Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Your reply bears no relevance to anything from my post. Do you still claim that there are no experiments showing organic material being generated from inorganic material?TTFN,WK

Your understanding of the way "theory" is used in science needs to be improved.A theory is an explanation for facts and laws, it needs to account for all facts, it needs to have been tested, and it needs to successfully have made predictions.Theories are not proved; the theory is the highest level of understanding.Here are a couple of definitions I have put together that may help:

Using these definitions, which apply throughout science, the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science. It has withstood both discoveries and challenges for 150 years.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So the tables are turned...“During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher at the nearby Central Oregon high school, Kris Helphinstine, 27, included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood. That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution, the Associated Press reported today.” ~ Newwest.netSo, deviate, question, pose a new theory, if you DARE! Please, don't try to think for yourself, it will only result in pain and suffering for you. We are all just mind-numbed robots at the mercy of the pure heart that is "science".

How does this relate to "lies and fraud" in evolution?If you want to question evolutionary theory, that is fine - go and do your research and submit it to science journals. You can't just go ahead straight to the classrooms. What if a history teacher handed out holocaust denial forms?Science teachers are there to teach science, not religion. He should have been disciplined.Why have you dropped nebraska man? Do you accept it is a non-issue?

They were argueing over the origin of life. Scientist were trying numerous experiments to make “living” organic material from “non-living” inorganic material in a man-made, controlled environment. There were contentious results argued by other scientist who were not "impressed" with the experiments.

I was answering the wonderful post on the Monkey Trials by dwise1, which does not have any bearing on this tread either . Edited by Dont Be a Flea, : Fixing...

I know you weren't talking to me but.... of course they aren't always subjective. sometimes they are intentionally biased and sometimes they are unintentionlly biased. they are humans after all. fortunately, science has the peer review process which helps spot and weed out a lot of the biased research and analyses. it's not a perfect process, but it's been sufficient for science to make some pretty amazing progress over the years. You seem pretty critical of science for someone who claims to not know how to get the title of scientist! These days you usually go to college and get a degree in a scientific field and then you get a job doing some kind of scientific research. You make it sound like any bozo off the street can start calling himself a legitmate scientist. I agree that you should become a scientist though. It would help you clear up some of your apparent misconceptions about "science" and "scientists". Are you sure that's a reasonable generalization to make? I mean there are a lot of scientists in the world. Personally I think very few like to "hop over that boundary between fact and faith". Maybe you just think that's what they are doing because you don't understand what they are dealing with as well as them. Could that be possible? I appreciate your skepticism, but I think your claim is totally unwarranted. This is not my experience with science. all scientific knowledge is somewhat tentative in nature. that's why we don't have a bunch of "laws" in science. we call what we know about gravity theories. we call what we know about evolution theories. we call heliocentrism a theory. (even though in science the word theory is used a bit differently) I understand that sometimes the tentative nature of scientific knowledge can seem to be glossed over though. Well faith in science is generally different than religious faith to be sure. In religious faith you take something to be the complete and utter truth, without a body of supportive and objective empirical evidence, and you base many of your beliefs about life on it. In science faith is more like "thinking something is true because there appears to be a reasonable amount of empirical evidence suggesting it's true". You don't base your life around it. You just think something is probably right, and if it someday turns out to be proven wrong, well it's not that big of a deal, life goes on. Whereas when someone realizes their religious faith is wrong their entire world can get turned upside down. Well science deals in empirical data. Is there any empirical data that a creator exists? Science would most likely postulate a creator if the idea was suggested by a body of empirical data. That's not science being faithful, that's science using the type of data that has been proven to yield the most reliable results. I saw most of that too. I think you're mistaken in your implication that all they did was talk about speculation as if it were fact. Do you think just because they couldn't cram every bit of knowledge and evidence they have about evolution into an hour long TV program that they don't know anything about it? it's a TV show for laymen to enjoy. they give you the interesting snippets without showing, and trying to explain to you the entire body of evidence that supports their ideas. however, sometimes in science, speculation is done. but scientists generally try to keep it pretty clear when they are speculating. and it's necessary to do from time to time so new hypotheses to be tested can be thought up. That was done in 1953 at the University of Chicago by Miller and Urey.
Miller—Urey experiment - Wikipedia

quote:

---

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds.

---

also

quote:

---

This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Or found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine

---

That isn't to say that they aren't criticisms over the validity of the experiements (this is the peer review process coming into play) but indeed organic compounds have made from inorganic substances before. Oh no, not at all. You aren't supposed to believe anything in good faith in science. no real scientist expects that. why do you think they do? are you sure you're just not looking into things very in depth for yourself? if you want to understand all the reasons they think what they think, you have to do more than watch a 1 hour cable television program. they're not just pulling this stuff out of their butts, there's loads of evidence for most of what they say, and like I said before, even then the conclusions are realized to be somewhat tentative. part of what the program was showing you was that the we don't know exactly what the origin of life was. but we know some things about the world, and we know some things about life, so we have some ideas. The source of natural selection and why it exists is an interesting question. It's an amazingly powerful force indeed though. I just ask that you remember that you get to type on a computer on the internet about how unreliable science is because of the sucessful utilization of a great number of scientific achievements. bit ironic really.

It is a non-issue, everywhere but the creationist websites.But I'm still waiting for evidence of the five forged fossils I asked for back in post 10 of this thread.Given the lack of response to the challenge, I think it is safe to assume that there are not five such forgeries known, and the original claim was vastly overstated.The whole point of this thread was how many lies there are supporting evolution. I sure see little evidence presented of all the "frauds and hoaxes" -- hmmmmmmm.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I find it hard believe that is really what any of those experiments were trying to do. Can you provide any actual examples of this?PZ myers blogged recently about what I think must be the same documentary and I don't see how you can be describing the same things.TTFN,WK

Flea, you're creating your own reality to argue against. Even most atheists don't rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, and many if not most "evolutionists" are either agnostics or theists. Why can't Gods create universes in which phenomena like abiogenesis and evolution happen? I don't mean story book Gods, like the Genesis God, or those who ride on clouds and throw thunderbolts, but you use the word "possibility" and why would anyone rule out possibilities?If you're planning to present some evidence for a designer, I'll certainly examine it with interest, however minuscule or err...lucrative(?).. it is!Now, back on topic, and we need lots more frauds to justify the "many frauds" phrase of the O.P., don't we? You could try looking up people with fraudulent qualifications who use them in an attempt to give authority to their views on origins. It's certainly been known to happen. Strange, eh? As you say in the O.P., why lie?

quote:

---

I’m not trying to prove creation.

​

Creation is not provable. It takes faith to believe, just like life came from inorganic material. Similar to the "big bang", you cant really prove it, it takes faith based on arguable data. It takes faith to believe that nothing generated something that generated everything. It takes faith to believe that life came from rocks and elements. Until we see evolution happen spontaneously before our eyes, (hence your self correcting scientific method) it is just a theory that is arguable and unproven.

---

By these standards, we'd have to toss out 99% of all other science as based on "faith."Real science isn't limited to what we can put in a petri dish and look at under a microscope for forty hours a week. Science helps us analyze the cores of planets, the storms raging at the hearts of stars. We use science to look at the distant past and draw inferences of what might be in the distant future. We use science to prosecute murderers without eyewitnesses or direct video evidence, we use science to analyze the minutiae of matter that cannot be seen.If you want to criticize certain theories because we cannot see it "happening spontaneously before our eyes," you have a whole lot of other theories to hack through before you get to evolution.
.
.

quote:

---

So the tables are turned...

​

“During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher at the nearby Central Oregon high school, Kris Helphinstine, 27, included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood. That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution, the Associated Press reported today.” ~ Newwest.net

​

So, deviate, question, pose a new theory, if you DARE! Please, don't try to think for yourself, it will only result in pain and suffering for you. We are all just mind-numbed robots at the mercy of the pure heart that is "science".

---

God forbid we fire anyone over little things like a violation of Church-State separation and teaching kids nonsense.Edited by BeagleBob, : Added another section.

Flea, seeing as you've quietly dropped Nebraska man, do you agree that it is a non issue?Why are you not angry at the creationist websites that gave you information about Nebraska man for misrepresenting the scientific community's opinions on the incident, and its significance? Why aren't you upset at the creationist lie to you? Why lie? You appear to be biased by now, instead of admitting your error and getting angry at the creationist lies, you now go off on rants about how science doesn't have a monopoly on truth (it never claimed to do so). What's the dealio?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ~ the ConstitutionThe separation of Church and State? This is off the beaten path, but there is no such thing according the first ammendment. There is nothing to "violate".

Don't be an idiot. Schools are state run institutions, and by forcing the Bible upon students, you are establishing religion - violating the first amendment.Something tells me you'd be mad if you learned kids were being taught that there is no God but Thor the Viking God of thunder.Edited by Alasdair, : No reason given.

Umm... might want to rethink that:The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. -wiki