Posted on 09/02/2014 11:10:04 AM PDT by JimSEA
Spend any time in American science media and you may find some of them are pretty far out of the political mainstream; so far out, they may not even be friends with anyone who has not always voted the same way as them.
So it's unsurprising that much of science media once perpetuated the claim that 'science votes Democrat.' Humans are fallible and confirmation bias is sneaky. As was apocryphally attributed to New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael after the 1972 Presidential election and a Richard M. Nixon landslide victory, "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him." (1)
(Excerpt) Read more at science20.com ...
Not the ones who themselves have been deceived.
Nope, to the best of my knowledge no evolutionist has been tried and convicted of fraud [yet].
And I could not begin to ‘do the math’ for how much fraudulent science has been billed to the American taxpayers.
You do once it's factually established that what they're saying is fraudulent, if they keep doing it.
Internet forums like this will have minimal impact on changing minds, so posts pointing to "proof" or "evidence" of one view or another are typically ignored or overlooked, because there is no one physically in the same space forcing an objective study of said proof/evidence.
While the knowledge/facts are out there on the Net, it takes real wisdom to be able to distinguish Truth from fraud.
Why just the evolutionists? Don't forget the geologists and physicists. They were there first.
Kinda like getting rid of Obama - it needs the tide of public opinion to reverse course - a complete paradigm shift.
And that was followed in the same sentence by "always has been". But you left that out.
Half-truths are the most seductive kind of lies.
Making scientific evidence subject to "public opinion" doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.
Yes they are--and since you know that phrase was related to his belief of fraud, rather than the exposing of evolution as fraud, you twisted that whole thing around to make it look like I was cherry-picking words.
Words means things. Grammar provides the rules for context.
Learn both and be able to communicate.
Then get rid of the whole "settled science" and "consensus" ideas when it comes to evolution.
Why just evolution?
Here’s a website that sums up the fraud of evoltionists to date - quite well done imho esp. for a Wordpress article.
http://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/
Apparently Haeckel [is this where we got the term hack?] was convicted of fraud by his university peers. but as for most of the others apparently it was left for God to judge ultimately.
1st paragraph is really quite good too.
“In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”. This is from chapter six entitled Difficulties on the Theory. Scientists who believe evolution have been searching for transitional forms ever since but they have been not found. Therefore, fraudulent fossils have been made and presented as transitional forms.”
You were cherry-picking. My complaint was not with the assertion that evolution will eventually be found to be fraudulent (it might or might not be), but with the assertion that it is and always has been because it contradicts the Bible, and what the consequences of using that as an established standard of fraud would be.
Not just evolution, but that is the topic of this discussion.
Then Haeckel is the only evolutionist so far.
Q: “what the consequences of using [the Bible] as an established standard of fraud would be” ~ [I’d prefer to have it say established standard of truth or even absolute truth].
A: A country where truth, justice and liberty prevail! Or just maybe the closest thing to utopia this side of Heaven!
Have you given any thought at all to the consequences of doing that, beyond the subject of evolution?
Promises of utopia invariably deliver something that turns closer to Hell.
Nope, it just shows you how rare a fraud conviction can be - esp. for the ivory tower folks.
So you’re in favor of science by consensus?
Also is the science really only settled with a majority?
Or is there a certain higher percentage you’d prefer?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.