To: metmom
The only thing I seconded was the *What the heck are you talking about?* question. Okay. I believe that scientific claims based on evidence known to be false should be considered criminal fraud. Do you find that a resonable proposition?
251 posted on
09/28/2009 8:51:39 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
What’s that got to do with the discussion? Where did that come from?
253 posted on
09/28/2009 8:52:44 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: tacticalogic; CottShop
Okay. I believe that scientific claims based on evidence known to be false should be considered criminal fraud. Do you find that a resonable proposition? Well, in light of Piltdown Man, archaeoraptor, Lucy, and other frauds, that might not be such a bad proposition.
Considering the amount of fraud that goes on in the scientific community, that'll come back to bite them.
255 posted on
09/28/2009 8:56:05 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: tacticalogic; metmom
"
I believe that scientific claims based on evidence known to be false should be considered criminal fraud." If we went by that premise, we would lock up 90% of our school teachers for teaching evolution, big bang, and old Earth nonsense, since it all has been proven false.
313 posted on
09/29/2009 7:26:41 AM PDT by
editor-surveyor
(The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson