Unfortunately, these smack of quote mining. If your source for them all was a creo site then we can predict the outcome of those that are from legitamate sources. That is, they will have left out what the article is actually saying.
To not waste people's time I think it would be better if you took a small number of these. Say the first 3 to 5 of them and looked for the quote in context. That is, the original paper.
If the original is not available online then move on to the next one.
We'll have to take what we find from the available ones and extrapolate to all of them.
One thing that one has to think of:
If these are really indicative of the state of the science there are numerous labs around the world and many 10,000 of scientist deliberately committing fraud. How likely do you think that is?
The other choice is that the creo compilers of such lists are the one committing fraud. Since we can dig up many, many documented cases of that having occured elsewhere how likely do you think that is the case?
Anyway, these are really interesting thinks to look into and if you will give a bit more meat then I am sure someone would love to get deeper into these.
Added by Edit
Just to show you why this needs a bit more digging; look at the second to last one:
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions. ...one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age-range to which the method applies."
This is utterly false! There is no such assumption. In fact read RASDs thread here:
see
Windsor castle
to see how the C14 content of the atmosphere is accounted for and how we know that it varies and by how much (less than 10%).
Edited by AdminNosy, : added a bit
™ Version 4.2