Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data

If it can't be examined, it can't be found out to be a fraud. By the way, who discovered it was a fraud? Hint: It wasn't a creationist. Nobody ever said it was. No we don't, we're not creationists, afterall.

I'll leave the comments about Freud, because I don't know alot about it. In any case, could you provide some evidence for these claims? They are a part of the scientific community. Becuase it is. As soon as it was found out, it was reported to the authorities and the person was dealt with.As for the rest of your comments, do you think this kind of hate will be aprreciated, or shows an accurate representation of what a Christian should be like? If not, then why do you do it?

But you didn't quote it. Here's what you quoted: Nowhere in this sentence does it say it is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud, just that it is impossible without getting caught. The message you quoted from was not edited, you simply read the quote wrong. That's not a way to detect frauds, however, evidence could be fabricated that agrees with the bible, that would still be fraudulent evidence though. No, I'm not saying any evidence found that supports the bible is fraudulent, just that when it is fabricated it is fraudulent. Like the Paluxy river tracks. Not really no. Students are part of the scientific community. Always have been, always will. As long as you're doing science, you're part of the community.

Ok, I guess I have to be more clear.Say, somebody claims to have found evidence for the Exodus, yet he has fabricated (this means he made it himself, and it is thus not evidence for anything) this evidence himself. Say, a tablet with hyroglyphs that mentions moses, now this does not contradict the bible. If that is all the tests it has to pass to be said to be genuine, will it be accepted as such, yet it is a fraud. Not if that is the only criterium you guys use. You see, this guy's findings were in favour of evolution, they were agreeing with it, meaning that if we would use the same criteria as you, we would declare it true regardless of it being a fraud. Yes yes, we're evil and wretched. Once again I ask you to leave these comments out, they add nothing, what would add something is explaining why you think this is the case. I'm not. Would you ask god how atomic fision works then? I can't seem to find it anywhere in the bible. There are science books full of how it works though.

On the contrary, if a creationist would stand up and walk up to, say Kent Hovind, and say to him: "Look here, you're completely wrong, and this is why", and then everybody would join in and he would be expelled from creationism altogether, never to be taken serious ever again, I would be very pleased with how that was handled. Of course it's not perfect. What it does do very well however, is find out if stuff is true or not. That is why it's so great. Every fraud you know about, you know about because scientists exposed it. If we really didn't want to expose frauds, we wouldn't, and you wouldn't know about them.

Insult? Where did I insult you in that quoted text? (Yes, I am interested, my goal here is not to insult anyone, and if I did I am really sorry for that). So, basically, you would "feel" if it is true. Is that a correct way of putting it? Yes, but according to you, those secular ones are not to be trusted, right? And all the "true Christians" have is their "feeling", right? What if some "feel" that it is genuine? How do you determine that it is or isn't? For Instance, a member here on this forum (Buzsaw) feels that there is evidence for the exodus in the Arabian Gulf, there are however Christians that say that his evidence is no such thing (and I'm not talking about Christians you don't accept as such). How do we determine which one of those has the right "feeling"? Yes, this is the stuff I was talking about. I'm guessing they "feel" that they have the right answer. Now, how do we determine if that "feeling" is correct or not? But that is using secular science to determine that it isn't real. All you said you had was the bible. There are no Hyroglyphics in the bible, nor any egyptian grammar. How do you determine these things with just the bible? Yes, but you said that all that was necdcessary is the bible, this is all secular science. That wasn't my point. My point was to get you to realize that using just the bible is not a good way to go around determining the truth in matters such as this. Or at least get a more clear answer about how one goes about using the bible to determine truth in such matters. Yes, but they are using secular science, not the bible, to determine those things. Yes, I deserve to die, but the problem (in my eyes anyway), is that you don;t have a way to determine if this is actually the case. You see, I could claim you have the devil on your side as well (no, I'm not saying you do), and that in fact, you are the one that is wrong. How do we determine which one of us is right? I know you don't feel this way, I understand all that. I would like to now how in a hypothetical case, you would determine which of two persons is right, when both of them calim the other is doing satans work. I don;t know if it's flawless, but it certainly did it's job, the second it was found out this guy was a fraud, they reported it to the outside world, and even to the authorities. I don;t see what the problem here is? I doubt that there are that many cases. But even if there were, the fact you know about them is due to the fact that it does work, for they were found out. No, but in this case, secular science was used to come to the answer. Either you trust secular science or you don't. Ok. Do you think people in nuclear physics "asked" god to show them how it worked, or did they do lots of esperiments and calculations to come to this conclusion? Which are the same answers my carton of milk gives when I pray to it. No, I don;t mean this as an insult. I would love to go step by step with you on these issues, to see if we can come to some understanding (it doesn't have to be acceptance). I'm sure there is.