The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[amariselle]

Stop playing games. You keep making claims that science is dishonest and untrustworthy, but you are refusing to back them.
So are you just full of hot air, or do you actually have anything to back up your claims?

I can assure you, my faith is not a game to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Jesus is infallible. Mankind is not.

Ah, so you're just projecting then... No one claimed that science is infallible. But you are claiming that your religion is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can assure you, my faith is not a game to me.

I'm not talking about your faith. I am talking about you making claims that science is dishonest, then doing NOTHING to back them up. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't understand what that comment was in response to, do you? Perhaps you need to read back a little in this thread.

Still waiting for you to address the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus is infallible. Mankind is not.

Mankind wrote the Bible.

 

[amariselle]

What's Behind Big Science Frauds?

"Every day, on average, a scientific paper is retracted because of misconduct. Two percent of scientists admit to tinkering with their data in some kind of improper way. That number might appear small, but remember: Researchers publish some 2 million articles a year, often with taxpayer funding. In each of the last few years, the Office of Research Integrity, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, has sanctioned a dozen or so scientists for misconduct ranging from plagiarism to fabrication of results."

"But dishonest scholars aren’t the only guilty ones. Science fetishizes the published paper as the ultimate marker of individual productivity. And it doubles down on that bias with a concept called “impact factor” — how likely the studies in a given journal are to be referenced by subsequent articles. The more “downstream” citations, the theory goes, the more impactful the original article."

"Except for this: Journals with higher impact factors retract papers more often than those with lower impact factors. It’s not clear why. It could be that these prominent periodicals have more, and more careful, readers, who notice mistakes. But there’s another explanation: Scientists view high-profile journals as the pinnacle of success — and they’ll cut corners, or worse, for a shot at glory."

"And while those top journals like to say that their peer reviewers are the most authoritative experts around, they seem to keep missing critical flaws that readers pick up days or even hours after publication — perhaps because journals rush peer reviewers so that authors will want to publish their supposedly groundbreaking work with them."

Economists like to say there are no bad people, just bad incentives. The incentives to publish today are corrupting the scientific literature and the media that covers it. Until those incentives change, we’ll all get fooled again.

Scientific Misconduct

"Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results."

In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.[7]

Case Summaries for Scientific Misconduct (The Office of Research Integrity) U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

ORI: Researcher Faked Dozens of Experiments

Retraction Watch

And as for fraud and dishonesty in Darwinian evolutionary science? Well scientific misconduct and dishonesty has been part of evolutionary science from the very beginning.

Survival of the Fakest

Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts Tell Us About Evolution.

Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks

What Do Modern Textbooks Really Say About Haeckel's Embryos?

"Many Darwinists are currently making much noise on their blogs and at movie screenings, trying to rewrite history by claiming that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were never used in modern textbooks. In a contradictory claim, some then concede that modern textbooks have used the drawings but argue that Haeckel’s work was only cited to provide some historical context to evolutionary theory—they assert that Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings have not been used to promote evolution in modern textbooks. They are wrong on both counts."

• (1) "They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;"
• (2) "They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;"
• (3) "Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Piltdown Man

Evolution Fraud

The Fraud of Evolution

And there's much more more out there, even books written on the subject.

Do some honest research if you really think that science is an honest and trustworthy field of study.

This stuff should NOT be taught in schools, museums, zoos, or by huge organizations like the Smithsonian and National Geographic.

And now, I have much better things to do than to continue debating whether scientists actually are being 100% honest. Many of them are not. As I said, science is a field that is very much reliant on money and political power, and many scientists are only interested in seeking after these things. Many of them simply have too much to lose to care about being honest. Sometimes they are discovered, sometimes they are not, but the dishonesty continues.

 

[Loudmouth]

What's Behind Big Science Frauds?

"Every day, on average, a scientific paper is retracted because of misconduct. Two percent of scientists admit to tinkering with their data in some kind of improper way. That number might appear small, but remember: Researchers publish some 2 million articles a year, often with taxpayer funding. In each of the last few years, the Office of Research Integrity, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, has sanctioned a dozen or so scientists for misconduct ranging from plagiarism to fabrication of results."

"But dishonest scholars aren’t the only guilty ones. Science fetishizes the published paper as the ultimate marker of individual productivity. And it doubles down on that bias with a concept called “impact factor” — how likely the studies in a given journal are to be referenced by subsequent articles. The more “downstream” citations, the theory goes, the more impactful the original article."

"Except for this: Journals with higher impact factors retract papers more often than those with lower impact factors. It’s not clear why. It could be that these prominent periodicals have more, and more careful, readers, who notice mistakes. But there’s another explanation: Scientists view high-profile journals as the pinnacle of success — and they’ll cut corners, or worse, for a shot at glory."

"And while those top journals like to say that their peer reviewers are the most authoritative experts around, they seem to keep missing critical flaws that readers pick up days or even hours after publication — perhaps because journals rush peer reviewers so that authors will want to publish their supposedly groundbreaking work with them."

Economists like to say there are no bad people, just bad incentives. The incentives to publish today are corrupting the scientific literature and the media that covers it. Until those incentives change, we’ll all get fooled again.

Scientific Misconduct

"Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results."

In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.[7]

Case Summaries for Scientific Misconduct (The Office of Research Integrity) U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

ORI: Researched Faked Dozens of Experiments

Retraction Watch

And as for fraud and dishonesty in Darwinian evolutionary science? Well scientific misconduct and dishonesty has been part of evolutionary science from the very beginning.

Survival of the Fakest

Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts Tell Us About Evolution.

Haeckel's Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks

What Do Modern Textbooks Really Say About Haeckel's Embryos?

"Many Darwinists are currently making much noise on their blogs and at movie screenings, trying to rewrite history by claiming that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were never used in modern textbooks. In a contradictory claim, some then concede that modern textbooks have used the drawings but argue that Haeckel’s work was only cited to provide some historical context to evolutionary theory—they assert that Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings have not been used to promote evolution in modern textbooks. They are wrong on both counts."

• (1) "They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;"
• (2) "They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;"
• (3) "Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry."

Piltdown Man

Evolution Fraud

The Fraud of Evolution

And there's much more more out there, even books written on the subject.

Do some honest research if you really think that science is an honest and trustworthy field of study.

This stuff should NOT be taught in schools, museums, zoos, or by huge organizations like the Smithsonian and National Geographic.

And now, I have much better things to do than to continue debating whether scientists actually are being 100% honest. Many of them are not. As I said, science is a field that is very much reliant on money and political power, and many scientists are only interested in seeking after these things. Many of them simply have too much to lose to care about being honest. Sometimes they are discovered, sometimes they are not, but the dishonesty continues.

Did anyone use Haeckel's drawings in the first few posts of the thread?

Why are you still avoiding the evidence that has been presented?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do some honest research if you really think that science is an honest and trustworthy field of study.

Is creationism an "honest and trustworthy field of study"? The fact of the matter is that the issues you have raised are being discussed by the scientific community. In other words, scientists have identified these issues (e.g., "publish or perish") and are working on solutions to overcome them, which includes examining the incentives governing publication practices. Where there are problems, they have been identified from within the scientific community, not without. The solutions are likewise going to be developed from within, not without, which is why we aren't likely to see creationists contributing to improvements in things like post doctoral training or publication practices.

And now, I have much better things to do than to continue debating whether scientists actually are being 100% honest. Many of them are not.

But no one claimed that scientists are "100% honest." You have an awful penchant for not responding to what was actually written by your interlocutors. We know that a certain percentage of papers are retracted, for various reasons. Some may contain flaws that undermine the authors' main conclusion. Others may have statistical errors. And some may even contain fraud. In every instance that a paper is retracted, however, that retraction occurs because scientists - either the authors themselves or other researchers - have identified something that warrants the paper's removal.

As I said, science is a field that is very much reliant on money and political power, and many scientists are only interested in seeking after these things.

As my mentor once said, rather candidly, "If money is what you are after, then science isn't for you."

Many of them simply have too much to lose to care about being honest. Sometimes they are discovered, sometimes they are not, but the dishonesty continues.

Deliberate dishonesty, particularly fraud, can have dire consequences for one's scientific career. Just ask Andrew Wakefield.

 

[amariselle]

Did anyone use Haeckel's drawings in the first few posts of the thread?

Why are you still avoiding the evidence that has been presented?

The field of science is rife with fraud. This is a fact.

As I said, I have nothing more to say.

I was asked for evidence to support my claim that scientists can be dishonest, and I have done so. (And there's much more out there)

Science is simply unreliable, I will put my faith and trust first and foremost in Jesus Christ.

Have a nice day.

 

[amariselle]

Is creationism an "honest and trustworthy field of study"? The fact of the matter is that the issues you have raised are being discussed by the scientific community. In other words, scientists have identified these issues (e.g., "publish or perish") and are working on solutions to overcome them, which includes examining the incentives governing publication practices. Where there are problems, they have been identified from within the scientific community, not without. The solutions are likewise going to be developed from within, not without, which is why we aren't likely to see creationists contributing to improvements in things like post doctoral training or publication practices.

But no one claimed that scientists are "100% honest." You have an awful penchant for not responding to what was actually written by your interlocutors. We know that a certain percentage of papers are retracted, for various reasons. Some may contain flaws that undermine the authors' main conclusion. Others may have statistical errors. And some may even contain fraud. In every instance that a paper is retracted, however, that retraction occurs because scientists - either the authors themselves or other researchers - have identified something that warrants the paper's removal.

As my mentor once said, rather candidly, "If money is what you are after, then science isn't for you."

Deliberate dishonesty, particularly fraud, can have dire consequences for one's scientific career. Just ask Andrew Wakefield.

Yes, I am well aware that science (scientists) police themselves, but, like it or not, there are many outside questions and criticisms, and they are completely valid.

I know you trust much of science and are even involved in some of it yourself. That's fine, you can of course continue to choose science over the Bible, but I will not.

I hope the rest of your day (or evening) is good.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The field of science is rife with fraud. This is a fact.

"Rife with fraud" implies that fraud is highly prevalent. What reason do you have for thinking that?

As I said, I have nothing more to say.

I was asked for evidence to support my claim that scientists can be dishonest, and I have done so. (And there's much more out there)

But no one denied that scientists can be dishonest. That wasn't in question. You were asked about specific instances of such dishonesty.

Science is simply unreliable, I will put my faith and trust first and foremost in Jesus Christ.

Unreliable? What leads you to that conclusion? It would seem that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I am well aware that science (scientists) police themselves, but, like it or not, there are many outside questions and criticisms, and they are completely valid. I know you trust much of science and are even involved in some of it yourself. That's fine, you can of course continue to choose science over the Bible, but I will not.

The "outside criticisms" seem to be that science is not perfect. But we never claimed that it was. In fact, the very reason that the scientific community cares about these issues is because it acknowledges the fallibility of those working within it. That's precisely why science is capable of improving over time and getting closer to the truth. Whereas in religion...

 

[amariselle]

"Rife with fraud" implies that fraud is highly prevalent. What reason do you have for thinking that?

The answer to this is quite obvious.

But no one denied that scientists can be dishonest. That wasn't in question. You were asked about specific instances of such dishonesty.

And I have given examples of such "instances of dishonesty."

Unreliable? What leads you to that conclusion? It would seem that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Do you really need to ask that question? The answer should be more than obvious by now.

And no, I am not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I do not reject ALL science, but I DO question much of it.

 

[bhsmte]

I would assume, anyone who feels they cant trust science and it was rife with fraud, would chose to refuse any of the daily conveniences, provided by science, unless they were hypocritical of course.

You know, live like the unibomber did, with no electricity, no car, not electronic devices and forgoing medical care because the science can not be trusted.

I wonder how many are true to themselves in this regard, or they use the conveniences provided by science, but demonize it, simply because it threatens their personal religious beliefs?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The answer to this is quite obvious.

Then share it.

And I have done so.

Yes, and you then went on to claim that fraud is rife in science and that science is unreliable. I don't see how that follows.

Do you really need to ask that question? The answer should be more than obvious by now.

And no, I am not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." I do not reject ALL science, but I DO question much of it.

You said that it's unreliable. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[amariselle]

The "outside criticisms" seem to be that science is not perfect. But we never claimed that it was. In fact, the very reason that the scientific community cares about these issues is because it acknowledges the fallibility of those working within it. That's precisely why science is capable of improving over time and getting closer to the truth. Whereas in religion...

Science has done no such thing. Scientists even continue to use, and put forward as evidence, things that were revealed as fraudulent years and years ago.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science has done no such thing. Scientists even continue to use, and put forward as evidence, things that were revealed as fraudulent years and years ago.

What do you mean it has done no such thing? What hasn't it done (in relation to my post)?

 

[bhsmte]

Then share it.

Yes, and you then went on to claim that fraud is rife in science and that science is unreliable. I don't see how that follows.

You said that it's unreliable. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I would imagine, the poster only tosses science that conflicts with their religious belief and accepts other science as 'true science'.

Far too painful for some to acknowledge evidence that conflicts with their religious beliefs, so those defense mechanisms are engaged, to deny the same.

 

[amariselle]

Then share it.

This is completely absurd, I already did.

Yes, and you then went on to claim that fraud is rife in science and that science is unreliable. I don't see how that follows.

Science is unreliable because it is rife with fraud, how does that NOT follow.

You said that it's unreliable. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Nope, that is an honest admission that it must be questioned and that much of what passes for "evidence" is highly questionable.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you would like me to simply accept science and its various claims as fact. (Without question)

Sorry, no can do.

Have a lovely day.

 

[bhsmte]

Science has done no such thing. Scientists even continue to use, and put forward as evidence, things that were revealed as fraudulent years and years ago.

Specific examples please.