|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: | |||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: You have this completely backwards. Ask people what they know of Piltdown man and if they know anything about it they will tell you it's a fraud. How does that support evolution's public acceptance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: For these three, this shows that scientists were wrong in their initial findings. This is not fraud. What evidence do you have that fraud was committed in these cases - ie that known facts were deliberately distorted, or suppressed for some ulterior motive? The fact that you don't seem to distinguish between fraud and error makes me suspicious of your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Of course I understand the context. But the negative impact to the cause of evolution caused by the exposure of the hoax since the 50s outweighs any positive contribution it had back then. Why do I say that? - Creationists constantly use Piltdown to attack evolution- The acceptance of evolution as a legitimate science NOW is based on huge amounts of evidence which is not affected one jot by Piltdown. What is your argument to the contrary? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: No, fraid not. I have always known Piltdown as a fake, as has everybody who has learned about evolution in the last 57 years. So that's everyone under 70 then. So somehow we have been led to believe evolution is true by something we have always known as a fake?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Archangel,
you are a good reasoner and for that reason I really hope you stick around in this forum. But I disagree entirely with what you say here. I don't know why you think evolution is a fraud and evolutionists are not interested in the truth - that's what they are generally interested in most of all. Scientific theories really are tentative, ie held as being the best answer we have but subject to change in future. This is certainly true of quantum mechanics, which underlies all the clever technology in an Apple. That doesn't mean there aren't scientific facts as well - ie the well-confirmed outcomes of repeated observations. But the fundamental theories are undoubtedly held provisionally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
AA,
It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on. I don't know about you, but that really does strike me as suspicious. I would have more confidence if Darwin's original theory contained more proven falsehoods, like what happens with every other scientific pioneer. that's an interesting approach and not one I've heard before. But I think it's wrong - the reason being that recent evidence genuinely does support evolution. I think the admiration that people feel for Darwin is that he got so much right. However, if the evidence proved him wrong, that would be that. Your viewpoint is, like Archangel's, based on a fundamental assumption that there is something fishy about scientists supporting evolution. But there isn't. No one has ever managed to present evidence of this - ie that there is a widespread conspiracy to prop up a false doctrine that scientists themselves know to be false. Can you prove it? Can you even present any evidence of it? Why do you believe it? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Archangel, why are you not addressing your original topic? The contribution of fraud to the acceptance of evolution is the topic of this thread. So far you haven't demonstrated any evidence that fraud has contributed to the acceptance of evolution. It's time to put up or shut up.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Come again Arphy? (That's a Britishism meaning you can't be serious) Everyone on the evolution side here is interested in evidence above all else. People will give you evidence for hours if you let them. I could do so myself. There is no credible evidence for a young earth. The only people who believe in a young earth believe it for religious reasons and then look for evidence to support it. And the evidence, unfortunately for you, just isn't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Ok I picked one. I picked the Archaeoraptor. And what do I find in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE? I find this :-
quote:. So National Geographic is now a journal is it, rather than a popular magazine? This deception by the author. It's utterly typical. I long to see integrity and honest evidence, but yet again there is deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. Archangel, just present facts, shorn of manipulation and sleaze.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Well this nails your colours to the mast at least. Unfortunately for you it completely disqualifies you from science. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Well why not just say it's a respected science magazine and not PRETEND it's a journal? Can you give me links to the original journal articles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
No I mean the peer reviewed articles that Archangel was referring to.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024