiment would have to considered suspect because the theory was too beautiful to be wrong. Even the greatest scientists can fall prey to falling in love with their theories.So theories can never be considered proven. Theories never arrive at absolute conclusions, because absolute conclusions cannot be changed. The possibility that a theory might change derives from the tentative nature of science, because we know that neither our senses nor our intellect is perfect. Scientific knowledge is a growing and ever changing fabric. Knowledge once gained is not immutable because it is ever vulnerable to new evidence or improved insight. At one time we thought the continents stationary, and how could we have ever changed that view if it were an absolute conclusion rather than a tentative theory.Theories are developed through the empirical examination of evidence, and if you wish to discuss the relationship between evolutionary frauds and the public acceptance of science then you have to be willing to discuss the evidence. In this thread all you've done so far is express your initial premise over and over again, consisting primarily of unsupported accusations of lies and fraud that you will repeat but apparently won't discuss. It's almost as if you don't know what a discussion is, as if you think that stating what you believe is all that is required, and that supporting it with actual evidence and argument is unnecessary.By the way, though it isn't an important point in this thread, while engineering and science have a lot in common, they are not the same thing. Apple did not create a MacBook theory, only an engineering specification, and they didn't prove their specification. MacBooks crash just like all other computers. There is no theory of internal combustion engines, but their operation is based upon fundamental scientific (not engineering) theories of thermodynamics.--Percy

"How?" is not a spiritual question. Providing answers to "How?" by gathering, analyzing and interpreting evidence, as well as formulating theory, are scientific activities. Studying evidence from the natural world is how science is done, and biology looks at the evidence of life from the natural world, like existing life's structure, genetic makeup and geographic distribution as well as fossils. The exact opposite is true. It is religion that has placed man at the center of God's attention, while science has continuously uncovered evidence removing man further and further from the center. We're not the center of the solar system, the galaxy or the universe. Science minded folk understand that we're just Carl Sagan's "tiny blue dot," a mere unimportant and insignificant speck amidst the immensity of the universe. Planck time is 10^-43 seconds. What Hyroglyphx meant by "Planck's time" is the period from the Big Bang (the beginning of the universe) until it was 10^-43 seconds old. By definition this period did not occur before the Big Bang. If the available evidence does not allow us to nail something down any more closely than a factor of 2 then there's nothing we can do but continue to research the question, but that's not the current state of research on this particular question. The age of the universe has been intensely researched for nearly a century and much progress has been made. Currently available evidence indicates an age for the universe of about 13.7 billion years, and the Wikipedia article on the age of the universe suggests a range from 13.5 to 14 billion years. Currently available evidence indicates that life might have begun surprisingly close to the Earth's formation, perhaps as long as 3.8 billion years ago. Gladly! Why don't you propose a thread for the Big Bang and Cosmology forum.--Percy

Hi Archangel,Love your comics, keep 'em coming! Take your time, there's no time limit, no need to hurry. Like Tanndarr I'd like to see you return your focus to the topic, which has to do with the reasons for the public acceptance of evolution (such as it is), and not with cosmology, religion, engineering, the nature of science, or how deluded and hard headed your opponents are.--Percy

Hi Archangel,We've been over these issues before, and we still can't understand your position. It seems to have two significant flaws:

1. People of all types, from angels to devils, from the careful to the sloppy, participate in endeavors of all types, including science and religion.
   ​
2. If the participation in an endeavor of people who commit mistakes or frauds invalidates all work in that endeavor, then there could be no valid outcomes of any endeavor, including religion because of the participation of such notables as Jim Bakker (jailed for fraud), Jimmy Swaggert (prostitutes) and Kent Hovind (jailed for tax evasion), among many others less prominent.

Your whole argument is based upon the false premise that if some people in an endeavor commit improprieties that it invalidates the whole endeavor.Beyond that, the very idea that the public is convinced evolution is true by frauds that they know are frauds is ludicrous. National Geographic (which is a popular magazine, not a peer reviewed journal) not only admitted that they'd been duped, but actually printed a lengthy article about the results of their investigation.The portion of the public that accepts evolution definitely does not cite the Piltdown, Nebraska or Archaeoraptor frauds as their reasons for accepting evolution, and in general, known frauds do the opposite of convincing people of anything. Those who accept evolution or religion or anything else do so in spite of any of the frauds and mistakes that are inevitable in any human endeavor, not because of them.AbE: Forgot to mention, you're confusing Archaeoraptor with Archaeopteryx. No evolutionist is confusing the two, just you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add AbE comment.

You mean the NG articles? The NG website archives only go back to 2005, and a search for "archaeoraptor" returns no results. References to the articles can be found in the References section of the Wikipedia article on Archaeoraptor.I might still have them at home.--Percy

Sure you did. You said, "What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information..." You said this because you erroneously think that National Geographic is some kind of popular science magazine that distills peer reviewed journal papers into understandable articles for laypeople, but for the most part that is not what they do. Most of their articles are original reporting on nature, ecology, etc. Those of us familiar with NG could only interpret what you said as indicating that you think NG is a peer reviewed journal, because the Archaeoraptor never appeared in any peer reviewed journal. It was more original reporting by NG. Do you even read NG? Reports of scientific discoveries do appear in NG, but that's a tiny and minor part of what they do. And again, Archaeoraptor never appeared in any peer reviewed journal.People are not persuaded by frauds they know are frauds, all the frauds you mention are well known, and most are really, really old.--Percy

The only person here passing off fiction as fact is you. You seem to have no problem putting fingers in gear before engaging in any kind of legitimate information gathering. No. The fossil Coelacanths were described then, and are described now, as lobe-finned fish that are close evolutionary relatives of lungfish, which are also lobe-finned, and it is lungfish that are thought to be the ancestors of tetrapods (land-based animals).Fish of the order Coelacanth were once numerous and a great many different species are represented in the fossil record, many of them shallow fresh water fish. Most of these species went extinct, and evidently the only remaining Coelacanth were deep-water ocean species, and deep-water geological layers are rarely available to paleontologists, which is why we don't find any in layers younger than around 70 million years. Surviving Coelacanth species are not the same species as any of the known fossil Coelacanth, nor even the same genus.Here's some information I posted about the Coelacanth back in 2002: Archangel, there's no fraud or fictions here, and not even any mistakes, except the ones you're making up. Your pattern here is to ignore corrections of your prior erroneous statements, then make more erroneous statements, then issue a flurry of unsupported accusations directed at your opponents. It would be a really welcome change if you could begin saying things that were actually true.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add message subtitle.Edited by Percy, : Correct date of youngest coelacanth fossils.

Replying only to provide information... Archaeorapter was never the subject of any peer reviewed journal articles. The NG article was their own original reporting.--Percy