>> Personally, I would be careful of accusing any scientist of fraud. It is
>> thing to say someone was wrong, but quite different to say they to say they
> >were aware of their error and deliberately committed it anyway. Pretty
> >difficult to get into a scientists mind and know intent.
>I agree, I would be very careful as well. But a person claiming degrees they
>not actually have can't be anything but fraud, and a person quoting out of
>contextwhen they've referenced the original article can hardly be anything
Accusing someone of "quoting out of context" is not the equivalent of
accusing them of fraud. Anyone who quotes anything can be accused of
"quoting out of context" unless they don't supply the whole document.
Someone who disagrees with the sentiment usually seems to bring out the
"quoting out of context" charge. It's such a common accusation, I don't
really know what it means. Claiming degrees one doesn't have is deliberate
misrepresentation, and I agree is fraudulent.
>> I wouldn't not even state with certainty Pitdown was fraud. It could as
well >>have been a hoax.
>I'm not sure what distinction you are making between a hoax and a fraud here.
I'd call a hoax a prank, with no intent to gain advantage.
>I have never heard anyone accuse Behe or Denton of holding a position they
>do not hold. Can you give me an example of this? I have far more often heard
>creationists citing Behe as supporting a position he does not support than
I don't save those things and couldn't quote any accurately, but I'll keep an
eye out for the next one. Susan claims Denton is a creationist; he claims he
>I see it all the time. Paracelsus has accused virtually every evolutionist of
>intentional concealment of evidence on this list in the past couple of
weeks, >and says that it is all a conspiracy of fraud. John Woodmorappe
accuses >geologists of hiding discordant radiometric dates as a matter of
routine. Again, >I think the only question that really matters is whether an
accusation of fraud >or deceit is supported by the evidence or not. When
someone accuses >someone of deceit without being very careful to document it,
I think they are >guilty of the charge
I believe Paracelsus accuses evolutionists of ignoring evidence. I suspect
everyone ignores evidence which doesn't support their beliefs, but I doubt
Paracelsus regards that an organized conspiracy. You could ask him. I
wouldn't call any of it fraud--on either side. To continue to use evidence
after someone has "discredited" it, is hardly fraud. Maybe they didn't
agree it was "discredited". Either I didn't read the stuff by Chadwick or it
was too technical for me.