• 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.

Natural selection v Intelligent design

paulm50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,253
110
✟2,061.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure why you bother to put post upon post upon post on this Christian forum trying to "prove" that the principles of the faiths held by other respondents is false. They believe in an all powerful God, you don't and neither do i but I have to say some of your posts appear to be on the verge of insulting, as you continually try to "prove" that people of faith are wrong and somehow misguided (at best), or even stupid.

From my point of view, if people want to believe in God's ability to anything, then that's their right, you and I will never "get it" but that doesn't make us superior in any way, I think we should just live and let live.
I see the evil that some people's level of faith has led to. It's not just about Christians, even though this is a Christian board.

Some who believe in everything the bible tells them to, will oppress, women, different races, cultures and gays. And I don't believe that to be right.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,957
1,724
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,554.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You acknowledge change, and dispute it at the same time. Where is the evidence that all dinosaur evolving with feathers, then long arms, then wings changed back?
The type of change I am acknowledging is the limited change that happens with a species that allows variations. Like humans with different colored skin or different heights or different shapes heads and noses. The change I dont acknowledge is the macro change where a Dino can evolve wing from its arms or a dog like creature can become a whale.

Evolution state that a bird evolved from a Dino. But there is no evidence. The transitions they put forward have been shown to be either dinos or birds only. The Dino's with feathers are exactly that Dino's with feathers. But what evolution does is jumps to conclusions. Just because a Dino has feathers doesn't mean it will become a bird. To become a bird they need a lot of other things happening as well and many happening at the same time. Wings are useless unless they have tendons, muscles and the bone structures to make them work.

Missing pieces in a jigsaw doesn't make the jigsaw disappear.Variations at different dates are transitions.Because it is a new layer in that species, when the change becomes distinct, then it's a new species
But your assuming that the picture that is being made by the jig saw puzzle is going to make evolution and that its true to begin with. So any missing pieces will be missing pieces of the theory you believe. But if there is no evolution then the missing pieces will make sense because there is not anything missing to begin with. How do you know the different in some of the features are from different species or just variations of the same species. God didn't make creatures static. When a child is born they are different to their siblings. They are more different to their neighbors kids and even more different to a kid from another country.

But that doesn't mean they are going to continue to evolve and become so different that they turn into something else eventually. Or that the came form an ape which was different again. Those small difference are just the variations that is there within a species. Like I said some have big noses others have different shaped heads. We are not all clones of each other. All those differences individual genes that each person has.

Because in their environment there was little need to change.Yes they keep learning, unlike the blind faithful.Who says they're making it up?
The problem is evolution is not completely made up. But what some are doing is taking what is true and then using that to make unverified claims. There are other factors that are not taken into consideration like developmental evolution, epigenetics, HGT and other factors that can allow animals to change. They give mutations and natural selection to much creative power. Mutations are basically harmful to a creature. But evolution makes out that they make better and fitter creatures. The amount of chance mutations needed to create the amount of complexity and variety we see in life would be impossible to happen. There may be rare benefits from a mutations but even they come at some fitness cost.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If the Bible is accurate, the model described in Genesis would be true. However, there's ongoing debate as to which interpretation of the Genesis count is correct; what was the writer attempting to describe? That's the question some theologians are spending time on. I don't quite understand what you mean by tension, as there are multiple models in naturalism as to how life, and this planet arose. The fact that there are different interpretations doesn't mean we should throw out the book, the same goes for science.
Yes, there are multiple models "in naturalism." But hopefully I don't need to spell out the difference between how models are treated in science and how models are treated in religion.
When an agnostic doesn't believe in God, that isn't faith. When an atheist makes the positive assertion that no God exists, and naturalism is valid, he is making a faith based claim. What evidence are you aware of which helps prove naturalism?
Most atheists don't assert that no God exists.
The burden of proof is on the theist if the theist says he knows that God exists. If he is merely sharing his faith, we can say, "well that's what you believe, but I don't".
The agnostic has no burden of proof, since he says he doesn't know whether or not God exists.
The atheist makes the claim that naturalism is true, and no God exists, and therefore since he makes a positive assertion, he does have the burden of proof as well.
You have misunderstood atheism. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well the main one would be his finches. His observations of their beaks changing to become bigger is not proof of macro evolution. Just because their beaks changed didn't mean that animals change into completely different ones. It wasn't evidence that those birds came from dinos. The same birds were observed changing back to their natural state when the environmental conditions change back. So evolution is limited to changes within a species and over time things revert back to the natural wild type not into new types.

No they havnt. After 150 years there are still gaps. As he said he thought there should be a blending of life. That there should have been many transitional stages linking animals. What we actually see is well defined creatures that suddenly appear in the fossil record and show no trace of where they came from. Any transitions that evolution cites are interpretations they like to make out are transitional. Observational evidence is very subjective and can be the view of the person looking for the evidence. So an evolutionists who has already decided that the theory is true will see everything as possible evidence.

Thats why we have many cases of fossils that have been claimed as transitionals being shown to be variations of the same animals. The skulls at Georgia are a good example.
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Even juvenile dinos have been made into transitions for their parents because some dinos have unusual features that the adults don't have. This then causes evolutionists to think the juvenile is a new species. If they discover a fossil that looks almost identical to another but is out of place in the fossil record they will make it a new species and transitional.
This is best explained taxonomists will either be lumpers or splitters with fossils discoveries. Some will make every different variation a new species and others will make the differences just the variation with the same species.

"Varieties have the same general characters as species, for they cannot be distinguished from species,--except, firstly, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms ...; and except, secondly, by a certain amount of difference, for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that intermediate linking forms have not been discovered."Species can be delimited broadly and inclusively, or narrowly, and there has been a long-running conflict between groups of taxonomists known as "lumpers" or "splitters."
http://www.osti.gov/eprints/topicpages/documents/record/032/1536450.html

Take a look at the many creatures from millions of years ago that havnt changed. They only things that maybe different is the size. Even some dinos were just bigger versions of the same species we have today. But there are many things like giant rams, crabs, mosquitoes, wombats, kangaroos, tigers, pigs, lobsters, ect that are exactly the same shapes and millions of years old. But evolution will name them new species and transitions. But as for their shapes morphing to show that transition they havnt changed at all.

Then you have the new discoveries constantly re-dating fossils and changing the times when they evolved. It pushes some creatures back so they become out of place and dont have nay time to evolve. It makes others evolve before they said they did and they end up coming before another who they said evolved from them. There have been many fossil discoveries that are out of place with the tree of life that has been made. In fact ideas like ghost lineages have been made to preserve the hypotheses of common descent.

Ghost lineages tell scientists where the fossils should be in the column. But the actual fossil record doesn't reflect this. Its a mess and thats because they are making it up as they go. So the theory is built from assumption. Thats why there are so many new species being named all the time. But they are all just variations of the same species.

"ghost lineages" allows evolutionary theorists to accommodate anomalous stratigraphic (fossil) distributions. In short, when fossils occur out of order -- as either too early or too late -- ghost lineages mend the damage by invisibly extending the temporal ranges of groups, well beyond the actual fossil data, to achieve congruence with expectations.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html
I will get back to the rest later.
Thanks Steve
steve, I'm not going to dart down every rabbit hole you want to lead me down. It is clear that you don't really know what you are talking about. You have some fundamental misconceptions about what evolution entails. The best course of action is to get educated. Seek an online course in evolutionary biology. There are many such courses available, many are even free.
 
Upvote 0

paulm50

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2014
1,253
110
✟2,061.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
The type of change I am acknowledging is the limited change that happens with a species that allows variations. Like humans with different colored skin or different heights or different shapes heads and noses. The change I dont acknowledge is the macro change where a Dino can evolve wing from its arms or a dog like creature can become a whale.
Some dinosaurs did grow feathers, new research is revealing some had fur. Don't know of any claims about dogs becoming whales.

Evolution state that a bird evolved from a Dino. But there is no evidence. The transitions they put forward have been shown to be either dinos or birds only. The Dino's with feathers are exactly that Dino's with feathers. But what evolution does is jumps to conclusions. Just because a Dino has feathers doesn't mean it will become a bird. To become a bird they need a lot of other things happening as well and many happening at the same time. Wings are useless unless they have tendons, muscles and the bone structures to make them work.
There's a lot of evidence. Read up on it and see how little a change it took to the bone structures.

But your assuming that the picture that is being made by the jig saw puzzle is going to make evolution and that its true to begin with. So any missing pieces will be missing pieces of the theory you believe. But if there is no evolution then the missing pieces will make sense because there is not anything missing to begin with. How do you know the different in some of the features are from different species or just variations of the same species. God didn't make creatures static. When a child is born they are different to their siblings. They are more different to their neighbors kids and even more different to a kid from another country.
No science doesn't work like that. They find new evidence and go back and correct, then move on. Prove god didn't make creatures static.

But that doesn't mean they are going to continue to evolve and become so different that they turn into something else eventually. Or that the came form an ape which was different again. Those small difference are just the variations that is there within a species. Like I said some have big noses others have different shaped heads. We are not all clones of each other. All those differences individual genes that each person has.
Are you saying evolution has stopped? Stop looking at the narrow view of a few centuries. Think bigger.

The problem is evolution is not completely made up. But what some are doing is taking what is true and then using that to make unverified claims. The ideas that evolution use are basically true. But there are other factors that are not taken into consideration like developmental evolution, epigenetics, HGT and other factors that can allow animals to change.
So prove another theorem.

All I ask is you prove your theory as well as you try to disprove the only proven one.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,758
9,023
52
✟385,115.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You seriously have got to be kidding with this post demanding that I mathematically prove that Einstein's theory or Relativity and Special Relativity would/could apply between different universes.

I'm not asking that. I'm asking you to support one of your 'what if?' proposals with E=mc(2). Any one of your 'what ifs?' will do.

You realize that what you are arguing is that a separate universe from ours would be linked in relative time to ours. That makes absolutely no sense especially since parts of our universe are moving at different rates of acceleration.

I made no argument. I asked you to show how E=mc(2) supports your 'what ifs?'. As you don't seem willing to support them we can lay them to rest as pure speculation.

I don't like this sort of back and forth, it is disingenuous and is one of those argumentative tricks used to win internet forum arguments by wearing your opponent out via a battle of attrition.

This is an argumentum ad hominem as you are chracterising me as disingeneuous rather than responding with a rebuttal.

You keep demanding that extraordinary burdens of proof be met.

You keep making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

Seriously, are you arguing that the time differential between our universe and specifically our region of space that contains Earth is exactly the same as a different universe outside of our space and time?

I have not argued that. Please show that I have done so.

But only if the other party is sincere and your request is not sincere. You are just placing unreasonable burden on me when it is pretty obvious that my statements hold given our understanding of how time works in this universe...

This is an argumentum ad hominem as you are chracterising me as insincere rather than responding with a rebuttal. To reiterate: You keep making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

Doing some quick skimming there is a lot of wording like, "Best candidate" and "Hypothetical". So yeah, not the smoking gun for dark matter and dark energy.

I did not make any claim of a smoking gun. I directed you towards evidence of dark matter.

How about you show me proof of dark matter and dark energy. Not candidates, not hypothetical mathematical constructs, but laboratory verified dark matter and dark energy. As you will see, they do not as yet exist.

Again, I did not say it was proof. Outside of maths proof is unobtainable.

Incidentally, you throwing the burden of proof on me and asking me to mathematically disprove the theory of Dark Matter doesn't constitute you winning the argument.

No I haven't. The only maths I asked you to do was in response to your 'what if?' senarios.

My statements are simply that there is alot to be desired on this subject as far as proof is concerned.

Once again: we cannot talk of proof in science.

I have been looking and all I can see are articles on "hypothetical" and "best candidate" and things of that sort. I skimmed through the MACHOS and WIMPS link you provided and again, no proof there...

Once again: we cannot talk of proof in science. If WIMPs and MACHOs turn out to not be dark matter something else is dark matter. Why is it a problem to not know something at this time? Science is called tentative for a reason.

All the best.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,758
9,023
52
✟385,115.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
After 150 years there are still gaps.

Take one 'gap'.

Fill it with a new fossil.

Now you have two 'gaps'.

That's why 'gaps' are nonsensical.
 
Upvote 0

Dave RP

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
985
554
69
London
✟70,850.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I see the evil that some people's level of faith has led to. It's not just about Christians, even though this is a Christian board.

Some who believe in everything the bible tells them to, will oppress, women, different races, cultures and gays. And I don't believe that to be right.
But do you seriously think a long winded discourse on this site about evolution and intelligent design will change a believer into a non believer. The whole point of faith is that you have FAITH, you believe in the bible and there is no way that you debunking the bible and stating it's unsound in science will change someones faith.

This is particularly true as there is a whole range of belief from fundamentalists who believe in the 6000 year old earth to the other end of the scale who believe in evolution.

I just think that sometimes you come across as patronising and dismissive, and I think as a guest on this site you should be more polite.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God may reveal Himself in different ways to different peoples and then cultures embellish! For example, the nameless one or eternal one of Taoism is not defined in personal terms but by observing nature Lao Tze comes to the conclusion there is one. The Hindus believe the one (Brahm) is manifest in many forms throughout time. In fact all we see is Him manifest. The Yaruba of Nigeria believes one God created and gave the care of creation over to a host of gods (governing spirits) who are now opposing one another. Others believed also in one God and attributed his power to the Sun. Native Americans believe the Great Spirit is IN all created things...

So?

and NO, I have given no new meaning to commonly accepted terms...to know or experience was meant literally in my post and NO I was not demanding "100% absolute airtight proof" of anything (in fact my post implies you cannot have that).

Then why did you say that people had to be omniscient and search the entire universe to say that they know there isn't a god?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why does one's reasoning only count with you guys if 10 others have said it before you (and on top of that it has to be 10 which agree with you)?

Because Stove is making an argument based on what he believes the consensus scientific view is. I'm curious to see if any actual scientists actually believe in this view or if he's just making stuff up. So far, I haven't seen much recent work from biologists concluding that females of every species are inherently inferior to their male counterpart, but here's your opportunity to educate us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you going to claim that naturalism has been proved?

I don't think I mentioned naturalism anywhere in my post, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

When you say, "we actually have evidence to support current science." What do you mean by that exactly?

I mean that scientific conclusions are based on the evidence we have observed.

What is current science saying about metaphysical naturalism?

It is a useful tool.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Because Stove is making an argument based on what he believes the consensus scientific view is. I'm curious to see if any actual scientists actually believe in this view or if he's just making stuff up. So far, I haven't seen much recent work from biologists concluding that females of every species are inherently inferior to their male counterpart, but here's your opportunity to educate us.

No he was saying what many believe...I cannot find where he said it was the consensus view....
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Plummy said "To award anything a law, no matter how true, is against everything. It would be like throwing in the towel and stopping exploration simply because we think we understand but it's not that easy, and we're not that simple--neither is the cause!"

You really need to study chemistry and physics...biological theories (within which there are differences of opinion) are quite a different animal. Noting established "laws" at work which are reliable and trustworthy, does not stop exploration nor make the cause "simple"...they may even only help us understand the process and not the cause (but sometimes the cause) and this is called "truth"...indeed a very different animal
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No he was saying what many believe...I cannot find where he said it was the consensus view....

So then post us peer-reviewed work from 10 of those many professional biologists who believe it. Should be easy considering how many people (allegedly) support his interpretation of what scientists actually say.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
My post is called "logical reasoning"....perhaps you have never heard of it!

Logical reasoning from bad assumptions leads nowhere. Yours was a good example of this - you pretending that knowledge requires omniscience is a dead end from the start.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,957
1,724
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟320,554.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Some dinosaurs did grow feathers, new research is revealing some had fur. Don't know of any claims about dogs becoming whales.
Actually the research is showing that modern birds were around the same time as the dinos and started at the same time as the Dino's if not before them. So that makes it a bit hard for a Dino to have evolved into a bird considering evolution takes many millions of years to happen. The discoveries like Archaeopteryx and the others like Archaeopteryx that have been found more recently have all been classed as Dino's with feathers. Their features are those of Dino. They just happened to have feathers. But their bone structure and shape and all their other features were of a Dino.
Earliest bird was not a bird? New fossil muddles the Archaeopteryx story
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...muddles-the-archaeopteryx-story/#.Vazq37UoTfd

This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/news-blog-mainmenu-63/294-so-did-birds-evolve-from-dinosaurs.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/osu-drn060809.php

Heres another interesting discovery that brings into question the age of Dino's let alone whether birds evolved from them.
While soft tissue has been found on dinosaur fossils in the past, it is extremely rare and has only ever been found in extremely well preserved samples subject to unusual conditions after death. In most cases it was thought the organic tissue like skin, muscle and blood would quickly decay away after death leaving just the harder bones to mineralise and become fossils.
But in the latest discovery, researchers found the blood cells and fibers that appear to be collagen - a protein that makes up skin and hair - were found on badly preserved dinosaur bones
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...e-extracted-fossils-left-storage-century.html
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html

Tissue has been found in Dino bones before and scientists have said it is very rare and its because of special circumstances which act to preserve the bones for prolonged periods. Normally tissue and blood cells deteriorate and decay after only thousands of years let alone millions. The interesting things about these latest discoveries is that they are finding more and more of them including in existing held fossils that have been lying around for years and even poorly preserved samples as well. So the explanation of the fossils being rare and well preserved is beginning to seem questionable.

Read up on it and see how little a change it took to the bone structures.
There has to be many changes. One of the changes that is causing them to think that the Dino fossils are not birds is because they need to have a different thigh bone. The latest discoveries are showing that these bird like dinos dont have these so they are not birds but dinos which happen to have feathers. If they dont have this thigh bone which which also allows better lung capacity which birds need then they dont survive as a bird.

Then you also have the fact that they need to change from cold blood4ed to warm blooded creatures. Its not just simple change with wings and hey presto your a bird. There are 100s of small structural changes as well as system changes like the respiratory and blood circulatory systems that need to be total transformed. That cant happen in one go as within those changes are 100s of smaller changes which require many chance mutations to fall into the right place at the right time. Thats not even mentioning all the connections to the brain to give signals to make it all work.

Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.
"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."

However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs. The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

So prove another theorem.
All I ask is you prove your theory as well as you try to disprove the only proven one.
Well based on the way that some of the evidence is being presented for evolution I think some of the evidence for design has already been presented. It is just as good if you want to use the same type of methods some of the evidence for evolution is. Much of it is not validated and is based on personal interpretation or indirect evidence. We could say that there are some aspects of evidence for God and design that falls into those criteria. I have posted some good peer reviewed papers for showing design in nature.

There is also evidence for showing that the complexity of life had to be there from the beginning to allow life to function. Even the so called simple life forms carry a lot of the genetics that later life has and needed. The Cambrian period has all the complex life forms and body plans we see today. Many creatures havnt really changed over long periods and there are even many so called living fossils today. Looking to the finely tuned universe and the way quantum physics points to something happening beyond what we see I would say there is ample evidence for God/ a creator/ a designer and for intelligence and design in nature, living creatures and the universe.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So then post us peer-reviewed work from 10 of those many professional biologists who believe it. Should be easy considering how many people (allegedly) support his interpretation of what scientists actually say.

It is established in other threads that your concept of "peer reviewed" equals ONLY those publications that agree with your position...and that articles submitted that disagree (or show contrary positions, such as scientific articles implying design) are selectively excluded (thus stacking the deck). Secondly, it has also been shown that many "peer reviewed" articles that are accepted for publication are shown later to be either fraudulent or demonstrate the willingness among your peers to fudge data or intentionally exclude contrary data....

Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud and only upon pressure from the non-committee criticisms were papers and articles retracted.

In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that "Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication r falsification), error (plagairism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud...suggests the incidence of fraud is increasing"

So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary to shape, mold or engineer public as well as professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us (we believe it is sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal).

In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, who informs us that "With depressing regularity, the media continues to uncover cases of scientific fraud...although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior an exceptional and deviant from acceptable scientific standards - fraud IS and inevitable component of today's research"


So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. He states these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?

In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us "One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself" (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. "The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method." (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).” So in effect "No scientist publishes ALL the raw data...inappropriately done, this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data."

Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise it is only sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Logical reasoning from bad assumptions leads nowhere. Yours was a good example of this - you pretending that knowledge requires omniscience is a dead end from the start.

Well see how you twist truth (Something I am beginning to note in many of your responses)? I never said "knowledge" REQUIRES omniscience...one can KNOW many things not being omniscient, but CANNOT KNOW there is no God(s)
 
Upvote 0