• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Issues in Scienceville.

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
speaking of uncalled for and cheap, that is too.

I was actually about to retract it -- but then...


You can dish it out but you can't take it can you. Don't dish it out and you won't get it back. You reap what you sow so stop crying about it.

Nice begets Nice.

I saw no need to. So long as the "Christians" of this thread are deciding the tone, they will receive the treatment that they have earned.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You can dish it out but you can't take it can you.

They'll poke you then when you finally retaliate they'll cry out bloody murder. It's worth noting that most materialists are materialists because they couldn't take the cyber bullying, so when you turn it around they'll quickly curl up. I dont blame you for lashing out, as all Christians sometimes do (the most regular retort is "very Jesus like behavior). Folks like Ms Hespera, the Consol phenomenon, etc, have probably realized that the game is over and they've lost. As a result, they see that the best option is to kamikaze the forum. People choose, for some reason, through their own volition, to elevate these people. They hear science and some grossly erroneous stereotype is mentally attached.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,216
52,662
Guam
✟5,155,063.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Useful?? You mean like you guys produce??? You guys talk alot about it but you NEVER produce. All talk and no evidence.

A-All
T-Talk
H-Having No
E-Evidence
I-In
S-Serious
T-Troubel
-- Don't even run the word "atheist" through an anagram program!
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, while it's fun on one level to see this thread degenerate into as much of a clusterfiddle as the thread which inspired it did in about 10% of the number of posts, can we maybe get back to the topic now? Perhaps I'm being boundlessly optimistic, but I thought we might have been going somewhere there for a second.

Inan, you've posted only two, very brief articles, both with no references, covering two specific pieces of research, not even addressing whole fields. I submit that's grossly inadequate to even defend the claims the articles themselves make, nevermind your wider claims of some kind of scientific conspiracy to crush opposition. How about we move on from here - and frankly complaining about atheists' alleged standard of evidence, weak acronyms aside, is no substitute for having standards as bad yourself. This is not a thread for justifying atheistic science claims (no such thing for the most part, apart from anything else), this is a thread for you to justify your claims about science as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
oh and yes by all means back on topic, and a bit of judicious use of the ig feature for certain professional deraillers is in order.

Oh, I'm not telling the derailers to shush completely (guilty of being a derailer enabler far too many times myself), but this is Inan's thread, and I'd hate for anyone to distract her too much before she's provided full justification for her outspoken attacks on science.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private


right- o and Inan, the floor is yours.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,216
52,662
Guam
✟5,155,063.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Curly, Larry and Moe?
Okay, sis -- it's the altar for you!

You just called Curly an atheist -- and what does the Bible say about calling someone an atheist?

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Excuse me, I am not clear on what the "same mistake I keep making is"? It was not inadequate evidence. I am not going to do all your searching for you. I gave you an instance and you can look it up for yourself. I did validate my claim as you found out when you did further investigation. It was valid and I knew it because I had already researched it myself and validated it sufficiently for my own satisfaction (whether you believe it or not) and looked it up on other sites like the included Wikipedia "research" you did and I found that IT AGREED with the article I gave you. It did indeed confirm the one I gave to you.


Well, I suspected you wouldn't take "my" sources on face value that's why I left it up to you to do your own research. I didn't feel it necessary to include the "few others" that you posted because they only confirmed what the article I included was saying anyway.

One more question, who are the "WE" that you keep expressing in your post. YOU had nothing to do with this or Pildown man, Nebaska man, etc. You are not that important in Scienceville. It is the big guys that make those decisions and have the control and money. That's what I'm talking about. You guys are just the blind followers and the ones who do all the work just like Virginia Steen-McIntrye. Don't you get it??


That's just it Cabal, your own bias about "people like me" keeps you from having the respect that we can and do think for ourselves. We can and do research for the things we adhere to. We base our understanding of the "goings on" that I am presenting by that research, unlike you who just closes his eyes and never wants to accept or admit that there most definitely ARE "Issues in Scienceville." You would rather spout off about "people like me", that we "keep making the same mistakes", and that we are biased when in actuality it is you who is biased, as evidenced by ALL your posts. And then of course, as if lending ANY crediblity to your post, you insert an insidious smilie in what I deem an immature and insulting manner and think somehow that we are intimidated by your post. I cannot tell you how ludicrous that is. Don't preach to me, Cabal, you really have no position in which to do so.


LOL! You didn't even provide a detailed source, or even a source with references! Mine did - up your standards considerably to match, then you can criticise.

This truly has all the earmarkings of narcissism.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private



That's just it Cabal, your own bias about "people like me" keeps you from having the respect that we can and do think for ourselves. We can and do research for the things we adhere to.
That sounds good and it would be so nice to accept it at face value and believe it.

But then when it comes from someone who believes that there really as a noahs ark.........

As for the never wants to admit or accept, I personally have no trouble understanding that science is a human pursuit by human beings.

Your version tho of the nature of science and scientists is very very badly skewed and exaggerated.

Lets turn it around for a sec...my theory is that no creationis will ever accept and admit that he / she is mistaken on any matter involved in a theo-evo debate. They will never change, never learn no matter how absurd a thing they said or how overwhelming the proof of their mistake.

The very heart and core of science is to verify thro observation and experiment; and to know that all ideas may be falsified. That being the case one actively searches for ways to falsify ones own work or that of others.

Science will always sort out its own problems that way, sooner or later a faker gets caught, a false idea is overturned.

do you ever think about the problem that the creationists have when they simply cannot accept ever being wrong? hint:
This truly has all the earmarkings of narcissism
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
39
London
✟37,512.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Excuse me, I am not clear on what the "same mistake I keep making is"?


Thinking that because we query your evidence we aren't listening or that we're automatically dismissing what you say, or biased.

It was not inadequate evidence. I am not going to do all your searching for you. I gave you an instance and you can look it up for yourself.

Why should we search for you? It's your claim - you back it up, or accept that no-one with an ounce of critical thinking will believe what you say.

I did validate my claim as you found out when you did further investigation.

Nope - found much better sources saying it wasn't nearly as you described it though.

It was valid and I knew it because I had already researched it myself and validated it sufficiently for my own satisfaction (whether you believe it or not)

Oh, I believe that it was valid for your own satisfaction - I just don't think your standards are particularly high, as evidenced by your "defence" of your claims.

and looked it up on other sites like the included Wikipedia "research" you did and I found that IT AGREED with the article I gave you. It did indeed confirm the one I gave to you.

Then detail how it confirms it, because from where I'm sitting, it didn't show that at all. Seeing as you think posting two vague articles justifies a broadbrush attack on all of science, your input would be ...ahem...greatly appreciated.

Well, I suspected you wouldn't take "my" sources on face value that's why I left it up to you to do your own research.

Bad justification. I don't take anything on face value - you shouldn't expect that from anyone.

I didn't feel it necessary to include the "few others" that you posted because they only confirmed what the article I included was saying anyway.

Again, seeing as you have rather...unique standards of evidencing things, I think the more evidence from you the better.

ROBUST evidence?? Cabal, I'm sorry YOU don't get to make the rules. You get what you get. I do not need to do things your way. I put in what I put in and if you want to say something intelligent to refute that please do.

I already have - and you can take what you get in that regard. You try and prove you're not a liar, or at least extraordinarily biased, and fail - you take the consequences; people aren't going to be taking you seriously any time soon.

Stop spuing out all your attacks on my posts and give some evidence yourself.

Evidence for WHAT, Inan? This is your thread, to justify your point!

Don't just give me a site to look up give me the points on that site that say what you want me to see.

I'll start when you start. So far you've just copypasted entire articles into the thread and said "look, look, this agrees with me!" I'm not going to put that much more effort into this thread than you are, I've got better things to do. Be grateful I actually looked up the cases you've posted so far, goodness knows the articles you posted were feeble enough...

That helps more than just trying to order us around with all your ROBUST rules of what and what not we are to present before you.

Erm, Inan, it's quite normal in a debate for back-and-forth to occur regarding discussion of a presented source. Calm down - you're going quite over-the-top given that this is scarcely the first round of discussion on these points.

YOU are not the lawgiver of the forum.

It's not about lawgiving, it's about making a reasonable case. So far, you're not.

Just do your best to answer the things I bring up and make your points. That should be simple enough for you to do.

It was, and I did - but it seems to be beyond your capability to respond to them - instead you seem to going the ad hom route.


Again, you have not been that clear thus far on what scienceville actually is. Perhaps if you stopped trying to demonise an entire subject, we wouldn't be having this problem.


Would have? How do you know that?

But fine, even if I am incorrect on this, it's still piece of research out of one field of many, ergo, so what?


No, because you hadn't made that clear at all. Perhaps if you didn't make up vague generalising terms like Scienceville.....that said, I don't for one second trust that this general attack on "Scienceville" isn't being done purely so you can justify arbitrarily dismissing science you're already biased against, like evolution, as opposed to a proper falsification like finding evidence against it.

So, Scienceville is about some shadowy heads. Got any names? Or evidence for this cabal beyond one spat between a few archaeologists?

That's just it Cabal, your own bias about "people like me" keeps you from having the respect that we can and do think for ourselves.

No, that would be down to the fact that you post sources that don't even reference their sources and are indistinguishable from opinion, but then turn around and accuse us of being blind followers.

Again, I'm not arguing with you because of bias, but if you really want me to think you don't think for yourself, keep carrying on the way you do.


This is blatantly false. Re-read my posts - I think pretty much in my first post in this thread I said that there are indeed problems in science, but not as widespread as you claim, or indicative of problems at the heart of science.

And lest we forget, you've post two examples (if that) of this alleged tampering from the top. Not much of a conspiracy.

You would rather spout off about "people like me", that we "keep making the same mistakes", and that we are biased when in actuality it is you who is biased, as evidenced by ALL your posts.

Would be great if you could actually point that out. As I said, there is no reason to think that two bits of questionable research means the entire system is rotten.


Right back at you, Inan - you don't even work in the field that you're trying to demonise. Don't worry, I've no need of trying to garner credibility - I've been making counterpoints and responding to your thread; you, on the other hand, are descending into the usual hoots of bias.

I predict "elitism" will be incorrectly bellowed at us by you before long.

This truly has all the earmarkings of narcissism.

Nothing personal, Inan, but that means absolutely squat coming from you. Save the personal attacks and actually address the topic and the points I've made, instead of descending into hypocrisy again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
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.
What is "Scienceville?" Where is it located? Who claims that this "Scienceville" is an unadulterated picture of integrity? Are you already making stuff up in this new thread? That was quick.


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

here are some tasty tidbits from this premier source of yours:

1. Ad Hominen Attacks (emphasis mine)

"There was only one problem: no one had ever seen birds eating moths from tree trunks. Then, as Judith Hooper's book reveals, in 1953, Bernard Kettlewell, 'a loud, eager man' who was invariably dressed in shorts and sandals, began an experiment that would transform the peppered moth into 'evolution's number one icon'. Camping in woods near Birmingham and sustained by a diet of gin and cigars, Kettlewell set out to prove that birds really eat more pale moths in darkened, polluted woods. His results were striking. The black moths were twice as likely to survive in the polluted woods as the lighter moths. It was one of those "eureka" moments. Kettlewell's experiment was what scientists had been waiting for, 'living proof of Darwin's theory of natural selection."

2. Deliberate Falsehoods (emphasis mine)

"Judith Hooper is a good journalist who knows a scandal when she sees on. "The unspoken possibility of fraud hangs in the air," she says, noting that Kettlewell's field notes disappeared. Ted Sargent know one thing was certain: the famous photos of moths on tree trunks were faked, using dead moths and a log. Peter D. Smith points out that "in the wild, peppered moths don't hang around on exposed tree trunks long enough to be eaten, preferring the shady undersides of branches. And then there's the nagging question of whether birds actually eat moths on tree trunks. Several experts claim that it does not happen in the wild." By placing killed moths on the tree trunks, Kettlewell, and late Miss Medawar, were effectively laying out a smorgasbord for the watching birds, who soon learned when it was feeding time. The cameras shot the pecking birds and the children were told that this was proof of Darwinism. However, this was not natural selection at all, but unnatural selection."

The famous photo was never claimed to be anything but dead moths glued to a tree trunk as a visual comparison for the reader. Dead moths were not used to show variable predation, marked moths were released and then captured. The research has since been confirmed by more recent experiments, in any case.

So much for a cite called : "Banner of Truth." For a real look at this research you can go here: Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One final word on the whole Peppered Moth deal: Most creationists claim that it represents "micro-evolution" and that they have no problem with micro-evolution. So why do they attack this example so visciously?

Strike 1.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

I see no references or cited literature in your link. Therefore, this is nothing but bigoted heresay.

But here is a more balanced look at the controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hueyatlaco BTW: It was Steen-McIntyre who argued with the other scientists on her team because she felt that the anolmalous dates were not substantiated!

Why are you surprised to find "that there are people and proofs out there which EXACTLY confirm my beliefs?" It never hard to find evidence or something on the internet that confirms your beliefs, no matter how unusual or how wrong they are. Its the evidence that disproves your beliefs that are the ones you should look for. You are demonstrating what is usually called "Confirmation Bias." See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

Strike 2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You would have to present refuting data (sorry).
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I suspect that to be true here and in any of my other points so that means this is as good a place as any to end this discussion with you.
 
Upvote 0