Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 12:35 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 0/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12591
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 16 of 27 (231953)
08-10-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
08-10-2005 2:30 PM


Please raise these issues elsewhere. Coffee House would be a good place.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2005 2:30 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12591
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 17 of 27 (231957)
08-10-2005 3:03 PM


Topic Clarification
Folks, the purview of this thread is extremely narrow. Schraf is looking for examples of dishonesty and fraud in the technical literature. I assume her motivation for this thread is the frequent accusations of scientific dishonesty and fraud by EvoPeach and Randman.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 27 (231994)
08-10-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-09-2005 9:40 PM


There is Fraud in the science community, and it does get caught and sanctioned. Here is one recent example from the University of Vermont (don't we know someone else that was associated with UV? )

But IMHO the important point is that there are mechanisms within the scientific community to detect, sanction and publicly acknowledge such misconduct.

There is nothing comparable to that in either the ID or Creationist community where outright fraud (Pawley Tracks) are not only common, but openly continued long after they are exposed.

Until the Creationist community buts some form of Ethics enforcement in place I don't see how they can ever be considered more than a side-show.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-09-2005 9:40 PM nator has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3010 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 27 (232009)
08-10-2005 4:58 PM


if the motivation is....
Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

If the motivation is related, as suggested, to my comments, then I feel it is right and proper to address that here, and maybe elsewhere where my name and character have been repeatedly falsely maligned and misrepresented by some evolutionists here.

The simple fact is I have repeatedly brought up erroneous use of materials and claims, often overstatements, produced by evolutionists in arguing for ToE in educational materials such as textbooks, web-sites, TV shows, popular magazines like National Geographic.

Starting a thread on peer-reviewed papers in this area thus appears to seek to dodge the point entirely, and ignore the principal means by which evolutionists convince the public and students of their ideas.

Since that seems to be what this thread is about, I will refrain from posting on this thread, except to reiterate that it is a false claim and insinuation, imo, to suggest I would need to reference peer-reviewed literature to back up my claims, and in general, I consider evolutionist's claims as put forth to students and the public to be more relevant in terms of the effect of overstatements convincing the public the data says one thing when, in fact, it does not.

This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 06:17 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by robinrohan, posted 08-10-2005 5:05 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 08-10-2005 6:16 PM randman has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 27 (232011)
08-10-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
08-10-2005 4:58 PM


Hey, Randman
Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

Did you see the show "Man from Ape" on the History Channel the other night?

I found it inspiring. There were a lot of transitional fossils documented.

This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 06:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 08-10-2005 4:58 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12591
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 21 of 27 (232030)
08-10-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
08-10-2005 4:58 PM


Re: if the motivation is....
As long as this is your last off-topic post on this thread, this clarification is fine and helpful. It is likely that this message will be referenced if you return to accusing scientists in general of dishonesty and fraud.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 08-10-2005 4:58 PM randman has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 27 (232106)
08-10-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
08-10-2005 10:37 AM


hi mike
Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

quote:
Who says because I am a creationist, I think scientists are liars? Isn't this a harsh assumption?

Well, maybe you don't think so, but we have recently had at least one Creationist flat out caull scientific findings fraudulent, so this thread was in direct response to him.

quote:
I might not find fault or innacurate data, but this doesn't mean assumptions and conclusions are correct, pertaining to the philosophy of the evolution story.

Either the data is accurate or not. The conclusions are part of the papers, so if the conclusions based upon accurate data are incorrect, it would be appropriate to, in this thread, show why they are incorrect.

Go right ahead.

quote:
Your point seems to be, that because there are no errors in methodology, or the facts are straight then evolution is true

Well, if the correct methodology and facts point towards evolution, why shouldn't we accept it?

quote:
and creationists are found wanting, therefore our data is accurate, which means creationists can't offer another conclusion. Am I right?

You can offer another conclusion.

It just has to account for all of the evidence and explin it all better than the current hypothesis.

quote:
But you can only conclude that the fault doesn't reside within the methodology, but infact it can still be at fault pertaining to how one concludes as to what is meant by one's findings.

Sure.

quote:
For example, if I find a stuck-in-a-rut species, like a dragonfly, whom has a fossil identical to it's present day morphology,

Is it really identical? Or is it identical to the untrained layman's eye?

quote:
Do I conclude that this fits with the creationist explanation, or do I stick with my evolutionistic paradigm, and let the philosophy never be shaken by creating my own ideologically comforting falisification structure?

So, what is the Creationist explanation of ALL species regarding change over time, not just the dragonfly?

quote:
Think about it. We don't argue with your findings, just your conclusions and think that the fallaccy of exlusion is prevailent amongst the mainstream.

I'd be happy to discuss Creationist evidence for their Theory of Creationism in another thread if you would like to start one, but this thread is for Creationists to point out the flaws or fraud they claim exist in the professional scientific literature.

This message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2005 04:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 10:37 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2005 9:04 AM nator has not yet responded

    
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 23 of 27 (232202)
08-11-2005 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by FliesOnly
08-10-2005 2:27 PM


Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

Admin writes:

Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

Far be it from me to argue with those in authority (:)), but I'm not so sure that this is off topic. Mike the wiz has made a blanket statement that, at least in regards to the fossil record, science has reached the wrong conclusion. I am simply trying to hold him accountable by asking him to demonstrate how science has erred. I have asked him to find a scientific paper that he feels reaches the wrong conclusion and then explain why he feels that way.

He says that the fossil record actually disproves evolution, which should be rather simple for him to support, seeing has how there are likely thousands of research papers from which can choose to support his claim. I have simply asked him to do so.

On a related note, what's the record for consecutive: "Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin"? This thread has got to be close to a record...;)

This message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2005 09:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by FliesOnly, posted 08-10-2005 2:27 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 27 (232206)
08-11-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
08-10-2005 9:29 PM


Re: hi Shraffy
Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin

This post is on-topic for reasons noted lower down in this post pertaining to the use of scientific data.

AIG writes:

Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon—one of the ‘oldest’ (by evolutionary reckoning) fossil bats. It was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Germany, and is ‘dated’ between 48 and 54 million years old. It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment (see chapter 9 for more details of this exquisitely designed system

AIG writes:

Australian scientists announced in February the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.1 However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!

The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”1

Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,

- LINK

AIG writes:

Regarding salamander fossils recently found in China, we learn that “Despite its Bathonian age, the new cryptobranchid [salamander] shows extraordinary morphological similarity to its living relatives. This similarity underscores the stasis [no change] within salamander anatomical evolution. Indeed, extant cryptobranchid salamanders can be regarded as living fossils whose structures have remained little changed for over 160 million years.”2

Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.3 Microscopic algae didn’t change over 3.5 billion years of evolution?

Shraff, I've highlighted my point in this thread. Here we have creationists coming to a creationist conclusion pertaining to evidence SCIENISTS find.

Sure, I can't pin down the exact research data, but this shows that we infact use the very same scientific data that those scientists use, for our own creationist theory.

All the examples above, are just a FEW examples of the evidence we use, that for us, falsifies evolution.

FliesOnly writes:

On a related note, what's the record for consecutive: "Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin"? This thread has got to be close to a record

It's because I am in the thread.

I don't know if you've heard of me at this site, but each time I take part I am very closely watched, and usually reprimanded for the most trivial reasons imaginable to mankind. What the admin never realise is that usually I'm no trouble untill they start playing power games like this. I suspect there'll be no bannings, and you'll just get the sign "no respones to this message" untill I make a post like I am now. I'm the one they're fishing for. :)

I've tried to answer your post in this post to Shraff.

PS> Shraff, it's important to note that if the layman's eye recognizes a species then that is significant. for a layman doesn't have much knowledge of species YET he notices a fossil species as "recognizable". So logically, infact his lack of knowledge makes my point even stronger Shraff.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-11-2005 09:11 AM

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-11-2005 09:12 AM

This message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2005 09:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 08-10-2005 9:29 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 10-14-2005 8:13 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12591
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 25 of 27 (232213)
08-11-2005 9:35 AM


Please Stay On topic
The topic of this thread is very narrowly defined. Too narrowly. I'm not expecting any responses. The other related discussions people would like to have are legitimate topics, and probably much more interesting and fruitful than this one, and they can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics.

Mike the Wiz has been suspended permanently. FliesOnly has been suspended for 24 hours.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 26 of 27 (251679)
10-14-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-11-2005 9:04 AM


Re: hi Shraffy
Wiz, how are you? Meet me in chat. PB
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2005 9:04 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 10-14-2005 11:41 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 27 (251742)
10-14-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
10-14-2005 8:13 AM


PHAt
Hey phatz, why did you pull up this old topic? I thought I had been permanantly suspended again when I read through and seem Percy's post. For a minute I was wondering what on earth I'd done wrong. Lol.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 10-14-2005 8:13 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019