Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The REAL shame of creationism: its fradulent spokemen
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Baggins" data-source="post: 41946450" data-attributes="member: 142167"><p>It is very difficult for scientists to lie and get away with it. Practically any example of a scientist lying will have been exposed by another scientist.</p><p></p><p>I would imagine that you will find it impossible to find an example of a real scientific fraud being uncovered by a creationist.</p><p></p><p>This is because the processes of peer review and repeatability of results makes it almost impossible for a scientific lie to go unexposed.</p><p></p><p>As a matter of interest not one of "your" examples of scientific fraud are in fact examples of scientific fraud, why am I not suprised?</p><p></p><p>1) Al Gore. Isn't committing a scientific fraud or lying; he is popularising the mainstream views in the global warming debate. There is no controversy at all about global warming, the world is undoubtedly warming, what is debated is the extent of man's influence on this. Neither side is lying at the moment the point is moot.</p><p></p><p>2) The NY board of health banning trans fats has got nothing to do with scientists lying, it is entirely to do with taking health legislation far beyond the scientific evidence.</p><p></p><p>3) The predictions of NOAA being wrong for the 2006 hurricane season being wrong wasn't a lie, it was a poorly modelled prediction. The clue is in the word prediction, I suggest you look it up in a dictionary.</p><p></p><p>4) The use, banning and unbanning of DDT has nothing to do with scientists lying and everything to do with politicians interpreting the scientific evidence they are given in ways that suit them. DDT is undoubtedly useful in driving out malaria carrying mosquitos in malarial areas, its over use and use in non malarial areas is rightly curtailed due to its propensity to increase in concentration up the food chain. This is a secondary concern in areas where malaria is rife. </p><p></p><p>5) Cosmic rays and there effects on climate change isn't a case of scientists lying it is a case of scientists finding it hard to get their research popularised in the current zeitgeist. The fact that we are now discussing this evidence proves that this is not a case of scientific fraud or lies.</p><p></p><p>6) Stem cells. This alludes to a case of real scientific fraud in Korea, that was uncovered by fellow scientists naturally, but seems to pertain to attempts by congress to try and start stem cell research in the US. This seems to be more about the abortion debate in the US than science per se.</p><p></p><p>7) Low fat diet myth busted. Most scientifically trained nutritionists will tell you that a balanced diet is what humans should eat. It is not so much low fat diets that are important but the types of fat that you are eating. This has long been known, sometimes it takes a while for the mainstream media to catch up. This, again, wasn't a case of scientific lies but increased precision in research. It went from fats in the diet are bad for you to some sorts of fat in the diet is bad for you. It should also be noted that we do, in general, eat diets too high in fats for our own good.</p><p></p><p>8) The sighting, or not, of a woodpecker thought to be extinct is not a case of lying or fraud unless you can prove that those who claim to have spotted it are not correct or honestly mistaken.</p><p></p><p>9) The use or banning of cartoon characters to advertise food stuffs has absolutely nothing to do with science, let alone scientific fraud.</p><p></p><p>10) the cleanliness or otherwise of Californian air seems, in this case, to be a political problem. The linking of the better health of Californians despite their worse air pollution to a lack of a link between poor health and poor air quality seems to be the only bit of bad science in the whole article and that was committed by the JUNK Science web site.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have to ask; do you even read your links before posting them or is it a comprehension problem?</p><p></p><p>I am absolutely baffled as to why you would think that you had posted the a link showing a scientific counter part to the generalised and ubiquitous lies that professional creationists routinely tell</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Baggins, post: 41946450, member: 142167"] It is very difficult for scientists to lie and get away with it. Practically any example of a scientist lying will have been exposed by another scientist. I would imagine that you will find it impossible to find an example of a real scientific fraud being uncovered by a creationist. This is because the processes of peer review and repeatability of results makes it almost impossible for a scientific lie to go unexposed. As a matter of interest not one of "your" examples of scientific fraud are in fact examples of scientific fraud, why am I not suprised? 1) Al Gore. Isn't committing a scientific fraud or lying; he is popularising the mainstream views in the global warming debate. There is no controversy at all about global warming, the world is undoubtedly warming, what is debated is the extent of man's influence on this. Neither side is lying at the moment the point is moot. 2) The NY board of health banning trans fats has got nothing to do with scientists lying, it is entirely to do with taking health legislation far beyond the scientific evidence. 3) The predictions of NOAA being wrong for the 2006 hurricane season being wrong wasn't a lie, it was a poorly modelled prediction. The clue is in the word prediction, I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. 4) The use, banning and unbanning of DDT has nothing to do with scientists lying and everything to do with politicians interpreting the scientific evidence they are given in ways that suit them. DDT is undoubtedly useful in driving out malaria carrying mosquitos in malarial areas, its over use and use in non malarial areas is rightly curtailed due to its propensity to increase in concentration up the food chain. This is a secondary concern in areas where malaria is rife. 5) Cosmic rays and there effects on climate change isn't a case of scientists lying it is a case of scientists finding it hard to get their research popularised in the current zeitgeist. The fact that we are now discussing this evidence proves that this is not a case of scientific fraud or lies. 6) Stem cells. This alludes to a case of real scientific fraud in Korea, that was uncovered by fellow scientists naturally, but seems to pertain to attempts by congress to try and start stem cell research in the US. This seems to be more about the abortion debate in the US than science per se. 7) Low fat diet myth busted. Most scientifically trained nutritionists will tell you that a balanced diet is what humans should eat. It is not so much low fat diets that are important but the types of fat that you are eating. This has long been known, sometimes it takes a while for the mainstream media to catch up. This, again, wasn't a case of scientific lies but increased precision in research. It went from fats in the diet are bad for you to some sorts of fat in the diet is bad for you. It should also be noted that we do, in general, eat diets too high in fats for our own good. 8) The sighting, or not, of a woodpecker thought to be extinct is not a case of lying or fraud unless you can prove that those who claim to have spotted it are not correct or honestly mistaken. 9) The use or banning of cartoon characters to advertise food stuffs has absolutely nothing to do with science, let alone scientific fraud. 10) the cleanliness or otherwise of Californian air seems, in this case, to be a political problem. The linking of the better health of Californians despite their worse air pollution to a lack of a link between poor health and poor air quality seems to be the only bit of bad science in the whole article and that was committed by the JUNK Science web site. I have to ask; do you even read your links before posting them or is it a comprehension problem? I am absolutely baffled as to why you would think that you had posted the a link showing a scientific counter part to the generalised and ubiquitous lies that professional creationists routinely tell [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The REAL shame of creationism: its fradulent spokemen
Top
Bottom