The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Loudmouth]

The inability/unwillingness by some to admit to the very real problems and even outright lies throughout the field of science is, quite frankly, mind boggling.

Why would we admit to something that isn't true? Finding a handful of examples does not make science "rife with fraud".

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is, Haeckel's drawings were a key component in supporting the idea of a common ancestor.

That is also something you made up.

 

[Loudmouth]

As for God? He is not unreliable.

Mankind is, and they will twist and corrupt everything.

Mankind wrote the Bible, yet you trust it and refuse to even question it. Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

He based his theory on what he thought was true, which he recorded in his drawings, which have long been known to be inaccurate. It kind of falls apart for me at that point, sorry.

Haeckel was just one person. For the rest of science, the drawings weren't that important. The temporal distribution of fossils, biogeography, and the phylogeny of morphological characters were much, much more important pieces of information. Even Darwin didn't think much of Haeckel's concept of Ontogeny recapitulating Phylogeny.

Your argument falls apart for me at that point, sorry. If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then what does that say? If you make stuff up about the amount of fraud in science, what does that say?

 

[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.

 

[USincognito]

This thread was started to single out one member of the forum in order to criticize his rejection of Darwinian evolution and why he rejects it.

I have asked you politely to stop lying about me and my motivation for starting this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-7#post-69843529

 

[amariselle]

Scientific Research Misconduct Can Leave a Field in Disarray

Scientific Misconduct and Its Aftermath

Hwang Woo-suk

Science Fraud

Bruce Murdoch

Top Science Scandals of 2012

Diederik Stapel

False Positives: Fraud and Misconduct are Threatening Scienitfic Research

 

[USincognito]

Sorry Your thread didn't get the attention You required when you required it but no no one knew it was there.

That part of that comment to amariselle wasn't about you. It's not always about you.

No need to go paranoid on us with delusions you are being ignored, either be patient next time of give someone a heads up...simple

If you notice in the OP I included a tag @Kenny'sID . I was under the impression that if you tagged someone like that, they would get a notification.

That said, I just see more meta debate about me and the thread rather than any Creationist actually addressing the evidence for evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Again, are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

I think they are aware that creationism is not taught in schools. Darwinian evolution is though.

Creationists appear to think you can. This Act and Fact tract is from 1989 (and has some blatant errors, the case is Lemon v. Kurtzman, not Kurtzas), but it's still on the ICR website and is the first hit one gets if one Google's "can you teach creationism in public schools.
http://www.icr.org/article/teachers-can-teach-creation-science-classroom/

 

[USincognito]

Ever heard of the dover trial?

They tried to get it in the schools in that case and a conservative christian judge, told them they had zero evidence, that creationism should be taught along with the well evidenced scientific theory of evolution.

The Dover trial was really about ID and whether it was stealth Creationism. Creationism was already addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard.

 

[USincognito]

You mean you want me to address the flawed "evidence." Sorry. I have all the true evidence I need.

Vacuous rhetoric and scare quotes is not the same as actually addressing the evidence. Why do you keep avoiding doing so? Is it because you cannot?

 

[USincognito]

Perhaps some people think that their wise sounding terminology, like "cognitive dissonance", "strawman" etc. , really does make them wise.

In fact I see these terms thrown about carelessly and conveniently all over this forum in a convenient attempt to evade the real issue and address actual questions and concerns.

Apparently all you have to do is yell, "STRAWMAN!" And you're off the hook.

Nice.

Oh the irony...

 

[USincognito]

Perhaps based on the fragmentary fossil record, which scientists and researchers then attempt to make credible by using computer models to fill in HUGE gaps.

Fragmentary?

 

[amariselle]

I have asked you politely to stop lying about me and my motivation for starting this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-7#post-69843529

Were you or were you not attempting to get Kenny to admit that Darwinian evolution is factual, based on the evidence?

He seemed to think so anyway:

I'll address it but I assure you it will be short/sweet/ disappointing and unacceptable to many, so don't really see the point.

let me say right off, and as I've said before, I've seen your evidence before and it does not make evolution believable to me. I have already told you why, and what my logic is, so first you tell me, what is the point of this?

If you want to pat yourselves on the back with a "see I told you so, I/we really do have evidence" then do that.
You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. And honestly you just don't have much if anything in the way of proof...just very weak stuff you claim is proof. Wait, that's not right, science proves nothing so, you don't have that much if anything in the way of compelling evidence. The compelling evidence God did it, is much much more viable than your evidence or what you call evidence, and I already explained why for me....end of story.

In my view, for the most part anyway, it's all contrived out of the want to believe no creator exists, in order to let yourselves off the hook with God....that is the root of it all. And what is hilarious to me is all the so-called smart people that are running wild with this, and are 100% positive they have something. If you could step back and see this from the perspective some of us do you'd get it. But you won't allow yourselves to do that, because seeing it would make fools of yourselves. For that reason there is no stopping you now, you/others have obligated yourselves, and instead of admitting the truth that got you into this pickle, you will take it with you to your graves and beyond.

Why are you trying so hard to get me to think as you do? You certainly don't need my blessing for you to believe evolution, so what is the driving force here? God is not going away even if you did convince me.

You seemed quite intent on offering evidence that would somehow discredit the decision Kenny has already made regarding evolution. Why else would you start an entire new thread about this, directed specifically at him?

But since I'm "lying" about that, please set me straight on what your real goal and purpose for this thread was.

 

[bhsmte]

The Dover trial was really about ID and whether it was stealth Creationism. Creationism was already addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard.

If not mistaken, the judge commented about id being creationism in sheeps clothing.

 

[amariselle]

Fragmentary?

Seriously, what in the world does that prove? Those are 3 separate pictures of three entirely distinct species. I've seen countless skeletons like them.

There is no demonstrable link evident between those skeletons. The most it indicates is that there were some rather strange looking creatures (the last two photos) at one time.

 

[USincognito]

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.

You list of red herrings has been addressed numerous times on this forum.
Haeckel is addressed here:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf
Piltdown had it's own formal debate:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-should-not-be-cited-by-creationists.2892470/
The "Evolution Fraud" page is full of lies and distortions. Not only do they lie about Nebraska "man", but they use a photo of Selam and refer to him as Lucy.

Of course none of these things address the posts on the first page. Why do you continue avoiding actually addressing the evidence?

 

[USincognito]

Seriously, what in the world does that prove? Those are 3 separate pictures of three entirely distinct species. I've seen countless skeletons like them.

There is no demonstrable link evident between those skeletons. The most it indicates is that there were some rather strange looking creatures (the last two photos) at one time.

I'm not expecting you to grasp the significance of the second and third ones, but my point was that we have fossils that are anything but "fragmentary". While we're at it though, is the top one "fully ape" or "fully human".

 

[amariselle]

You list of red herrings has been addressed numerous times on this forum.
Haeckel is addressed here:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf
Piltdown had it's own formal debate:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-should-not-be-cited-by-creationists.2892470/
The "Evolution Fraud" page is full of lies and distortions. Not only do they lie about Nebraska "man", but they use a photo of Selam and refer to him as Lucy.

Of course none of these things address the posts on the first page. Why do you continue avoiding actually addressing the evidence?

Hmmm....maybe because I don't care? I don't think modern day science is trustworthy in any overall sense. And when I said that in my initial post, I was asked to give reasons to support such a statement, so I did.

But hey, by all means, continue putting your faith in science, but don't be surprised that not everyone is willing to do so. It is, after all, a highly flawed field of study, and so, it should quite rightly be questioned.

Oh, and I posted about 19 separate links to some serious issues in science, you definitely haven't addressed them all.

But, no matter, I am not willing to uphold science as such a marvelous and nearly flawless field of study, as some are.

The wonderful thing is, we all get to choose for ourselves.

 

[amariselle]

I'm not expecting you to grasp the significance of the second and third ones, but my point was that we have fossils that are anything but "fragmentary". While we're at it though, is the top one "fully ape" or "fully human".

I think you completely misunderstood what I meant by the fragmentary fossil record, but, oh well.