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