EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

Indeed. I'd like to see some actual fraud, like Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk human embryonic stem fraud.

Well, technically Archie is right. All he needs to prove is that a single person at any one point in time accepted evolution partly (and this can be exceptionally small amount compared to actual evidence of evolution) because of some fraud. So really, all he needs to do is find a guy who was part of the public in the 1950s who's acceptance of evolution was based on .000001% fraud and 99.999999% evidence to prove his point.Does that have any value? No. Does it feed odd creationist delusions about their belief's superiority? Yes.

Anyone else still waiting for a single instance of fraud?

How is applying engineering to shrink computer parts the same as theoretical science?What about the Mac Book is revolutionary? What about it shows completely new thinking?Because looking at it, all they really did was apply a MAC OS, miniaturize some parts (questionable if they even did it given how computers are actually made) and give it a nice exterior while charging an obscene premium compared to comparable PCs.

You do realize that people can click on your name and see just how many posts you haven't replied to? And your name has an exorbitantly long list of posts you've not replied to. It appears you are the one ignoring the claims, not the other way around.You have yet to show how such alleged "frauds" prove your point. In fact, you haven't even cited a single instance of fraud yet.

quote:

---

IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.

---

For what reason? Evolution is a fact due to the large number of tangible products derived from its sciences. We had this discussion before where you ended up throwing huge numbers of vile insults and refusing to address the point.You have yet to prove that the Genesis account in your interpretation is true.Btw, how can science gel with magic?

quote:

---

Sure it was attempted fraud since it was an attempt to pass fiction off as fact.

---

Where is your evidence that NG knew what they were saying was wrong yet passed it off as the truth? Publishing something you thought was true but later find to be false is not fraud.

quote:

---

Had not a living animal been discovered to still exist in its unchanged form, this fraud would still stand today as hard core evidence of this alleged intermediary animal which is in fact nothing of the sort.

---

We've gone over this on 4forums. You are just repeating the same refuted argument. The Coelacanth we see today is not the Coelacanth in the fossil record. Similar, yes, but not the same species. There are anatomical differences.

quote:

---

I mean, have you no problem with 50 million year old fossils being found with large portions of their soft tissue still intact as I show in post #180?

---

Once again, your argument is fraudulent.Dino Blood ReduxI call it fraudulent because I personally informed you of how soft tissue was actually found. Therefore, you already know what you are trying to pass off as the truth is false. This is different from merely posting something that you thought was true which later turned out to be false.

Except that your definition of fraud is the same as mistake.

While that is true, your interpretation is based on your religious views, rather then the empirical evidence. You keep calling mistakes frauds because it supports your religious views that reject evolution. Looking at the actual circumstances, all of them were mistakes. Especially the National Geographic incident as they posted a correct detailing their mistake.Fraud is when you deliberately pass off something you know to be false as the truth. Nothing you have cited so far in any way resembles that while you yourself have passed off what I personally know to be frauds. The soft tissue and coelacanth for instance as I was there when you were informed of the truth. You have been informed of what is correct yet you pass of what you have been informed of as incorrect as the truth. That is fraud.Fraud =/= Mistake. No dictionary will support you otherwise. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

I concur with Coyote. This thread utterly failed to cite a single instance of fraud by the actual definition. Archangel's definition of fraud is clearly that of mistake. Furthermore, the arguments given of mistakes do not support the premise that they have contributed to evolution's acceptance. Many people here didn't even know of the several of the alleged "frauds."