Issues in Scienceville.

[Nathan Poe]

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.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry, I was just being a wise guy. You're right it wasn't nice.

Well then, that's better. Your apology is accepted, and in turn, I offer my own.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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!

 

[Cabal]

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.

 

[Hespera]

I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying to NP.

ok but you did put me on your list of three stooges so you can see how i didnt take it well. no intent on your part so fine.

 

[Hespera]

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.

 

[Cabal]

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.

 

[Hespera]

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.

right- o and Inan, the floor is yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[Inan3]

And this is entirely on the strength of an article which doesn't even attempt to back up its sources, leaving us to take it entirely on trust. I didn't actually automatically assume it was wrong, just not convincing - and this is the same mistake you keep making, as evidenced by your post to Little Feather above - yes, we will ask for evidence. Just because we then scrutinise it doesn't mean we are automatically dismissing your sources - it is entirely possible for one to post inadequate evidence for a claim, which is what you've been doing so far.

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.

I for one didn't take your sources on face value as you seemed to have but instead looked for a few others (which I posted, which contained references, none of which you've addressed) - and those sources claim that the "controversy" here is not as your source claims it is. Now, are we going to discuss those and their references with respect to your or are you going to do the very thing you just incorrectly accused me of here?

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.

Where did I say that people shouldn't look into things? The point is that merely looking into things is not sufficient, if you're going to query established consensus, you need robust evidence. Now, that evidence may be there, but the very brief link you provided gives us nothing to go on. I looked for more, but found a much stronger case showing that this is a storm in a teacup. That's not automatically dismissing the claim as you make out, it's asking for a stronger case to be made as the case that has been made so far is feeble

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. Stop spuing out all your attacks on my posts and give some evidence yourself. 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. 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. YOU are not the lawgiver of the forum. Just do your best to answer the things I bring up and make your points. That should be simple enough for you to do.

READ the post again Cabal, (I reposted it below for your ease of rereading it) I never said that YOU said that people shouldn't look into things, "that is the same mistake YOU keep making" you seem to read things into what I am saying and you only end up being WRONG. My point was and still is the system REFUSED to look into them, not because as you suggest below, "if we were to take THESE GUYS' claims... Christians would be honking at us..." Their refusal had nothing to do with whether or not Chrisians would be honking at them but INSTEAD it was that the data they already had was accepted and established as truth by Scienceville and they had based a lot of things on that data and now they were going to have to admit they were wrong, so rather than doing that they would rather sweep it under the rug and just ignore it. If Virginia Steen-McIntyre, one of THESE GUYS had not persisted and fought to have their work published, even at peril of her career and reputation then it WOULD have been just that... swept under the carpet!!

The ironic thing is is that if we were to take these guy's claims at face value and then it was discovered to be wrong, creationists would be honking at us that we're corrupt for taking fakes seriously, like they think we did with Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc

Just can't win with these people. (Not with that attitude.)

The irony is that you automatically assumed they were wrong just because "Scienceville" didn't accept them but you seemed to totally ignore the fact that they wouldn't even look into it but when someone who had a little more reputation looked into it then it was considered and found to be correct. That's my point. What if that person hadn't looked into it? This evidence which WAS not WRONG (as you suggest) would not have been known and they would have kept putting WRONG evidence out there regardless. Bias is there and it keeps the evidence under control so the public won't know. So why should "I" believe you and your incomplete evidence. No, I'm going to keep on looking at both sides and finding out what the real truth is by listening to ALL sides instead of the bigoted and biased and therefore, somewhat deceitful half truth of atheistic science.

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??

And how do you for sure that it "WAS not WRONG"? I didn't claim it necessarily was wrong, only that the article you've presented doesn't make a case for it - and I get the feeling that if we were to believe any old thing who came along, people like you would be the first to complain about that, given the obvious bias they present towards science that they take issue with.

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.

 

[Hespera]

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.




This truly has all the earmarkings of narcissism.

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

 

[Cabal]

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.

READ the post again Cabal, (I reposted it below for your ease of rereading it) I never said that YOU said that people shouldn't look into things, "that is the same mistake YOU keep making" you seem to read things into what I am saying and you only end up being WRONG.

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.

My point was and still is the system REFUSED to look into them, not because as you suggest below, "if we were to take THESE GUYS' claims... Christians would be honking at us..." Their refusal had nothing to do with whether or not Chrisians would be honking at them but INSTEAD it was that the data they already had was accepted and established as truth by Scienceville and they had based a lot of things on that data and now they were going to have to admit they were wrong, so rather than doing that they would rather sweep it under the rug and just ignore it. If Virginia Steen-McIntyre, one of THESE GUYS had not persisted and fought to have their work published, even at peril of her career and reputation then it WOULD have been just that... swept under the carpet!!

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?

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??

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

"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

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.

 

[Split Rock]

I like it --

That figures! LOL!

 

[Split Rock]

OMGoodness!!! Look what I just found!!! It's amazing to me that there are people and proofs out there which EXACTLY confirm my beliefs (well, some of them).

While some of it's contents contradicts other things I disagree with such as the age of man, FOR THIS THREAD it proves EXACTLY what I have suggested and adhered to in many of my posts. With subsequent posters denying my assertions and accusing me of lying and trying to bring disdain upon "Scienceville." I submit to you proof of my suspicions. I highlight and capitalize my points.

Article #2 - Exposing a Scientific Coverup

Excerpts and web address follows:

" In 1966 respected archeologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and her associates on a U.S. Geological Survey team working under a grant from the National Science Foundation were called upon to date a pair of remarkable archeological sites in Mexico. Sophisticated stone tools rivaling the best work of Cro-magnon man in Europe had been discovered at Hueyatlaco, while somewhat cruder implements had been turned up at nearby El Horno. The sites, it was conjectured, were very ancient, perhaps as old as 20,000 years, which, according to prevailing theories, would place them very close to the dawn of human habitation in the Americas.


Steen-McIntyre, knowing that if such antiquity could indeed be authenticated, her career would be made, set about an exhaustive series of tests. Using four different, but well accepted, dating methods, including uranium series and fission track, she determined to get it right. Nevertheless, when the results came in, the original estimates proved to be way off. Way under as it turned out. The actual age was conclusively demonstrated to be more like a quarter of a million years.

As we might expect, some controversy ensued.


Steen-McIntyre's date challenged not only ACCEPTED chronologies for human presence in the region, but contradicted ESTABLISHED notions of how long modern humans could have been anywhere on Earth. Nevertheless, the massive reexamination of ORTHODOX theory and the wholesale rewriting of textbooks which one might logically have expected DID NOT ENSUE. What did follow was the PUBLIC RIDICULE of Steen-McIntyre's work and the VILIFICATION of her character. She has NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND WORK IN HER FIELD SINCE.


More than a century earlier, following the discovery of gold in California's Table Mountain and the subsequent digging of thousands of feet of mining shafts, miners began to bring up hundreds of stone artifacts and even human fossils. Despite their origin in geological strata documented at 9 to 55 million years in age, California state geologist J. D. Whitney was able subsequently to authenticate many of the finds and to produce an extensive and authoritative report. The implications of Whitney's evidence have never been properly answered or explained by the establishment, yet the entire episode has been VIRTUALLY IGNORED and references to it have VANISHED FROM the textbooks.


For decades miners in South Africa have been turning up from strata nearly three billion years in age hundreds of small metallic spheres with encircling parallel grooves. Thus far, the scientific community has failed to take note.

Among scores of such cases cited in the recently published Forbidden Archeology (and in the condensed version The Hidden History of the Human Race) it is clear that these three are by no means uncommon. Suggesting nothing less than a massive cover-up, co-authors Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson believe that when it comes to explaining the origins of the human race on earth, academic science has cooked the books.


While the public may believe that all the real evidence supports the mainstream theory of evolution with its familiar timetable for human development (i.e., Homo Sapiens of the modern type going back to only about 100,000 years) Cremo and Thompson demonstrate that, to the contrary, a virtual MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE produced by REPUTABLE scientists applying standards just as exacting, if not more so, than the establishment has been not only IGNORED but, in many cases, ACTUALLY SUPRESSED. In EVERY area of research, from paleontology to anthropology and archeology, that which is presented to the public as established and irrefutable fact is indeed nothing more, says Cremo, THAN A CONCENSUS arrived at by POWERFUL GROUPS OF PEOPLE.


Is that consensus justified by the evidence? Cremo and Thompson say no.

Carefully citing all available documentation, the authors produce case after case of contradictory research conducted in the last two centuries. Included are detailed descriptions of the controversy and ultimate suppression following each discovery. Typical is the case of George Carter who claimed to have found, at an excavation in San Diego, hearths and crude stone tools at levels corresponding to the last interglacial period, some 80,000-90,000 years ago. Even though Carter's work was endorsed by some experts such as lithic scholar John Witthoft, the establishment scoffed. San Diego State University REFUSED to even look at the evidence in its own back yard and Harvard University PUBLICLY DEFAMED HIM in a course on Fantastic Archeology.


What emerges is a picture of an ARROGANT and BIGOTED academic ELITE interested more in the PRESERVATION of its OWN PREROGATIVES and authority than the truth. "

Exposing A Scientific Coverup



This encapsulates all that I have been saying and everyone has been denying for years on this forum.

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.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

You would have to present refuting data (sorry).

 

[Nathan Poe]

You would have to present refuting data (sorry).

We have the likes of Inan, AV, and you -- is that sorry enough?

 

[Inan3]

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

Oh that... I wasn't wrong.

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'm not asking you to search for me. I did my search. I'm telling you if you don't like what I present search it out for yourself.

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

It was like the article I provided though. As a matter of fact my article gave more information.

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.

So you don't think standards of telling the truth, and not trying to manipulate and hide evidence are not particularly high? Oh!! No wonder you get so upset when someone tries to uncover the actual facts.

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.

Detail how it does not. Once again it is obvious you don't know what I think because what you just said is NOT true.

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

I don't, but that's not what you said is it?

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

Me and at least 80% of the public. You want to come out into the public and talk with us, then start using out language.

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.

Nope. Innocent until proven guilty. I am not a liar.

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

How about evidence in this whole forum. Your the one who calls yourself a scientist. You'd think you might be able to muster up some science. All I ever see or hear is put downs not just of me but of anyone. It's so bad you would think it was another field in Scienceville. You guys don't know how to argue a point you only know how to argue. Even when someone tries to be civil you think that is an opportunity to beat your chests and cry conquest. You think someone being civil is saying they are submitting to your argument or even more ridiculous... to you. It's as if you can't comprehend what the rest of us take for granted... A civil conversation where one can disagree without the other trying to outdo or smash to bits what the other says almost before they get it out of their mouths.


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...

I have copypasted parts of an article that "I" also, commented on. I highlighted the particular parts I was speaking to and about. You didn't even do that.

Oh, I'm sure you've got better things to do, like going to find someone else that you can speak down to or argue with. That brings up another point. Where does a 25 year old young man like yourself, who is supposedly engaged, and works as a scientist get the time that you spend on this forum to argue so much and "why" would you do it? Sounds awfully suspect to me. You need to get a life!!

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.

Back and forth?? this is back and forth?? If this is what you consider a debate, I'm not interested. "I" have better things to do.

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

My purpose was to just add a little at a time what I have found. I'm still going to do it that way. I find it of no value to just bring in lots of things which you probably will not read at one time. I can see it all now. If I did that you would then argue something like this... "we don't want you to just give us all that information we want you to copypaste only what you are speaking to and break it down for us one by one and highlight your points." As you said earlier..."we just can't win with you people!"

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.

There you go again speaking to my capabilities.

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.

So let me get this right.. when I don't get it, "it's beyond my capability" and when YOU don't get it that's my fault, too? Do you hear yourself?

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?

"Ergo, so what?" That's why Scienceville and the world is so askew people with that very attitude.

Nothing personal, Inan, but that means absolutely squat coming from you.

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.

 

[Jro]

Inan, you never really responded when I showed you that there were 1300 articles on the criticism of Kettlewell. Doesn't that invalidate this claim from your source: "Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views were dismissed as 'heresy'"?