Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (9005 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, Son Goku, Tangle (3 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,038 Year: 12,786/23,288 Month: 511/1,527 Week: 190/207 Day: 12/39 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 26 of 323 (524672)
09-18-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Coyote
09-18-2009 1:21 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2009 1:21 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 51 of 323 (524812)
09-19-2009 3:50 AM


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.


  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 79 of 323 (524905)
09-20-2009 12:07 AM


Anyone else still waiting for a single instance of fraud?

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 102 of 323 (524970)
09-20-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Archangel
09-20-2009 8:54 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 8:54 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 160 of 323 (525314)
09-22-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Archangel
09-22-2009 2:26 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 2:26 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 161 of 323 (525315)
09-22-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by dwise1, posted 09-22-2009 10:09 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 203 of 323 (525516)
09-23-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Archangel
09-23-2009 3:11 PM


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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

I 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 3:11 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 286 of 323 (526126)
09-25-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:04 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:04 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 287 of 323 (526134)
09-25-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Archangel
09-25-2009 9:32 AM


Re: In rebuttal to false claims of submitting evidence by evos.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2009 9:32 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2738 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 318 of 323 (529058)
10-08-2009 2:59 AM


No Coyote, this thread is a joke
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."

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020