EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

ArchangelI was the one who spurred you into starting this topic and since then I've just been watching as you've gone from an early attempt at showing evolutionary biology as fraud (by picking on human evolution) into a sort of general lashing out at anything that sounds like it doesn't fit your idea of "real science".I'd like to put that concept to bed right now. Science changes as our knowledge grows; it is never final and complete despite several announcements that there is no more to learn. Consider a predecessor to your example of toxins as medicine:I have a facsimile edition of the 1902 Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog. I'm going to use a couple of examples to show how science has grown and our improved understanding has helped us just in the brief space of 107 years.On page 583 there is a listing for an asbestos bread toaster, an asbestos disc covered in steel wire cloth and the bottom covered in a steel plate. It's purpose is toasting bread, crackers and whatnot that are placed on the steel wire over the heated asbestos pad. Nowadays we know about the health risk associated with asbestos...but at the time we only knew about the heat resistant properties.On page 441 they sell the German Liquor Cure as well as a cure for opium and morphia habits. If I recall correctly the liquor cure consists of opium and the opium cure consists of liquor. Nowadays we try not to trade substance abuse problems around like that. On 447 we can also find Dr. Rose's Arsenic Complexion Wafers...perfectly harmless according to the listing.Today we still see accepted drugs pulled from the market when scientific studies discover dangerous side-effects. Is this fraud, or just an increase in knowledge?We know better nowadays...that doesn't make these things a fraud (although fraud exists and science-types can be guilty of it as easily as lawyers, judges and pastors). We've learned and as we've learned we apply our new knowledge to make things better, and you seem to say that real knowledge never changes. It changes constantly and sometimes too fast to follow...we don't now what will be the accepted explanation for evolution in five years time but we do know that we are getting real results by using the explanation we have.You're making the mistake of assuming that because we can't know everything absolutely we can't know anything. This is simple failure to take into account the human condition...we can't know everything, even the bible changes just like scientific knowledge. Absolutes are the realm of philosophers and not scientists and engineers. Science works by a never ending process of trial and error and refinement. That's not fraud in my book, why is it in yours?Tell me, by the same token there are many creation-science evangelists who are proven frauds, why do you not dismiss creation science as fraudulent as well? Nevermind, that's off topic but I hope it causes you to pause and think about if you're judging everyone in the game by the same rules.

Because what I said is not what you said. You single out evolution when the hypothesis-test-repeat cycle is common to all science: See? These are two very different statements. You want to treat biology like it's a different kind of science than say physics when it's pretty much the same.I did notice that you totally dodged the point that I was trying to make: The methodology of science is not, in itself, fraudulent in any way whatsoever. There is no vast global conspiracy to push untested science onto students, we're just teaching the best science we have right now.Your examples would be damning if people still taught children that Nebraska man is a predecessor to H. sapiens. Instead, if Nebraska man or Piltdown man appear in a textbook at all they appear as object lessons in how people may fake evidence or the popular press can inflate reasonable claims to make big news. It's a non-starter. On the other hand the same old tired PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) appear on creationist web sites with stunning regularity...why aren't your accusations of fraud falling there?Your concept of True science is the old no true Scotsman falacy...science you like is true science and science you don't like isn't. You can't define it in any other manner and even if you could you wouldn't be able to find a recognized body of scientists who would agree with your definition.I think what you're trying to say, and I apologize for putting words in your mouth, is that the facts...the truth if you will...never change. What does change though is the depth of our understanding of the facts, as our understanding improves then our explanations must change to take it all into account. This topic is about the fraudulent basis for evolution, not proof of abiogenesis. The challenge here was presented to you and you, to your credit, took up the challenge. Unfortunately you've failed to make your point stick and now you're reduced to thrashing out the standard "evolution can't explain X" arguments in the hope that it will somehow make your position sound more reasonable.Please try to return to the topic and show us how modern evolutionary synthesis rests on a fraudulent foundation. If you want to go to another topic and discuss the things you think evolution can't explain feel free to do so, but it doesn't support your argument here.

The internet is chock-full of pictures of neanderthal burials, I find it strange that you complain that there are none, evidently because the one source you looked at didn't have any. Paleolithic technology is a fascinating subject and I only know a little about it, but I know enough to say that it can't be summed up in a little dismissive post. I bet Coyote could talk about it for days on end...or until the beer runs out, which sounds like a good time to me.But back on topic: even if we concede that the current understanding of neanderthal funeral practice is wrong, you claim fraud on the part of the scientific community studying them. You say that they are deliberately lying for some unexplained purpose.There's a huge jump to go from someone getting a question on a test wrong to accusing them of cheating. If they're wrong then that will eventually come out, but to accuse them of cheating you damn well better have some evidence that's better than I don't like the answer.Can't you see the difference in those two positions? We can disagree on interpretations and then wrangle arguments about who is right, but if you start from the position that your opponents are liars then there's no place to go. You've painted yourself into a corner where you have to prove a vast global conspiracy and all you have to back it up is vague (and incorrect) assertions about the nature of science and the current state of knowledge of all manner of distantly related fields of study. You simply cannot live up to the standard of proof that you are demanding of others.Does that make you a fraud, or just someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about?

To think that I actually wasted precious moments trying to reason with you and this is the best you can do in response. Face it, you're in flat-out denial of reality and hiding behind your interpretation of your personal holy book.Let me remind you that you are the one that says scientists fraudulently deny reality and here you admit that your whole world-view only includes the things you read in your bible.J'accuse!