Issues in Scienceville.

[Inan3]

I have been accused of lying and not providing evidence that Scienceville is not the unadulterated picture of integrity that many would like to paint. In this thread I will attempt to provide the evidence as I collect it over time.

Over the years I have read and seen various articles and news accounts of information supporting my opinions but unfortunately I have not documented them or saved them to be used in this forum as evidence. Of course, I had no reason to do that until now. My only reason now is to show that I do not lie nor do I fraudulantly suggest such things. I have no reason to deceive people here on this forum.

Now while you may disagree and show to me that these articles and premises are false, it does not change the fact that I have seen various information regarding the many different "goings on" in Scienceville and the world it lives in and therefore I have reached the conclusions and opinions I have in light of them. I have not fabricated them or lied about them nor am I alone in my persuasions of them. I don't lie nor do I need to or want to. I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing so.

The articles I draw from will be both Christian and secular. I will add, when I can the reference and or website I obtained it from. Also, I will highlight what words I feel of importance to my point.

First article "Darwinism in a Flutter" - Christian source.

"But while Miss Medawar was telling the little children this assured proof of Darwinism the American lepidopterist, Ted Sargent, was having serious misgivings with the whole story, but no one wanted to know. Sargent's research was ignored by the scientific community and his career stymied. Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views were dismissed as "heresy". But the evidence grew and in 1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished, reviewing it in 'Nature', said his shock at the extent of the doubts was like discovering as a child "that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas eve.""

"Judith Hooper's book raises the question as to why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. It became on of the dogma of unbelieving scientists"

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

 

[Hespera]

there is no scienceville so thats a bad start

as for this...

unadulterated picture of integrity that many

who are these "many" who think this?

must be dumb to think that. who are they?



As for your statement that you do not fabricate or lie, i wouldnt say that you do so, as such. I think you are very careless in your sourcing and very biased in your interpretation.

What i see you do is to apply a great deal of attitude to what you say, and to exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent.
You make all manner of statements of facts, which are actually facts not in evidence. Opinions stated as facts. Sometimes it drifts into fabrication, you certainly have made up things about me that are totally untrue.

One of the most outstanding characteristics i see in all the creationists I have ever encountered is an extreme bias toward beleif without question those things that support their presupposition. A person with intellectual integrity, would not fail to do his due diligence in fact checking but we dont see this from creationists. And when they are corrected they never will admit they are wrong. Its my theory that they are psychologically incapable of it, and so far, its never been falsified.

You are setting out to slam the integrity of others, which is fine, good sport, one does not have to be perfect before making comments.

We notice you are defending your integrity, concerning allegations that you lie, dont provide evidence, fabricate etc.

Which appears to me that you are saying your integrity is in good shape but them people in "scienceville" have a (systemic) integrity problem.

This may not be the greatest road for you to go down.

 

[Biologist]

I don't really think you are lying. I think your sources are. In fact, I know most of your sources are. I've had many run ins with profession creationists and profession science 'skeptics.' Most of what they say is so riddled with lies, you best ignore them. To give an example of this Dr. Brad Harrub told a crowd of people at my old high school that the way "Evolutionists" explain polystrate trees is that either the stood there for millions of years for the layers of sediment to build up or they grow through solid rock. Ironically, while showing a picture of polystrate trees from a book that gives our actual explanation.

"In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words 'Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]' frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.
"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

Although, I will note some of you claims the hospitals forced you to take anti-depressant medications against your will are highly suspect. I would have to have more information on the situation surrounding that claim before I could say anything for sure though. I used to be an EMT, so I know that being 'forced' was almost certainly not the case.

 

[Inan3]

there is no scienceville so thats a bad start

as for this...who are these "many" who think this?

must be dumb to think that. who are they?



As for your statement that you do not fabricate or lie, i wouldnt say that you do so, as such. I think you are very careless in your sourcing and very biased in your interpretation.

What i see you do is to apply a great deal of attitude to what you say, and to exaggerate, distort, and misrepresent.
You make all manner of statements of facts, which are actually facts not in evidence. Opinions stated as facts. Sometimes it drifts into fabrication, you certainly have made up things about me that are totally untrue.

One of the most outstanding characteristics i see in all the creationists I have ever encountered is an extreme bias toward beleif without question those things that support their presupposition. A person with intellectual integrity, would not fail to do his due diligence in fact checking but we dont see this from creationists. And when they are corrected they never will admit they are wrong. Its my theory that they are psychologically incapable of it, and so far, its never been falsified.

You are setting out to slam the integrity of others, which is fine, good sport, one does not have to be perfect before making comments.

We notice you are defending your integrity, concerning allegations that you lie, dont provide evidence, fabricate etc.

Which appears to me that you are saying your integrity is in good shape but them people in "scienceville" have a (systemic) integrity problem.

This may not be the greatest road for you to go down.

Thanks for your viewpoint, Hespera. I won't be responding directly to it because I find it to be wrong on several points and I don't want to get into it with you.

 

[Hespera]

I don't really think you are lying. I think your sources are. In fact, I know most of your sources are. I've had many run ins with profession creationists and profession science 'skeptics.' Most of what they say is so riddled with lies, you best ignore them. To give an example of this Dr. Brad Harrub told a crowd of people at my old high school that the way "Evolutionists" explain polystrate trees is that either the stood there for millions of years for the layers of sediment to build up or they grow through solid rock. Ironically, while showing a picture of polystrate trees from a book that gives our actual explanation.




Although, I will note some of you claims the hospitals forced you to take anti-depressant medications against your will are highly suspect. I would have to have more information on the situation surrounding that claim before I could say anything for sure though. I used to be an EMT, so I know that being 'forced' was almost certainly not the case.

well really. this....why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific (creationist)community and allowed to attain iconic status in scientific ( creationist) circles...

could be applied with far more accuracy and less calumny to the
gay acceptance by the creationists of the most ridiculous lies and shoddy fabrications that are the entire substance of creationist arguments!

 

[sandwiches]

I have been accused of lying and not providing evidence that Scienceville is not the unadulterated picture of integrity that many would like to paint. In this thread I will attempt to provide the evidence as I collect it over time.

Over the years I have read and seen various articles and news accounts of information supporting my opinions but unfortunately I have not documented them or saved them to be used in this forum as evidence. Of course, I had no reason to do that until now. My only reason now is to show that I do not lie nor do I fraudulantly suggest such things. I have no reason to deceive people here on this forum.

Now while you may disagree and show to me that these articles and premises are false, it does not change the fact that I have seen various information regarding the many different "goings on" in Scienceville and the world it lives in and therefore I have reached the conclusions and opinions I have in light of them. I have not fabricated them or lied about them nor am I alone in my persuasions of them. I don't lie nor do I need to or want to. I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing so.

The articles I draw from will be both Christian and secular. I will add, when I can the reference and or website I obtained it from. Also, I will highlight what words I feel of importance to my point.

First article "Darwinism in a Flutter" - Christian source.

"But while Miss Medawar was telling the little children this assured proof of Darwinism the American lepidopterist, Ted Sargent, was having serious misgivings with the whole story, but no one wanted to know. Sargent's research was ignored by the scientific community and his career stymied. Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views were dismissed as "heresy". But the evidence grew and in 1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished, reviewing it in 'Nature', said his shock at the extent of the doubts was like discovering as a child "that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas eve.""

"Judith Hooper's book raises the question as to why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. It became on of the dogma of unbelieving scientists"

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

I think you are not telling the truth but I don't think you're lying maliciously or even knowingly, sometimes. I think you honestly believe what you're saying but it seems you're incapable of even conceiving the idea you might be wrong.

 

[Hespera]

Thanks for your viewpoint, Hespera. I won't be responding directly to it because I find it to be wrong on several points and I don't want to get into it with you.

That is fine I am sure there are plenty of others who have noticed that "scienceville" is a fabrication. And that you are trying to slam science for isolated instances of the very characteristic that defines all of "creation science" and creationist argument.

 

[Inan3]

I think you are not telling the truth but I don't think you're lying maliciously or even knowingly, sometimes. I think you honestly believe what you're saying but it seems you're incapable of even conceiving the idea you might be wrong.

Ok. Fair. Let me ask you this question? What if I said the same thing to you? "I think you are not telling the truth but I don't think you're lying maliciously or even knowingly, sometimes. I think you honestly believe what you're saying but it seems you're incapable of even conceiving the idea you might be wrong." Because that is how I see it from my side. What do you think of that? It seems we are at an impasse. I wonder will it ever be resolved? Hmmm??

 

[sandwiches]

Ok. Fair. Let me ask you this question? What if I said the same thing to you? "I think you are not telling the truth but I don't think you're lying maliciously or even knowingly, sometimes. I think you honestly believe what you're saying but it seems you're incapable of even conceiving the idea you might be wrong." Because that is how I see it from my side. What do you think of that? It seems we are at an impasse. I wonder will it ever be resolved? Hmmm??

Very simply: I can tell you that I could be wrong and I can be proven so if you verify the claims which are contrary to mine and that all my claims can indeed be shown wrong by humans here and now with evidence that is true regardless of bias or preconceptions.

Would you also say the same?

 

[Inan3]

Very simply: I can tell you that I could be wrong and I can be proven so if you verify the claims which are contrary to mine and that all my claims can indeed be shown wrong by humans here and now with evidence that is true regardless of bias or preconceptions.

Would you also say the same?

Yep.

 

[LittleFeather]

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution, and the Creationists have a few valid points, but their bias causes them to make many erroneous conclusions. These mistakes cost them any credibility, and the few valid points they make are ignored because of it.

Atheist scientists also have a bias and tend to overlook the problems with the theory of evolution, as it currently stands.

However there are scientists without a bias that sees these flaws, but no one has come up with a better theory.

Physicist myself, but I can see how evolution could be modified, and might look into that in detail some day.

Science and Religion do not speak the same language, and often uses different but equally valid logical methods. But there are always misunderstanding when people of different languages and perspective try to communicate, and emotional attachment makes it even harder.

 

[sandwiches]

Yep.

Glad to hear it. Some other posters like AV, dad, Greg etc are incapable of even admitting the possibility that they might be wrong. If you can admit this, then you can learn. If you think you cannot be wrong, then you become intellectually atrophied.

 

[Inan3]

Glad to hear it. Some other posters like AV, dad, Greg etc are incapable of even admitting the possibility that they might be wrong. If you can admit this, then you can learn. If you think you cannot be wrong, then you become intellectually atrophied.

I don't agree with your opinion of the other posters. I do agree if you think you cannot be wrong, then you become intellectually atrophied!!

 

[sandwiches]

I don't agree with your opinion of the other posters. I do agree if you think you cannot be wrong, then you become intellectually atrophied!!

Ask AV if he could be wrong about his interpretation of Genesis or that the KJV is the best translation of the Bible.

 

[Inan3]

I don't really think you are lying. I think your sources are. In fact, I know most of your sources are. I've had many run ins with profession creationists and profession science 'skeptics.' Most of what they say is so riddled with lies, you best ignore them. To give an example of this Dr. Brad Harrub told a crowd of people at my old high school that the way "Evolutionists" explain polystrate trees is that either the stood there for millions of years for the layers of sediment to build up or they grow through solid rock. Ironically, while showing a picture of polystrate trees from a book that gives our actual explanation.




Although, I will note some of you claims the hospitals forced you to take anti-depressant medications against your will are highly suspect. I would have to have more information on the situation surrounding that claim before I could say anything for sure though. I used to be an EMT, so I know that being 'forced' was almost certainly not the case.

Is this paragraph directed to me? Not sure I know what you are talking about. I never claimed that the hospitals forced me to take anti-depressant meds. I never have taken anti-depressant meds. I think you must be thinking of someone else here.

 

[Cabal]

Again, Inan, this is about one experiment in one field. It's a miniscule subset of what science has looked into. And no-one is trying to paint science as an "unadulterated picture of integrity" either, just that you can't write off an entire subject (or worse, use it as an excuse to write off specific subjects you might have other issues with) based on the actions of a few bad apples in one field. You write off the bad apples and their research, that's it - assuming the claims of bad-appletude stand up to scrutiny.

As for the peppered moth, I'm pretty sure more research has been done on it and it still checks out as far as I know - the accusations of fraud, not so much (and out of curiosity, where is the author of that link you posted getting the quotes of "demonised" and "heresy" from? A less critical reader might assume that these are words directly from the mouths of the opponents of Sargent, but are they, though?)

Thank you for at least trying to back your claims up this time, but bear in mind if the sources presented seem inadequate to justify your claims, they'll probably be critiqued.

 

[Cabal]

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution

Not familiar enough clearly, as your scare-quotes would indicate.

 

[Inan3]

That is fine I am sure there are plenty of others who have noticed that "scienceville" is a fabrication. And that you are trying to slam science for isolated instances of the very characteristic that defines all of "creation science" and creationist argument.

I realize that the term "scienceville" is a made up term. I am the author. I find it a useful way group the various components of science together rather than just referring to one field. The slamming is done by the actual happenings. These are incidents that DO happen and I will be adding more.

Now it is time for YOU to back up your continued slams againt creation science and creationist arguments. You continue to attack them but I never see any claims from you as you require from me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I realize that the term "scienceville" is a made up term. I am the author.

I like it --

 

[Inan3]

I like it --

Thanks AV, me too!