Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 4:40 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,030 Year: 15,066/19,786 Month: 1,789/3,058 Week: 163/404 Day: 50/113 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 220 (493932)
01-11-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Kapyong
01-11-2009 6:05 PM


Another creationist fraud
One of my favorite frauds is creationist websites that argue the radiocarbon method produces incorrect answers, and that all of the dates past about 4,000 years need to be recalibrated to account for the change in C14 levels during the flood!

I checked recently and the first three creationist articles on radiocarbon dating I found each had this fraud.

And then they have the gall to criticize the assumptions upon which the radiocarbon method is based.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Kapyong, posted 01-11-2009 6:05 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 6:28 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 220 (494697)
01-17-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
01-17-2009 6:28 PM


Re: The McMurdo Seal Fraud
You are exactly correct in your post. (I love the amount of detail you put into your posts!)

As an archaeologist who does a lot of radiocarbon dating, I have studied the literature extensively to figure out all of the things I need to do to make my dates as accurate as possible (and I have both written a monograph on the subject and delivered a number of papers at professional meetings).

Creationists are just the opposite; they want the method to be incorrect, so they misrepresent what the laboratories or the archaeologists or other -ologists do. They misrepresent the facts as often as possible to raise doubts in their readers' minds, all in support of their religious beliefs.

Here's another fraud on their part that I documented and blogged elsewhere:

Claim:

Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source

Analysis:

False information due to sloppy research.

This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)

The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).

The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:

Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia — 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41° 25′ N Lat, 74° 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.

What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.

The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam…”

But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.

The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find “Pennsylvanian” in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.

This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.

Reference

Vinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323.

=====================

I have documented several more of these common creationist "errors," which are repeated so often, are so easily checked, and are so seldom corrected when it is discovered that they are nonsense, that they certainly amount to frauds.

These creationist analyses are supposed to document the erroneous nature of radiocarbon dating. What they do instead is show that creation "science" is an oxymoron.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 6:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2009 10:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 01-18-2009 10:51 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 220 (494766)
01-18-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by JonF
01-18-2009 10:51 AM


Re: The McMurdo Seal Fraud
That seems like a good candidate for Mark Isaak's Index of Creationist Claims. Mind if I sumbit it to him?

Your others might be interesting as well ...


Fine by me. The original blog can be found here:

http://blog.darwincentral.org/2007/06/16/a-look-at-creation-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-part-iv/

At the bottom of that blog are links to five additional blogs in the same series that might also be of interest. Make sure he credits DarwinCentral.org.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by JonF, posted 01-18-2009 10:51 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 123 of 220 (661864)
05-10-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ScottyDouglas
05-10-2012 6:09 PM


Giants
.If Giants exist I mean 10 to 30 feet tall is that a signifiant piece of facts for evolution?

There is no credible skeletal evidence of 10-30 ft. tall humans.

One of my fields of study is human skeletal analysis, and I've examined thousands of skeletons over a 40-year time span, as well as read hundreds of reports from my colleagues.

There is no credible evidence for "giants."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-10-2012 6:09 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 4:10 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 220 (662102)
05-12-2012 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 4:10 AM


Re: Giants
I have a number of those reports in my library, but I don't even need to go look them up. I know what you're doing. You are pitting anecdotes over 100 years old where estimates were made by individuals untrained in the relevant fields to support a position that is disproved by tens of thousands of actual observations made by modern experts. Pretty thin gruel there, eh?

Just one question: Why are not those "giants" still being found by archaeologists (such as myself) and my hundreds of colleagues around the country?

Stature reconstruction is a simple thing to do. Measurements from any of the long bones can be used with a standard formula to give a good estimate of stature, and there are more recent techniques that can be applied to full skeletons that are even more accurate.

A few very tall individuals have been found, but the vast majority of skeletons that are found are of normal height. No race of "giants" here, sorry.

Edited by Coyote, : Grammar


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 4:10 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 140 of 220 (662169)
05-13-2012 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by ScottyDouglas
05-12-2012 8:19 PM


Re: Giants
So people today namely science can determine and say that these old recounts are false and untrue. That the people recording them are in fantasy land.Not to mention that the smithsonian have enormous amounts of giants and some one display.

Yes. If there were such skeletons around, they would be available for scientific study. But they always disappear before scientists can track them down. Face it--they never existed in the first place!

Even the smithsonian keeps paper trials and alot of trials lead to claims that they found and have giants. Just a simple detailed look at thier paper work show something abnormal.

I have many of the old Smithsonian volumes that you refer to in my library, as well as a large collection of modern texts on human skeletal analysis and biology. Your anecdotal claims are not supported by modern data. They are stories from untrained amateurs writing 100 or more years ago. Their claims do not stand up against modern observations. Every one of those claims that has been investigated has gone up in a puff of smoke, and in no case has the skeletal evidence been found. Where are all the skeletons of individuals 10 or 12 feet in stature now? They all just disappear?

How can you date fossils anyway but a previous estimate of one you think is that old and then tests will run off that example to then run test on other things by the age of the previous sample. Saying the very first sample has to be a figment estimate.

These would be bones, not fossils. Bones are easily dated using carbon-14 dating. By the way, I am currently writing a monograph for archaeologists on using radiocarbon dating, so if you want to start a thread I'll be happy to explain some of the details to you. We also have another poster here (kbertsche) who is a lot more knowledgeable that I am in the technical aspects of that dating method, so he could explain that part to you.

How do have fossils anyway by sudden death and burial.Only a catastphe brings.

Incomprehensible. Try again.

Evolutionist stick to thier gunns that no flood within the last 4000 years but the evidence is the opposite.

I can prove that there was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago from my own archaeological research. (Any good archaeologist can do the same.) I have tested probably over 100 sites which cross-cut that time period, and in none of them was there evidence of a flooding event (heavy sedimentary deposit or erosional evidence). Rather, there was continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, deposition, and most importantly human DNA. This latter is absolute proof there was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago. There are numerous cases of continuity of human DNA from before to after the 4,350 year date in American Indian sites. I have one from my own work. If there had been a flood as described in the bible the earlier peoples would have been wiped out and their DNA eliminated, only to be replaced by the DNA of Noah's group. This has been shown not to have been the case.

But lets turn this around--you can help show that there was such a flood! A worldwide flood would have left evidence everywhere, including your back yard. All you need to do is learn some archaeology, do a test excavation, and find the depositional or erosional evidence of that flood. If you can find evidence of that nature around 4,350 years ago in a number of locations you will have supported the global flood story.

But here's a hint: early geologists were creationists trying to find evidence of the flood. They gave up just about 200 years ago. Since then the evidence against a global flood during historic times has accumulated to the point that no credible scientists entertain the flood notion any longer. The story of a global flood during historic times is only pushed by folks who put religious belief ahead of empirical evidence.

Whale fossils found deep inland only something that can happen if the land was once submerged. Ocean life on top of mountain? That can only happen if the mountain was once submerged.

There are existing threads that discuss these topics. Please do a search and refer to them.

Edited by Coyote, : Grammar.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-12-2012 8:19 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:29 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 154 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 143 of 220 (662251)
05-14-2012 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:05 AM


Re: Giants
You forgot to say, "Amen" after your post. That would be most appropriate because all you're doing is preaching.

(Are you ever going to respond to my posts in detail? I raised some good points, and I'm waiting for a response.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:05 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 149 of 220 (662275)
05-14-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:29 AM


Epic fail!
You have failed to respond to the points I made in Message 140. Your blanket denial is meaningless.

Can you address the points I made or not?

(My guess is not. When it comes to data that refutes your contentions you remind me of Sergeant Schultz -- "I see nothing–NOTHING!")


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:29 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 152 of 220 (662291)
05-14-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 1:23 PM


Re: Fossils
No I still suggest that all of the recent theory of evolution is a hoax in the highest degree.

And you would be wrong. The term "hoax" has a specific dictionary definition: A humorous or malicious deception.

In the case of the theory of evolution there is evidence to support all of the aspects of the theory, so at worst case one or more of those aspects could be an error which could be corrected or overturned by subsequent findings.

It is quite easy to have a theory be assumed true when it can and does change to accept new evidence.

I think "assumed accurate" would be a better term than "assumed true." "Truth" is a term not often used in science.

A theory is simply the current best explanation for a series of facts. A theory also is required to account for all relevant facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. Finally, a good theory makes predictions which can be tested.

A theory which changes to accommodate new evidence is still "the current best explanation for a series of facts."

If a theory can change and accept any evidence then it does not mean its true.

We know that. See above.

It could be just as untrue as true if it can change by the evidence. That is nothing more than changeable theory to fit within the facts. The facts and evidence should prove the theory not the theory change and prove the facts and evidence. Two comepletely different ideas of science and truth.

I think you would do better if you understood the role of theory in science, and stopped using "true" where it is inappropriate. I'll include some definitions which may help at the bottom of this post.

Furthermore if evolution as exstintsive as you suggest not only should be view by all as fact. But it would have been happeninf forever and it would no longer have theory behind it and be provided as absolute but it is not. It is taught in school but so is creationism. If evolution was factual beyond needing furthert proof then that would reflect in all society and teaching without any equal or teaching.

See the definitions below:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Here is an article that explores this subject in more depth:

Evolution & Creationism: Terminology in Conflict


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 1:23 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 155 of 220 (662297)
05-14-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Giants
I see that you are unwilling to address the points I make. You probably aren't even reading them. Instead you just preach on, saying the same thing you started with.

You apparently are here to preach, not to learn.

Guess I'm wasting my time posting to you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 2:22 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 162 of 220 (662339)
05-14-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
05-14-2012 9:14 PM


Frauds and hoaxes
...however this thread is supposed to just list frauds and hoaxes.

I think we have been seeing ample evidence of both in his posts.

There has been no evidence presented in those posts, although there have been many claims and blanket statements that have long-since been refuted by empirical evidence.

I think what we are seeing in those posts is better described as preaching or witnessing than debating. Along with that we see a tendency to ignore posts which provide empirical evidence to the contrary.

Clearly the intent is to deceive the readers, to convince them of something that is not supported by empirical evidence but rather is flatly refuted by that evidence.

Perhaps "frauds and hoaxes" is not the best way to describe his posts, but given the Dictionary.com definition of "fraud," which includes "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. ...any deception, trickery, or humbug" and of "hoax," which is "something intended to deceive or defraud" -- it's close enough!

I think his posts are entirely appropriate here; as examples!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 9:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2012 10:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 183 of 220 (673229)
09-16-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Genologist
09-16-2012 4:58 PM


Evolution a hoax?
The answer I'm afraid is not scientific, it can't be; it concerns the conscience, the soul.

But any answer from science has to be scientific. If it were not, then perhaps it could be called a hoax, a fraud, or something similar.

[Off topic content deleted]...

...we appease and numb our consciences and repeatedly tell ourselves that we are the result of an "accident" ie evolution.

Science follows the evidence. Occasionally mistakes are made in science, and there have been a few real hoaxes (e.g., Piltdown Man).

When mistakes are made they are eventually corrected as nobody in science values false answers. What good are false answers? Science bases new research in large part on previous research and data, and if that is wrong then subsequent research is probably wrong too. That doesn't do anybody any good.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but it was a hoax on science, not by science. Paleoanthropologists in England had developed a mindset that a large brain came first, followed by other modern traits. This was incorrect, but that is what that one group was looking for--so somebody created a fake that showed just those specific traits. That fooled the British paleoanthropologists for a while, but researchers in other areas, such as Franz Weidenreich, were not fooled. Weidenreich described Piltdown Man as a composite long before specific tests were devised to be able to prove that that was indeed the case. And as Piltdown Man didn't fit in with the bulk of information, it was more and more just ignored. Eventually tests were devised to prove it was a fake.

So, in this--the most notable hoax in paleoanthropology--it was science that discovered the error and corrected it.

Now, you have asserted that all of evolution is a hoax. Your reasoning, by your own admission, "is not scientific."

Perhaps you could follow the topic of this thread and provide some evidence for your assertion? And it would be best if you tried to be scientific this time. At least with science there are rules of evidence and a procedure for testing that evidence and building upon it. I realize that this is in sharp contrast to religions, which have no such procedures for testing evidence and for judging between competing claims (dogmas and beliefs), but if you want to convince those who do not share your beliefs it would probably be more effective.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Genologist, posted 09-16-2012 4:58 PM Genologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 11:11 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 185 of 220 (673234)
09-16-2012 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2012 11:11 PM


Re: Piltdown
Piltdown
This seems to me to be convincing evidence that the hoaxer was Dawson and that his motive was a desire for recognition.

Thanks! I had not seen that before, and it was a very good read. And it does make a very convincing argument that Dawson was the culprit.

It also reinforces a point I made above: this hoax gave British paleoanthropologists just what they were looking for, and in England besides!

Luckily others were not so easily fooled.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 11:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 207 of 220 (735766)
08-24-2014 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


Creationist's hoaxes and frauds
Nebraska man and piltdown man weren't a hoax??? How long were they taught in schools to be "science"?? How long were they still being taught after they were proven to be false?

If you knew anything about Nebraska Man, you would realize how far off you are. Try this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

As for Piltdown, that was a hoax perpetrated on British anthropologists by someone intimately familiar with them and their theories. Piltdown was widely ignored by almost all but a small bunch of British researchers--the hoax had been designed to catch them. Some researchers working in other areas recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (they were correct). In fact, Piltdown was largely ignored from the mid-1920s, when the South African finds started coming because it simply did not fit.

Now, compare this with the nonsense that creationists peddle year after year, after having it debunked time and time again. Look at this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

This is an index to creationist claims which have been debunked. It is so extensive that the claims have been coded by type.

Given this track record, creationists are in no position to criticize science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by mram10, posted 08-23-2014 6:08 PM mram10 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Astrophile, posted 08-26-2014 8:59 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 213 of 220 (735852)
08-26-2014 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Astrophile
08-26-2014 8:59 PM


Re: Creationist's hoaxes and frauds
Welcome, and thank you for joining us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Astrophile, posted 08-26-2014 8:59 PM Astrophile has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019