Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate?

I thought it would be useful to create a thread for any Creationist to list and link to specific Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Zoology, Palontology, etc., papers from the professional literature which show evidence of containing false, inaccurate data, or poor methodology.Such examples should be explained in some detail as to why the papers' conclusions or findings should be considered untrustworthy and the result of fraud.Likewise, it would be very useful for there to be an accompanying discussion of how this rather widespread fraud and/or imcompetence and sloppy science has impacted the application of Biology to medicine, agriculture, ecology, and other fields.ABE--I also want to stress what this thread is NOT about.It is specifically NOT meant as a place to discuss the portrayal of scientific findings in textbooks, popular press books or magazines, newspapers, television shows, cartoons, advertising, or films.Examples should come ONLY from the professional scientific literature. Released from PNT. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-09-2005 09:41 PMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2005 10:13 AM

quote:

---

The topic should be very very strictly limited to the Peer-reviewed material that has been mentioned in the OT.

---

Quite right.I have added a clarification to the OP to that effect.

quote:

---

Somehow I don't think there will be too many posts here.

---

Exactly.

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