Another Flood Question

[Gene2memE]

God requires Faith.

Is there any belief position you cannot take with faith?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Is there any belief position you cannot take with faith?

Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not a "conventional scientific theory." The only reason people assert a literal flood is because of religious reasons, not scientific.

Sorry, my question is a little confusing. I think those of us at the start of the conversation straightened it out back toward the beginning of the thread somewhere. I was asking if the Flood would likely be a scientific theory today, if it wasn't a bible account instead. I didn’t mean it is a conventional scientific theory. I was suggesting that if it wasn’t in the bible, some conventional scientists may have jumped all over it as a possible theory (instead of fighting it). Something like that anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me?

You've read every one of my posts, have you?

We were talking about your responses to me. You tried and failed, I will grant you that but you simply can't explain it, unless you go back to your standard policy of calling God a liar when cornered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, my question is a little confusing. I think those of us at the start of the conversation straightened it out back toward the beginning of the thread somewhere. I was asking if the Flood would likely be a scientific theory today, if it wasn't a bible account instead. I didn’t mean it is a conventional scientific theory. I was suggesting that if it wasn’t in the bible, some conventional scientists may have jumped all over it as a possible theory (instead of fighting it). Something like that anyway.

No, because the evidence clearly does not support such an idea. Theories have to be supported by evidence. Just because a scientist comes up with an idea it is never automatically accepted.

And what makes you think that scientists "fought it"? The earliest of geologists went looking for evidence to confirm the flood. They were not trying to fight it. They found that the evidence said "No."

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, my question is a little confusing. I think those of us at the start of the conversation straightened it out back toward the beginning of the thread somewhere. I was asking if the Flood would likely be a scientific theory today, if it wasn't a bible account instead. I didn’t mean it is a conventional scientific theory. I was suggesting that if it wasn’t in the bible, some conventional scientists may have jumped all over it as a possible theory (instead of fighting it). Something like that anyway.

Got it. In that case, there is no evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood.

 

[majj27]

The earth is not in a solar (sun centre) system. (heliocentric)

The earth is at the centre of creation. (geocentric)

The earth is flat and motionless. (sun created on day 4 in the firmament)

The windows of the heaven (firmament) opened up and flooded the circle of the earth.

The sun and the moon are smaller and closer (in the firmament).

Believe the bible not the global deception.

The Earth is obviously not flat. If it was, the cats would have knocked everything off it by now.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth is obviously not flat. If it was, the cats would have knocked everything off it by now.

Ain't that the truth!!!

 

[inquiring mind]

Got it. In that case, there is no evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood.

Sure there is... all you have to do is google it.
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure there is... all you have to do is google it.
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Sorry, not a valid source. For example there are no such things as "polsytrate fossils". Yes, there are tall fossils of trees, but they do not penetrate strata. Trees can and do stand for hundreds of years after dying in the right circumstances. Relatively rapid, hundreds of years, of burial can and will cover and preserve them. That is just the first error that was obvious.

The writer of that blog had no idea what "scientific evidence" is.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure there is... all you have to do is google it.
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Maybe I should have been clearer. There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood.

And you should stay away from creationist sites, they lie.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The Earth is obviously not flat. If it was, the cats would have knocked everything off it by now.

Snowball loves contemplating the heavens.

 

[pitabread]

Sure there is... all you have to do is google it.
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Was that page made in the 1990's? That was some old-school website design.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Maybe I should have been clearer. There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood.

And you should stay away from creationist sites, they lie.

Because all peer reviewed scientific journals have been 100%

I still smoke cigs.

Big tobacco and science... ─ UC Davis Health System Feature Story

"After combing through nearly 50 million pages of previously secret, internal tobacco-industry documents, UC Davis and UC San Francisco researchers say they have documented for the first time how the industry funded and used scientific studies to undermine evidence linking secondhand smoke to cardiovascular disease."

--

This Is Why a Lot of Peer-Reviewed Research Is Wrong

"Science is hard. If you want to make a new discovery, you not only have to observe an effect, test your hypothesis, have it peer-reviewed and published - your idea also has to stand up to rigorous independent testing.

That's called the scientific method, and it's how we attempt to eliminate most flukes and false positives from published research.

But, as the latest episode of Veritasium explains, despite this lengthy process, a lot of peer-reviewed research out there is actually wrong, and it highlights a serious problem in the way we do science.

So what's going on? A lot of it comes down to one problem: data can't speak for itself, and always has to be interpreted by someone. And unfortunately, humans are an unpredictable variable."

--

"But the important thing to know here is that most scientists aren't doing this maliciously - a lot of these false results are a symptom of the system: the only way to get jobs is to publish papers, and you don't publish papers with non-significant or replicated results."

--

Money money money.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because all peer reviewed scientific journals have been 100%

I still smoke cigs.

Big tobacco and science... ─ UC Davis Health System Feature Story

"After combing through nearly 50 million pages of previously secret, internal tobacco-industry documents, UC Davis and UC San Francisco researchers say they have documented for the first time how the industry funded and used scientific studies to undermine evidence linking secondhand smoke to cardiovascular disease."

--

This Is Why a Lot of Peer-Reviewed Research Is Wrong

"Science is hard. If you want to make a new discovery, you not only have to observe an effect, test your hypothesis, have it peer-reviewed and published - your idea also has to stand up to rigorous independent testing.

That's called the scientific method, and it's how we attempt to eliminate most flukes and false positives from published research.

But, as the latest episode of Veritasium explains, despite this lengthy process, a lot of peer-reviewed research out there is actually wrong, and it highlights a serious problem in the way we do science.

So what's going on? A lot of it comes down to one problem: data can't speak for itself, and always has to be interpreted by someone. And unfortunately, humans are an unpredictable variable."

--

"But the important thing to know here is that most scientists aren't doing this maliciously - a lot of these false results are a symptom of the system: the only way to get jobs is to publish papers, and you don't publish papers with non-significant or replicated results."

--

Money money money.

Articles that you do not understand are not evidence for your side.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Articles that you do not understand are not evidence for your side.

The evidence is in that man loves $ and because of this he is willing to do much evil.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Articles that you do not understand are not evidence for your side.

And man has a big ego to, especially in academic circles.

Evolution Fraud and Myths

"Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!"


---
Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia

Brazil[edit]

• Denis de Jesus Lima Guerra was fired from the Federal University of Mato Grosso in 2014 after having 13 papers retracted, in what is considered the biggest case of scientific fraud in Brazil.[53]

Canada[edit]

• Gideon Koren's publication of article without informed consent of co-author Nancy Olivieri.[54]
• In 2015, Ranjit Chandra was stripped of his Order of Canada membership after accusations of scientific wrongdoing[55]

China[edit]

• H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[56][57]

Denmark[edit]

• Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research funds.[58][59][60]

France[edit]

• Olivier Voinnet (plant biology) has been suspended from the CNRS (the French National Centre for Scientific Research) for 2 years in 2015. In 2016 the EMBO took back the Gold Medal awarded to Voinnet in 2009.[61][62]

Germany[edit]

• Joachim Boldt (drug research), stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible forgery of up to 90 research studies.[63]
• Silvia Bulfone-Paus (immunology), 13 peer-reviewed journal articles retracted following investigations of alleged misconduct.[64]
• Jan Hendrik Schön (physics of semiconductors), forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.[65]
• Friedhelm Herrmann (cancer research). Fraud investigation concludes that self-regulation has failed.[66]

Iran[edit]
There are many networks buying and selling ISI articles and theses in Iran.[67] Iran does not follow a clear policy on plagiarism, and lacks a comprehensive law in this regard. This has been announced by the head of Tehran University as a national crisis in Iran.[68]

• Masoumeh Ebtekar, head of Iranian Department of Environment has served at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran as a faculty member. On 7 October 2008, eTBLAST, a text similarity search engine on MEDLINE database, noted that 85% of a paper published by Masoumeh Ebtekar came from several previously published articles. The paper, on cytokines and air pollution, was published in 2006 in the Iran Journal of Allergy Asthma Immunology (IJAAI) 5 47-56:2006.[69][70]
• 58 scientific publications from Iran-based researchers were retracted by publishers due to the probable plagiarisms in November 2016.[71]
• In another case against Ali Akbar Mehrabian, Hossein Hashemi reformist MP and head of parliament's industry committee (that the time is now Tehran governor) said after scrutiny of the safe room project in favor of Ali Akbar Mehrabian voted court and the statements of the plaintiff's claim rejected.[72][73][74][73][75][72][76]

Israel[edit]

• Alexander Spivak, a tenured senior lecturer at Holon Institute of Technology (HIT), plagiarized a paper [77] written in 2001 by his former postdoctoral adviser and two other researchers from Tel Aviv University. Two chapters of their original paper were copied-and-pasted and published, as two separate articles, in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (IJPAM) seven years later. After the plagiarism was discovered in 2014, both papers were retracted [78][79] by the IJPAM Managing Editor. The HIT administration's handling of the plagiarism affair received harsh criticism in Israel [80] and abroad [81] after the plagiator was given a sabbatical. In May 2015, yet another paper [82] by Spivak was retracted [83] from the NumAn-2014 Conference Proceedings.

Japan[edit]

• Teruji Cho (Plasma Physics). Cho and three coworkers falsified raw data reported in a research paper. Cho was dismissed by the University of Tsukuba.[84]
• Yoshitaka Fujii (anaesthesiology) was found to have fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of papers by a single author requiring retractions.[85][86]
• Akio Sugino (molecular biology) was fired by Osaka University after an investigating committee found he had fabricated research data.[87][88]
• Kazunari Taira (molecular biology). An investigation by the University of Tokyo found a "high possibility" that fraud was involved in a series of RNA studies from Taira's laboratory. Taira's contract was not renewed.[89][90][91]

Netherlands[edit]

• Mart Bax (anthropology) – Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.[92][93][94][95]

• Jens Förster (social psychology) – Fabricated data. Förster is a German social psychologist who held a chair as professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam from 2007 to May 2014. An anonymous whistleblower alerted the university in 2012 to a strong regularity in data from studies published by Förster that was extremely unlikely for data obtained in the field. After examination of the evidence, an integrity committee at the university concluded that the patterns in the published data were "practically impossible". One of the studies was retracted in November 2014, after Förster had already left for a prestigious appointment as Alexander von Humboldt Professor at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany. In April 2015, Ruhr University announced that Förster had withdrawn his candidacy for the professorship.[96] A subsequent report by an investigative panel commissioned by the University of Amsterdam published in June 2015 found "strong evidence for low veracity" in eight further studies authored by Förster.[97]
• Diederik Stapel (social psychology) – Fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour.[98] Stapel committed scientific fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students. According to the New York Times, Stapel "perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world what it wanted to hear about human nature."[99]

Norway[edit]

• A researcher employed by a Norwegian hospital (Stavanger universitetssjukehus) analyzed samples of spinal fluid from patients, after the researcher had added a substance to the sample.[100]
• Jon Sudbø fabricated data for a study that reported "nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced the risk of oral cancer".[101]

Romania[edit]

• Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.
• Ioan Mang, a computer scientist at the University of Oradea, plagiarized a paper by cryptographer Eli Biham,[102] Dean of the Computer Science Department of Technion, Haifa, Israel. He was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.[103][104][105][106]

Singapore[edit]

• Alirio Menendez, a professor of immunology, was found guilty of misconduct on an "unprecedented" scale by a committee at the National University of Singapore (NUS), by having fabricated, falsified or plagiarized at least 21 research papers published in international academic journals. Menendez originally worked at NUS but moved to the UK in 2007, where he first worked at the University of Glasgow and next the University of Liverpool.[107]

South Africa[edit]

• Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[108]

South Korea[edit]

• Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning).[109]

Spain[edit]

• Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray.[110] (chemical physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[111] because of plagiarism.
• José Román-Gómez, University of Córdoba (Spain), appropriation of gel images in claimed work on signalling[112] and DNA methylation[113] in leukaemia

Switzerland[edit]

• Bruno Frey slammed for self-plagiarism in articles about the Titanic disaster .[114][115]

United Kingdom[edit]

• Researchers at Cranfield University – aircraft cabin air contamination – fudged data and inappropriate methodology.[116][117][118]
• Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine).[119][120][121]
• Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy.[26]
• Andrew Wakefield - Fraudulent paper in The Lancet associating the MMR vaccine with autism.

United States[edit]

• Edward Awh and graduate student David Anderson (neuroscience), have retracted nine empirical papers in 2015 and 2016, due to data fabrication.[122][123] This was named one of the Top 10 Retractions of 2015 by The Scientist.[124]
• John Darsee (cardiology) – data fabrication as well as errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.[125]
• Dipak Das was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.[126]
• Terry Elton was found guilty of misconduct by both Ohio State University and the Office of Research Integrity.
• Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[127][128][129] The United States Office of Research Integrity found that data falsification altered five published articles first-authored by Jennifer Lerner. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
• Dong-Pyou Han was an assistant professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University who spiked samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise.[130]
• Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[131]
• Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories fabricated research data to the extent that upon FDA analysis of 867 studies, 618 (71%) were deemed invalid, including many of which were used to gain regulatory approval for widely used household and industrial products.[132][133]
• Michael LaCour, a graduate student in political science at UCLA, was the lead author of an article published in Science with Donald P. Green (2014) that purported to demonstrate that it is possible to change peoples' minds on socially divisive issues such as gay marriage, via direct contact and conversations with gay people. The study's findings made international headlines and received wide media attention, and was critiqued by Donald P. Green's students: David Broockman, Joshua Kalla, and Peter Aronow on May 19, 2015, titled "Irregularities in LaCour (2014)".[134] Co-author of the study, Donald Green, subsequently requested that the paper be retracted. Despite the fact that, Donald Green, as senior author on the Science paper, certified that he had examined the raw/original data on his Science/AAAS Authorship Form and Statement of Conflicts of Interest.[135] The Science terms include, prominently, the following statement: ``The senior author from each group is required to have examined the raw data their group has produced."[136] On May 28, 2015, the study was retracted by Science.[137] without the agreement of the lead author.[138]
• H.M. Krishna Murthy, while at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, had nine papers on protein structures retracted because his experimental findings appear to be false or fabricated.[139]
• Victor Ninov[140] (nuclear physics)
• Ohio University had a plagiarism crisis in the 2000s when severe plagiarism in MS theses was discovered. This resulted in the firing of two tenured professors, Dr. Gunasekara and Dr. Mehta of the Mechanical Engineering Department and multiple institutional changes.[141] Plagiarism included that by current professor at Miami University [142]
• Leo Paquette (chemist), an Ohio State University professor who had plagiarized sections from an unfunded NIH grant application for use in his own NIH grant application[143] and had plagiarized a NSF proposal for use in one of his scientific publications.[144][145]
• Eric Poehlman, a researcher on aging at the University of Vermont, was prosecuted for grant fraud in 2005 after falsifying data in as many as 17 grant applications in a period of over eight years. He was the first academic in the United States to be jailed for falsifying data in a grant application.[146]
• Anil Potti (cancer researcher), formerly at Duke University, is the subject of a scientific misconduct investigation alleging that he falsified results of cancer genomics data. To date, ten of his publications have been retracted.[147]
• Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[148]
• Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on at least five experiments while at Harvard University on research regarding gender and discrimination in studies supported by NIH[149][150][151]
• Eric J. Smart, nutrition researcher, associate professor and vice-chairman of the Department of Pediatrics and the Barnstable-Brown Chair in Diabetes Research at the University of Kentucky, was censured in November 2012 by the US government’s Office of Research Integrity for a career of scientific misconduct that lasted over 10 years.[152] According to the allegations in the report, published in the Federal Register, he falsified data in at least 10 papers and many grant applications.[153]
• Alfred Steinschneider – Sleep apnea, Pursued a theory on the causes of SIDS even though his research never really supported it. He and his disciples eventually channeled tens of millions of dollars in federal grant money to research programs based on Steinschneider's hunch, even though the theory was never demonstrable or duplicable in the lab.[44][45][109][154][155][156]
• Marc Straus has admitted that as lead researcher he took responsibility for fabricated data in oncology studies at the Boston University School of Medicine in the late 1970s.[157][158]
• Luk Van Parijs (biology) – multiple retractions and criminal conviction for grant fraud[159]
• Weishui Weiser (immunology), falsifying data in biomedical research supported by two Public Health Service (PHS) grants.[160][161]

 

[Ophiolite]

And man has a big ego to, especially in academic circles.

Evolution Fraud and Myths

"Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!"


---
Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia

Brazil[edit]

• Denis de Jesus Lima Guerra was fired from the Federal University of Mato Grosso in 2014 after having 13 papers retracted, in what is considered the biggest case of scientific fraud in Brazil.[53]

Canada[edit]

• Gideon Koren's publication of article without informed consent of co-author Nancy Olivieri.[54]
• In 2015, Ranjit Chandra was stripped of his Order of Canada membership after accusations of scientific wrongdoing[55]

China[edit]

• H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[56][57]

Denmark[edit]

• Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research funds.[58][59][60]

France[edit]

• Olivier Voinnet (plant biology) has been suspended from the CNRS (the French National Centre for Scientific Research) for 2 years in 2015. In 2016 the EMBO took back the Gold Medal awarded to Voinnet in 2009.[61][62]

Germany[edit]

• Joachim Boldt (drug research), stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible forgery of up to 90 research studies.[63]
• Silvia Bulfone-Paus (immunology), 13 peer-reviewed journal articles retracted following investigations of alleged misconduct.[64]
• Jan Hendrik Schön (physics of semiconductors), forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.[65]
• Friedhelm Herrmann (cancer research). Fraud investigation concludes that self-regulation has failed.[66]

Iran[edit]
There are many networks buying and selling ISI articles and theses in Iran.[67] Iran does not follow a clear policy on plagiarism, and lacks a comprehensive law in this regard. This has been announced by the head of Tehran University as a national crisis in Iran.[68]

• Masoumeh Ebtekar, head of Iranian Department of Environment has served at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran as a faculty member. On 7 October 2008, eTBLAST, a text similarity search engine on MEDLINE database, noted that 85% of a paper published by Masoumeh Ebtekar came from several previously published articles. The paper, on cytokines and air pollution, was published in 2006 in the Iran Journal of Allergy Asthma Immunology (IJAAI) 5 47-56:2006.[69][70]
• 58 scientific publications from Iran-based researchers were retracted by publishers due to the probable plagiarisms in November 2016.[71]
• In another case against Ali Akbar Mehrabian, Hossein Hashemi reformist MP and head of parliament's industry committee (that the time is now Tehran governor) said after scrutiny of the safe room project in favor of Ali Akbar Mehrabian voted court and the statements of the plaintiff's claim rejected.[72][73][74][73][75][72][76]

Israel[edit]

• Alexander Spivak, a tenured senior lecturer at Holon Institute of Technology (HIT), plagiarized a paper [77] written in 2001 by his former postdoctoral adviser and two other researchers from Tel Aviv University. Two chapters of their original paper were copied-and-pasted and published, as two separate articles, in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (IJPAM) seven years later. After the plagiarism was discovered in 2014, both papers were retracted [78][79] by the IJPAM Managing Editor. The HIT administration's handling of the plagiarism affair received harsh criticism in Israel [80] and abroad [81] after the plagiator was given a sabbatical. In May 2015, yet another paper [82] by Spivak was retracted [83] from the NumAn-2014 Conference Proceedings.

Japan[edit]

• Teruji Cho (Plasma Physics). Cho and three coworkers falsified raw data reported in a research paper. Cho was dismissed by the University of Tsukuba.[84]
• Yoshitaka Fujii (anaesthesiology) was found to have fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of papers by a single author requiring retractions.[85][86]
• Akio Sugino (molecular biology) was fired by Osaka University after an investigating committee found he had fabricated research data.[87][88]
• Kazunari Taira (molecular biology). An investigation by the University of Tokyo found a "high possibility" that fraud was involved in a series of RNA studies from Taira's laboratory. Taira's contract was not renewed.[89][90][91]

Netherlands[edit]

• Mart Bax (anthropology) – Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.[92][93][94][95]

• Jens Förster (social psychology) – Fabricated data. Förster is a German social psychologist who held a chair as professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam from 2007 to May 2014. An anonymous whistleblower alerted the university in 2012 to a strong regularity in data from studies published by Förster that was extremely unlikely for data obtained in the field. After examination of the evidence, an integrity committee at the university concluded that the patterns in the published data were "practically impossible". One of the studies was retracted in November 2014, after Förster had already left for a prestigious appointment as Alexander von Humboldt Professor at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany. In April 2015, Ruhr University announced that Förster had withdrawn his candidacy for the professorship.[96] A subsequent report by an investigative panel commissioned by the University of Amsterdam published in June 2015 found "strong evidence for low veracity" in eight further studies authored by Förster.[97]
• Diederik Stapel (social psychology) – Fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour.[98] Stapel committed scientific fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students. According to the New York Times, Stapel "perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world what it wanted to hear about human nature."[99]

Norway[edit]

• A researcher employed by a Norwegian hospital (Stavanger universitetssjukehus) analyzed samples of spinal fluid from patients, after the researcher had added a substance to the sample.[100]
• Jon Sudbø fabricated data for a study that reported "nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced the risk of oral cancer".[101]

Romania[edit]

• Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a manuscript which was more-or-less word for word the same as a paper written by another author.
• Ioan Mang, a computer scientist at the University of Oradea, plagiarized a paper by cryptographer Eli Biham,[102] Dean of the Computer Science Department of Technion, Haifa, Israel. He was accused of extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic papers.[103][104][105][106]

Singapore[edit]

• Alirio Menendez, a professor of immunology, was found guilty of misconduct on an "unprecedented" scale by a committee at the National University of Singapore (NUS), by having fabricated, falsified or plagiarized at least 21 research papers published in international academic journals. Menendez originally worked at NUS but moved to the UK in 2007, where he first worked at the University of Glasgow and next the University of Liverpool.[107]

South Africa[edit]

• Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[108]

South Korea[edit]

• Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning).[109]

Spain[edit]

• Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray.[110] (chemical physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[111] because of plagiarism.
• José Román-Gómez, University of Córdoba (Spain), appropriation of gel images in claimed work on signalling[112] and DNA methylation[113] in leukaemia

Switzerland[edit]

• Bruno Frey slammed for self-plagiarism in articles about the Titanic disaster .[114][115]

United Kingdom[edit]

• Researchers at Cranfield University – aircraft cabin air contamination – fudged data and inappropriate methodology.[116][117][118]
• Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine).[119][120][121]
• Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy.[26]
• Andrew Wakefield - Fraudulent paper in The Lancet associating the MMR vaccine with autism.

United States[edit]

• Edward Awh and graduate student David Anderson (neuroscience), have retracted nine empirical papers in 2015 and 2016, due to data fabrication.[122][123] This was named one of the Top 10 Retractions of 2015 by The Scientist.[124]
• John Darsee (cardiology) – data fabrication as well as errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.[125]
• Dipak Das was found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.[126]
• Terry Elton was found guilty of misconduct by both Ohio State University and the Office of Research Integrity.
• Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[127][128][129] The United States Office of Research Integrity found that data falsification altered five published articles first-authored by Jennifer Lerner. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
• Dong-Pyou Han was an assistant professor of biomedical sciences at Iowa State University who spiked samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise.[130]
• Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[131]
• Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories fabricated research data to the extent that upon FDA analysis of 867 studies, 618 (71%) were deemed invalid, including many of which were used to gain regulatory approval for widely used household and industrial products.[132][133]
• Michael LaCour, a graduate student in political science at UCLA, was the lead author of an article published in Science with Donald P. Green (2014) that purported to demonstrate that it is possible to change peoples' minds on socially divisive issues such as gay marriage, via direct contact and conversations with gay people. The study's findings made international headlines and received wide media attention, and was critiqued by Donald P. Green's students: David Broockman, Joshua Kalla, and Peter Aronow on May 19, 2015, titled "Irregularities in LaCour (2014)".[134] Co-author of the study, Donald Green, subsequently requested that the paper be retracted. Despite the fact that, Donald Green, as senior author on the Science paper, certified that he had examined the raw/original data on his Science/AAAS Authorship Form and Statement of Conflicts of Interest.[135] The Science terms include, prominently, the following statement: ``The senior author from each group is required to have examined the raw data their group has produced."[136] On May 28, 2015, the study was retracted by Science.[137] without the agreement of the lead author.[138]
• H.M. Krishna Murthy, while at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, had nine papers on protein structures retracted because his experimental findings appear to be false or fabricated.[139]
• Victor Ninov[140] (nuclear physics)
• Ohio University had a plagiarism crisis in the 2000s when severe plagiarism in MS theses was discovered. This resulted in the firing of two tenured professors, Dr. Gunasekara and Dr. Mehta of the Mechanical Engineering Department and multiple institutional changes.[141] Plagiarism included that by current professor at Miami University [142]
• Leo Paquette (chemist), an Ohio State University professor who had plagiarized sections from an unfunded NIH grant application for use in his own NIH grant application[143] and had plagiarized a NSF proposal for use in one of his scientific publications.[144][145]
• Eric Poehlman, a researcher on aging at the University of Vermont, was prosecuted for grant fraud in 2005 after falsifying data in as many as 17 grant applications in a period of over eight years. He was the first academic in the United States to be jailed for falsifying data in a grant application.[146]
• Anil Potti (cancer researcher), formerly at Duke University, is the subject of a scientific misconduct investigation alleging that he falsified results of cancer genomics data. To date, ten of his publications have been retracted.[147]
• Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[148]
• Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on at least five experiments while at Harvard University on research regarding gender and discrimination in studies supported by NIH[149][150][151]
• Eric J. Smart, nutrition researcher, associate professor and vice-chairman of the Department of Pediatrics and the Barnstable-Brown Chair in Diabetes Research at the University of Kentucky, was censured in November 2012 by the US government’s Office of Research Integrity for a career of scientific misconduct that lasted over 10 years.[152] According to the allegations in the report, published in the Federal Register, he falsified data in at least 10 papers and many grant applications.[153]
• Alfred Steinschneider – Sleep apnea, Pursued a theory on the causes of SIDS even though his research never really supported it. He and his disciples eventually channeled tens of millions of dollars in federal grant money to research programs based on Steinschneider's hunch, even though the theory was never demonstrable or duplicable in the lab.[44][45][109][154][155][156]
• Marc Straus has admitted that as lead researcher he took responsibility for fabricated data in oncology studies at the Boston University School of Medicine in the late 1970s.[157][158]
• Luk Van Parijs (biology) – multiple retractions and criminal conviction for grant fraud[159]
• Weishui Weiser (immunology), falsifying data in biomedical research supported by two Public Health Service (PHS) grants.[160][161]

You do realise that these abuses were identified by scientists, following the scientific method.

I would never attack Christianity because of corrupt TV evangelists, or pedophile priests. Are you demanding a different approach for science, where the unacceptable behaviour of a few is used to condemn the majority?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

You do realise that these abuses were identified by scientists, following the scientific method.

I would never attack Christianity because of corrupt TV evangelists, or pedophile priests. Are you demanding a different approach for science, where the unacceptable behaviour of a few is used to condemn the majority?

Just cause to not believe "There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood." being the end of the story.

Or, God doesn't exist because there is (no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest He exists) being the end of the story.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just cause to not believe "There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood." being the end of the story.

Or, God doesn't exist because there is (no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest He exists) being the end of the story.

Sorry, I find those sentences difficult to parse*. Do you want to try again?

*Actually, I don't think they do parse, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.