Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 220 (601948)
01-25-2011 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Velky Vezir
01-24-2011 4:09 AM


Well, what I should like to ask these creationist you've been talking to is --- where are their citations.
Otherwise: Newton lied about the orbit of the moon. Look, someone said it on the Internet!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Velky Vezir, posted 01-24-2011 4:09 AM Velky Vezir has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 126 of 220 (661896)
05-10-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ScottyDouglas
05-10-2012 6:09 PM


Re: MORE OFF TOPIC DRIFT
Does Giants-put a frown on evolution?It would be signifiant?Im in this thread.This is my last post here.Im new and all that.But answer this honestly.No evidence or facts just the answer.If Giants exist I mean 10 to 30 feet tall is that a signifiant piece of facts for evolution?
Any true thing would be significant. However, this is not significant because it is not true.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-11-2012 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 220 (662043)
05-11-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ScottyDouglas
05-11-2012 3:40 PM


Re: MORE OFF TOPIC DRIFT
Atleast admit It would be signifiant.
I did say it would be significant. It just isn't true.
Also fossils you find also agrees with what find which is adnormalities.
Was that intended to be written in English? Only it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-11-2012 3:40 PM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 170 of 220 (673198)
09-16-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Genologist
09-15-2012 3:30 PM


Creationists view the entire theory of evolution as a hoax ...
Then you have uncovered the biggest conspiracy of all time.
But what would be the motivation for such a hoax?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Genologist, posted 09-15-2012 3:30 PM Genologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 173 by Genologist, posted 09-16-2012 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 220 (673206)
09-16-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by NoNukes
09-16-2012 10:33 AM


Re: What's the motivation?
Well, yes, of course, we've all read that sort of stuff.
But I wanted Genologist to put forward his own opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by NoNukes, posted 09-16-2012 10:33 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 182 of 220 (673227)
09-16-2012 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Genologist
09-16-2012 4:58 PM


As soon as we are compelled to believe in the existence of a Creator, we are confronted with the reality of some form of relationship with such Creator. Indeed a Creator who made us with such emotions, ambitions etc is most likely to be interested in us and this means we are laid bare before a supreme authority.
But anyone perpetrating evolution as a hoax knows that there is a creator. If they didn't know it, it wouldn't be a hoax. All the hoaxers (as distinct from their dupes) must be creationists. So why do a bunch of convinced and assured creationists go about pretending that there's no creator? What are they getting out of it? It cannot be, as you seem to be suggesting, a disbelief in a creator --- if they possessed such a disbelief, then they wouldn't be creationists and it wouldn't be a hoax.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 184 of 220 (673233)
09-16-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
09-16-2012 9:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2012 9:42 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Coyote, posted 09-16-2012 11:56 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 220 (674232)
09-27-2012 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 6:10 AM


Did you read the article in full? It clearly states the conclusion that it is a shark. It’s disingenuous to link to that article suggesting it is a hoax.
If you look at the rest of the links he supplies, they are overwhelmingly not to articles which are examples of a hoax being perpetrated, but to articles which debunk the hoax. Like this one. So what makes you think he intended it to be an instance of the former rather than the latter class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:10 AM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 193 of 220 (686472)
01-01-2013 9:44 PM


If I posted here every time a creationist told a lie, I'd never do anything else. However, here's something new. The Discovery Institute made a video of one of their scientumists talking crap in a nice-looking laboratory ...
... specifically, this nice-looking laboratory.
Says it all, doesn't it? That is very nearly everything anyone needs to know about "creation science".
What does their "Biologic Institute" actually look like? I'm guessing it doesn't have any actual scientific equipment in it. Or a waste paper basket.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by saab93f, posted 12-17-2013 3:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 201 of 220 (735399)
08-13-2014 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by dcurtis00745
08-13-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Evolution Frauds
It wouild seem to me that all evolutionary statements that are given to explain evolution but later are updated due to more information being discovered are in fact fraudulent.
Insofar as this means anything, it is obviously false.
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the English language before you post again, so as to avoid posting more things that aren't true.
hoax (hks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by dcurtis00745, posted 08-13-2014 2:34 AM dcurtis00745 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 206 of 220 (735762)
08-23-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by mram10
08-23-2014 6:08 PM


As usual, you bash creationism and give all the evolutionary hoaxes a pass.
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?
This is where you blame the publishing companies. Then I ask, how many scientists were demanding the "truth" be taught in "science" texts? How many were demanding that these hoaxes/lies/frauds were no longer taught??
That is a peculiar thing to post in reply to RAZD's post, which read, in full:
RAZD writes:
No, it means we're board ... (ducks again)
Could you begin by pointing out which bit of his post you consider to be bashing creationism?

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024