fragmentsofdreams
Critical loyalist
Dutchunter said:
Evolution does not deal with particles. It does not start until you have simple life.
Upvote
0
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.
Dutchunter said:Hey thanks...but as both of your posts confirm you do understand what I mean by "theory". In fact I just posted once again about the difference between a theory that "works" and one that isn't proven yet. Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture seems a little long. Fairy tale maybe? I'll have to think of a better term.
And since you do know what I was getting at Vance..how about responding to my main point.
The pine needs researching. Real science, unlike creationism, doesn't consist of a few off the cuff arguments.Dutchunter said:Vance....you of all people shouldn't be trying to point out when you think somebody didn't respond to someone's points. In my short time here you have repeatedly ignored responses to yourself. You also ignored my post on the pine completely.
Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Proof simply does not exist in science. Disproof does.notto...you need to quit harping on certain words and just provide the evidence- yes, the proof. In fact I've used the word "proof" and "prove" before and in fact responses have been "yes I can prove" etc.
Scientists in all fields of science occasionally falsify results. That's why repeatability is so important, and why we have checks and balances. It's why we quickly identified the Chinese fossil bird hoax - which was purpotrated for money by a Chinese farmer, by the way, not a scientist. It doesn't compare with, for example, Hovind's lies about mammoths and Cytochrome C, does it? Do you know of a specific lie told by evolutionary scientists that is currently doing the rounds?I don't accept it because it's flawed. As pointed out before they also have an agenda. They lie.
Oh, but it does! Lucaspa is the man for this, but evolutionary biology is used all the time in developing antibiotics. It is also finding applications in electronic circuit design. It's an extremely powerful phenomenon.This is not the same kind of science that results in visible results, the kind that ends up "working"(A-bomb), the kind that is consistent.
You mean that it is modified and refined as new data is gathered? Welcome to this strange thing called "science".It's extremely flexible as well.
No. He can't be proven either. It's not what's at issue - everyone on this thread and in this forum believes in God - it's a Christians Only forum, remember?My God cannot be disproven.
Are you suggesting non-Creationists don't really believe in God?He does not have as His defenders those who don't believe in Him.
Yes. But it screams out loud and clear that it was not literally created in six days.He Created this world as he so stated in Genesis- in 6 days.. And the evidence of his wonderous Creation are there for all to see.
I could spend a day on this. Here's a line on this page: http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/womenedsept97.htmlFraud Happens: What to Do About It
By Nicholas Wade
For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style with the ambitious opus of Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs, who placed seven of his fictive works in Nature and nine in Science. All those ad hoc explanations for biomedicine's leadership role in fraud--that entrance to medical school selected for corner-cutters, or that the mathematical structure of physics leaves little slack for fudging figures--must be laid aside.
Fraud in science is a minor irritant from one perspective, a serious problem from another. Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. Some practitioners forsake the safety of mundane fabrication and concoct spectacular experiments about matters at the cutting edge of their fields. But one can argue that the more ambitious the fraud, the more quickly it will be discovered.
The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize. He was detected because of an insider's tip, not by the usual checking mechanisms of science; refereeing and replication. Had he had the good sense to stop in time, his oeuvre might have gained him a professorship from which he could have directed the work of an army of honest PhDs and laid a firmer basis for his scientific standing. Perish the horrid thought that undiscovered Schons throng the halls of academe.
Science is a cumulative process, however, and in the long run each brick must bear the load of those placed above it. So there is much force to the argument that incorrect results of any kind--whether obtained by fraud, self-deception, or other regrettable human frailties--cannot last indefinitely.
But they can last a long time, breezing past the conventional checkpoints of scientific quality without the slightest difficulty. This is the sense in which fraud is a serious problem, both of methodology and of public relations. Scientists point to the refereeing system as a guarantor of quality, but in the next breath will assert that referees cannot be expected to detect fraud. In fact, a referee, who after all is just doing an unpaid paper review, cannot test for much more than plausibility. That's a useful function, but it's not very effective as a screen against fraud.
Replication is central to scientific methodology, but in practice it's almost never an exact duplication of the kind necessary to support an accusation of fraud. There are plenty of honest reasons why two researchers may get different results from the same experiment. A claim that cannot be replicated is generally ignored, not publicly repudiated. Like refereeing, replication plays a useful purpose in science, but it is not designed to detect fraud and rarely does so.
Many, perhaps most, cases of fraud come to light because someone in the perpetrator's laboratory, someone in a position to observe his behavior and see the raw data, gets uncomfortable enough to blow the whistle. The front line of defense against fraud is not methodological but personal. The lab chief is in the best position to detect fraud. Only he can demand to see the lab notebooks, evidence that is beyond the reach of outsiders.
Science, by this analysis, is institutionally vulnerable to fraud. Its quality control mechanisms do not prevent fraud, yet as each new case bursts into public view, scientists find themselves put in the generally false position of declaring that there is no need to worry, because the quality control mechanisms of science infallibly detect fraud.
A more direct answer would be that research is not a process that can be made efficient. There is an inevitable degree of waste in the system, and fraud is generally not a serious enough problem to justify any measure that would cost significant time or money. However, it has not proved to be a popular response to go before Congress or the news cameras and declare, "Fraud happens--forget about it." There's a strong case for viewing the prevention of fraud as the direct responsibility of the lab chief. If the people he or she has hired are disturbed enough to cook data, the lab chief should get to know about it. If the lab chief puts his name on the concoction, intending to draw credit for it, he deserves a big share of the blowback. But at present every fraud case seems to end the same way. The perpetrator disappears from view, slinking off to become a pathologist in a Midwestern hospital. And the lab chief receives the commiseration of his pals for the unfortunate occurrence that fate visited on him.
Nicholas Wade is a science writer for The New York Times
Scientist's Fraud Costs Michigan $1.7 Million
Those are your words above claiming I just assert that scientists lie and don't back it up. Not only that, but the quote you giveYou keep on asserting that scientists lie
obviously is an ASSERTION.Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. i.e. major areas of science, such as evolution, are based on good science, not fraud.
The person the article is based on could have been up for a Nobel Prize!For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style
See now you've changed to "systematic fraud". You're evolving.The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize.
Fraud Happens: What to Do About It
By Nicholas Wade
For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style with the ambitious opus of Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs, who placed seven of his fictive works in Nature and nine in Science. All those ad hoc explanations for biomedicine's leadership role in fraud--that entrance to medical school selected for corner-cutters, or that the mathematical structure of physics leaves little slack for fudging figures--must be laid aside.
Fraud in science is a minor irritant from one perspective, a serious problem from another. Most instances of fraud concern work of little importance and are quickly forgotten. Some practitioners forsake the safety of mundane fabrication and concoct spectacular experiments about matters at the cutting edge of their fields. But one can argue that the more ambitious the fraud, the more quickly it will be discovered.
The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize. He was detected because of an insider's tip, not by the usual checking mechanisms of science; refereeing and replication. Had he had the good sense to stop in time, his oeuvre might have gained him a professorship from which he could have directed the work of an army of honest PhDs and laid a firmer basis for his scientific standing. Perish the horrid thought that undiscovered Schons throng the halls of academe.
Science is a cumulative process, however, and in the long run each brick must bear the load of those placed above it. So there is much force to the argument that incorrect results of any kind--whether obtained by fraud, self-deception, or other regrettable human frailties--cannot last indefinitely.
But they can last a long time, breezing past the conventional checkpoints of scientific quality without the slightest difficulty. This is the sense in which fraud is a serious problem, both of methodology and of public relations. Scientists point to the refereeing system as a guarantor of quality, but in the next breath will assert that referees cannot be expected to detect fraud. In fact, a referee, who after all is just doing an unpaid paper review, cannot test for much more than plausibility. That's a useful function, but it's not very effective as a screen against fraud.
Replication is central to scientific methodology, but in practice it's almost never an exact duplication of the kind necessary to support an accusation of fraud. There are plenty of honest reasons why two researchers may get different results from the same experiment. A claim that cannot be replicated is generally ignored, not publicly repudiated. Like refereeing, replication plays a useful purpose in science, but it is not designed to detect fraud and rarely does so.
Many, perhaps most, cases of fraud come to light because someone in the perpetrator's laboratory, someone in a position to observe his behavior and see the raw data, gets uncomfortable enough to blow the whistle. The front line of defense against fraud is not methodological but personal. The lab chief is in the best position to detect fraud. Only he can demand to see the lab notebooks, evidence that is beyond the reach of outsiders.
Science, by this analysis, is institutionally vulnerable to fraud. Its quality control mechanisms do not prevent fraud, yet as each new case bursts into public view, scientists find themselves put in the generally false position of declaring that there is no need to worry, because the quality control mechanisms of science infallibly detect fraud.
A more direct answer would be that research is not a process that can be made efficient. There is an inevitable degree of waste in the system, and fraud is generally not a serious enough problem to justify any measure that would cost significant time or money. However, it has not proved to be a popular response to go before Congress or the news cameras and declare, "Fraud happens--forget about it." There's a strong case for viewing the prevention of fraud as the direct responsibility of the lab chief. If the people he or she has hired are disturbed enough to cook data, the lab chief should get to know about it. If the lab chief puts his name on the concoction, intending to draw credit for it, he deserves a big share of the blowback. But at present every fraud case seems to end the same way. The perpetrator disappears from view, slinking off to become a pathologist in a Midwestern hospital. And the lab chief receives the commiseration of his pals for the unfortunate occurrence that fate visited on him.
Nicholas Wade is a science writer for The New York Times
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?