Evolutionists say some evidence of evolution is fake

[Heneni]

Scientific Fraud Documented at Museums - Christian Newswire

Note: This is not in a religious section per se of the forum. I wanted to post this here to give my thumbs up to the truth triumphing. I'm not saying this discovery of fake evidence disproves evolution, but I have been saying that not all scientists are as trustworthy as some folk would like to believe.

When you debate with some non-believers they feel in a sense secure in their strick approach that it is folly to believe things without evidence. Scientifically speaking that is true of course. Whatever can be scientifically proven must produce proper evidence. But unfortunately and I guess you can have some sympathy for the underpaid underfunded wanna be the one that makes the headline with 'I found the missing link' phobia that is running rampant in scientific circles these days, but evidence is more often than we would like to admit cooked up. There is not enough pear review in my opinion. Some scientists make their results say what we would like to hear, or what their company wants it to say, or what they themselves think it ought to say.

Another thing that bugs me greatly is that for some reason the field of biology has become a kinda religious substitute for the non-believing scienctific community. Let me give you an example: When a scientist fidles with some cells and see some changes happen to them that was not previously recorded or noted or observed, the first thing they do is say ' This and that has been observed in this and that experiment and therefore millions/billions of years ago, this is how life evolved'

I'm simplifying here for the sake of argument. Isnt there any biologist that can just get on with making 'aliens' without marketing it under the boring 'this is how life started' slogan. Is there no other way to get some attention other than to say this proves how life started or how this ended or how that didnt happen millions of years ago, when in fact the research proves didly squat about how life started. Why? Because they were not there billions of years ago to MAKE the things that they are making in the lab.

Some scientists are doing amazing research and work and then in a rather dissapointing turn of events they slap on the 'how life started/evolved/died out/restarted/changed/ to their research......and I'm wondering for what? Will the brilliancy of the work not shine forth unless there is some evolution/abiogenesis twist to it? Will the funding dry up and will play time be over?

In any event, no matter whether its a religious fraud or an evolutionary fraud that is exposes, I'm happy when the truth prevails in the end. Cleans the air somewhat.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

So a religious broadcasting company is releasing a documentary which argues against some of the conclusions drawn by evolutionary biologists?

Without seeing the documentary and the counter-evidence therein, I cannot really comment on the science. But I would be wary of considering NRB unbiased in regards to evolution, especially as it sells evolution vs. creation materials on its website.

 

[Magic Man]

Just leave it be, MC, and let this die in peace.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In any event, no matter whether its a religious fraud or an evolutionary fraud that is exposes, I'm happy when the truth prevails in the end.

Your post belies your statement.

 

[Nepenthe]

Just leave it be, MC, and let this die in peace.

Must.. resist urge... to post....

Heneni, do you have specific examples of fraud or mistakes or whatever?

Seriously? A Christian Newswire link to NRB Network's documentary Evolution: The Grand Experiment? I have yet to watch Carl Werner's dvds, but he's a creationist- his book based on his documentaries is pure ID-creationist propoganda.
Oh man, I just missed a lecture from him in late September!
From Creation to the Cross

I'm sorry MBall1297... I was weak.

 

[Heneni]

Here is another example of a field of science that suffers from scienitific tunnel vision.

Close Encounter with Saturn Moon’s Fantastic Plumage | Wired Science | Wired.com

Naturally noboby is going to buy the stories and/or perhaps fund the research unless there is something in the order of 'life was found' or 'life may be there' or 'life started' or stuff like that.

Thankfully, *cross fingers*, there hasnt been some tunneled vision scientists who has concocted up some 'serious' evidence of life on another planet and I pray there won't be unless its verified over and over by more than one scientist, more than one agency and more than one country.

Will save us the embarrasment of having to 'fix' the frauds later and hopefully will keep intact the integrity of agencies like NASA for a while to come.

Some more fraudulent theatrics going on:

The Great Beyond: Hwang convicted in Korean court

The Great Beyond: Scientific Lockdown: Fraud in Florida/Espionage update

The Great Beyond: ETH Zurich research chief to resign over fraud probe

 

[Heneni]

Some more articles for your consideration.

How about IDA? The 'missing link'.

'Missing link' Ida lacks evolutionary insights - life - 21 October 2009 - New Scientist

Access : Fossil primate challenges Ida's place : Nature News

According to this article scientific fraud (that is caught) is on the rise. But many fraudulent journals go unnoticed and are not retracted.

The Great Beyond: Retractions rising

This is not a play off between the christians and the scientists. This is not a religious debate. But I do think that non-believers who are stern 'i won't believe it until science proves it' might want to think twice about believing every scientist with a journal under his arm and who uses the word 'life' recklessly. Some scientists have become the new messiah's of the world. Follow me, I know where I am going. Or follow me, I am the way the TRUTH and the 'how life started' or 'where life can be found' fundies. Um...OK, if YOU say so. There is no room in science for heresy. It's the foundation of the many non-believers faith, that science actually does prove what it says it proves.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Note: This is not in a religious section per se of the forum. I wanted to post this here to give my thumbs up to the truth triumphing. I'm not saying this discovery of fake evidence disproves evolution, but I have been saying that not all scientists are as trustworthy as some folk would like to believe.

When you debate with some non-believers they feel in a sense secure in their strick approach that it is folly to believe things without evidence. Scientifically speaking that is true of course. Whatever can be scientifically proven must produce proper evidence. But unfortunately and I guess you can have some sympathy for the underpaid underfunded wanna be the one that makes the headline with 'I found the missing link' phobia that is running rampant in scientific circles these days, but evidence is more often than we would like to admit cooked up. There is not enough pear review in my opinion. Some scientists make their results say what we would like to hear, or what their company wants it to say, or what they themselves think it ought to say.

Lobbyists release studies that support whatever it is they want it to support (i.e. tobacco, etc). But though these studies are released by scientists - paid scientists - these studies are usually not accepted with much merit in the academic arena. These studies are released for political purposes. Not scientific. The peer review process is fine as it is.

The problem is more with the "Christian scientists" who operate on a basis which is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. In science, you generally don't start off with your conclusion and work to find the evidence for it. These guys start off with the conclusion God exists and work from there. Thus, their work is subject to ridicule and mockery because they have made an unsubstantiated assumption. These "Christian scientists" will give off the appearance of being well-educated and have extensive knowledge in their field, but they are often exposed as misunderstanding the science behind the specific area they are arguing against.

Take "Doctor" Kent Hovind, notable Creationist. I've seen videos of his where he tries to argue against radiometric dating. He uses the analogy of a candle.

He basically says that if you light a candle, you can measure the rate at which it burns. You can also measure the final length of the candle. But you cannot extrapolate backwards to find the original height of the candle.

To the unsuspecting layman, you think "Wow! He's right!" He is right, for his specific analogy. But it doesn't relate to radiometric dating at all because that's not really how it works.

Radiometric dating works by how much percent of an original isotope decays into another. From that, you can use the half-life of the isotope in question (there are different methods of radiometric dating) to determine the age of the sample.

You learn this as a first year university geology student, even late high school. And this guy demands to be addressed as "Doctor" and lecture on a subject he clearly knows nothing about.

Want another example of the "Christian scientists" who claim to be educated and yet have no idea what they are talking about? Let's go with Ray Comfort whose main schtick is to proclaim to the Heavens "Paintings have a painter. Therefore the universe has a builder." Except the major flaw in this is paintings are manmade and we know they are manmade because not only do they not arise in nature of their own accord, we observe people making them.

He compares this to natural things which do create order on their own. Crystals, tree rings, electrons around atoms, I can go all night, but I don't really need to. Three examples is more than enough to demonstrate how Comfort's bald assertion of how order does not arise in nature (Hovind also claims this) is totally false.

Many of them don't even understand what the Theory of Evolution IS. Take Eric Hovind (Kent Hovind's son) who released a video describing the "Recipe for Evolution". His recipe is "You take nothing. You add a whole lot a time......we're going to need more than that. And then WOW! THE UNIVERSE APPEARS OUT OF NOWHERE!!!"

Which is not only NOT anywhere NEAR what evolution is...he's describing the Big Bang Theory and is disingenous as to how the singularity arises. He doesn't mention the zero-energy state of the universe or Planck lengths of Planck time...Schwartzchilds radii...wavefunctions....or anything like that. No, he just says "You take nothing and add time".

Do you see now why these people get so much scorn and ridicule heaped on them? Do you see why trusting "Christian scientists" for information (especially concerning evolution) is likely to be a horrible idea? Their aim is to misrepresent it.

Take Kirk Cameron and his "crockoduck" as he proclaims smugly "Why haven't we found one of these!?". Because if we found one of those, evolution would effectively be disproven. That's not what the Theory of Evolution predicts. And yet he's so dishonest as to present it as if that's the case. He explicitly says it that way.

Not to mention the horrible arguments of tying Darwin to Hitler to eugenics and Satanism and all that. They don't address evolution. Even if all that baloney WAS true, evolution still stands as they haven't addressed it. Just because they personally find a theory disagreeable does not mean it isn't true. Tough for them.

I'm not saying that all secular scientists are trustworthy. But I'm saying there's a good chance if you are getting your information from "Christian scientists", it's likely to be dead wrong, especially if it concerns evolution or cosmology.

Even IF some of the evidence for evolution was fake, evolution still has many more mountains of evidence to stand on. And unlike Creationist Carl Baugh who had to literally hoax the evidence for human co-existence with dinosaurs, "evolutionists" don't need to make up evidence as we have plenty already. You'd think people like Carl Baugh would wake up and think "Hmm...if I have to plant a hoax to support my side because I cannot find legitimate evidence, perhaps my side is wrong." Nope. That's exactly what happens when you start off with your conclusion (in this case, God exists and created everything) and then search for evidence to support it.

 

[andys]

Christians are so tedious.
Evolution is not an issue. Period. Get a life sweety.
If the Law of Gravity threatened your nonsense beliefs you'd be scouring for any shred of "evidence" to cast doubt upon it as well.

True (unbiased) truth-seekers don't have an ulterior agenda; they don't seek "evidence" to support (their) unsupportable propaganda, and they don't contest incontrovertible evidence because it threatens anticuanted beliefs as in the days when they persecuted Galileo and other truth bearers.

My advice to Heneni, and others like her who are preoccupied with fighting knowledge, is to read a book other than the Holey Babble. One written in this century. Maybe even one that isn't fiction. Then start another thread that doesn't betray you with such transparency.

 

[andys]

To ContentiusMaximus,
An excellent post.
It will, alas, fall upon deaf (and dumb) ears.
-Andy Stout

 

[Vile Atheist]

Christians are so tedious.
Evolution is not an issue. Period. Get a life sweety.
If the Law of Gravity threatened your nonsense beliefs you'd be scouring for any shred of "evidence" to cast doubt upon it as well.

True (unbiased) truth-seekers don't have an ulterior agenda; they don't seek "evidence" to support (their) unsupportable propaganda, and they don't contest incontrovertible evidence because it threatens anticuanted beliefs as in the days when they persecuted Galileo and other truth bearers.

My advice to Heneni, and others like her who are preoccupied with fighting knowledge, is to read a book other than the Holey Babble. One written in this century. Maybe even one that isn't fiction. Then start another thread that doesn't betray you with such transparency.

There are ways to make a point other than sheer denigration.

 

[Morse]

Lobbyists release studies that support whatever it is they want it to support (i.e. tobacco, etc). But though these studies are released by scientists - paid scientists - these studies are usually not accepted with much merit in the academic arena. These studies are released for political purposes. Not scientific. The peer review process is fine as it is.

The problem is more with the "Christian scientists" who operate on a basis which is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. In science, you generally don't start off with your conclusion and work to find the evidence for it. These guys start off with the conclusion God exists and work from there. Thus, their work is subject to ridicule and mockery because they have made an unsubstantiated assumption. These "Christian scientists" will give off the appearance of being well-educated and have extensive knowledge in their field, but they are often exposed as misunderstanding the science behind the specific area they are arguing against.

Take "Doctor" Kent Hovind, notable Creationist. I've seen videos of his where he tries to argue against radiometric dating. He uses the analogy of a candle.

He basically says that if you light a candle, you can measure the rate at which it burns. You can also measure the final length of the candle. But you cannot extrapolate backwards to find the original height of the candle.

To the unsuspecting layman, you think "Wow! He's right!" He is right, for his specific analogy. But it doesn't relate to radiometric dating at all because that's not really how it works.

Radiometric dating works by how much percent of an original isotope decays into another. From that, you can use the half-life of the isotope in question (there are different methods of radiometric dating) to determine the age of the sample.

You learn this as a first year university geology student, even late high school. And this guy demands to be addressed as "Doctor" and lecture on a subject he clearly knows nothing about.

Want another example of the "Christian scientists" who claim to be educated and yet have no idea what they are talking about? Let's go with Ray Comfort whose main schtick is to proclaim to the Heavens "Paintings have a painter. Therefore the universe has a builder." Except the major flaw in this is paintings are manmade and we know they are manmade because not only do they not arise in nature of their own accord, we observe people making them.

He compares this to natural things which do create order on their own. Crystals, tree rings, electrons around atoms, I can go all night, but I don't really need to. Three examples is more than enough to demonstrate how Comfort's bald assertion of how order does not arise in nature (Hovind also claims this) is totally false.

Many of them don't even understand what the Theory of Evolution IS. Take Eric Hovind (Kent Hovind's son) who released a video describing the "Recipe for Evolution". His recipe is "You take nothing. You add a whole lot a time......we're going to need more than that. And then WOW! THE UNIVERSE APPEARS OUT OF NOWHERE!!!"

Which is not only NOT anywhere NEAR what evolution is...he's describing the Big Bang Theory and is disingenous as to how the singularity arises. He doesn't mention the zero-energy state of the universe or Planck lengths of Planck time...Schwartzchilds radii...wavefunctions....or anything like that. No, he just says "You take nothing and add time".

Do you see now why these people get so much scorn and ridicule heaped on them? Do you see why trusting "Christian scientists" for information (especially concerning evolution) is likely to be a horrible idea? Their aim is to misrepresent it.

Take Kirk Cameron and his "crockoduck" as he proclaims smugly "Why haven't we found one of these!?". Because if we found one of those, evolution would effectively be disproven. That's not what the Theory of Evolution predicts. And yet he's so dishonest as to present it as if that's the case. He explicitly says it that way.

Not to mention the horrible arguments of tying Darwin to Hitler to eugenics and Satanism and all that. They don't address evolution. Even if all that baloney WAS true, evolution still stands as they haven't addressed it. Just because they personally find a theory disagreeable does not mean it isn't true. Tough for them.

I'm not saying that all secular scientists are trustworthy. But I'm saying there's a good chance if you are getting your information from "Christian scientists", it's likely to be dead wrong, especially if it concerns evolution or cosmology.

Even IF some of the evidence for evolution was fake, evolution still has many more mountains of evidence to stand on. And unlike Creationist Carl Baugh who had to literally hoax the evidence for human co-existence with dinosaurs, "evolutionists" don't need to make up evidence as we have plenty already. You'd think people like Carl Baugh would wake up and think "Hmm...if I have to plant a hoax to support my side because I cannot find legitimate evidence, perhaps my side is wrong." Nope. That's exactly what happens when you start off with your conclusion (in this case, God exists and created everything) and then search for evidence to support it.

I learned radiometric dating in the first half of chemistry, junior year. :rainbow1:

And you are correct, people who totally bungle the Scientific Method really **** me off. Especially when they went to college for eight years.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I learned radiometric dating in the first half of chemistry, junior year. :rainbow1:

I honestly wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Morse]

I honestly wouldn't doubt it.

If I do remember, I was rather amused with the half-life of plutonium.

Then I was rather outraged when I figured out how our nation disposes of it...

 

[Vile Atheist]

If I do remember, I was rather amused with the half-life of plutonium.

Then I was rather outraged when I figured out how our nation disposes of it...

Which isotope of plutonium? They vary quite a bit.

 

[Morse]

I truly have no clue, my chemistry teacher was absolutely terrible at the entire explaining process. I think he just went home and played with liquid helium all night instead of grading our papers.

I actually didn't take the second half of Chemistry that year because of my teacher. I waited until this year and got a different one.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well either you thought it was really low (Pu-241 has a half life of 14 years) or thought it was really high (Pu-244 has a half life of 8.08x10^7 years), as per Wikipedia.

Nonetheless, as it relates to teachers, my chemistry teachers were awesome. It was my physics teacher that was absolute garbage lol.

 

[Morse]

You see, my physics teacher is alright, he just expects us to know the mathematics of it. The mathematics require that you are currently taking calculus (I'm taking Pre-Calculus) so I struggled a bit for the first part.

And I'm pretty sure it was Pu-244 in that case. Apparently the disposal of plutonium mainly consists of deep and shallow well injection.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm more worried about the one with a half life of 14 years than the one with a half life of 8.08x10^7 years.

Think about a sample of the same mass of each isotope. It'll take 7 years for Pu-241 to decay half of its radioactive material whereas it will take Pu-244 4.04x10^7 years to do the same.

 

[Morse]

I'm more worried about the one with a half life of 14 years than the one with a half life of 8.08x10^7 years.

Think about a sample of the same mass of each isotope. It'll take 7 years for Pu-241 to decay half of its radioactive material whereas it will take Pu-244 4.04x10^7 years to do the same.

Ahh see, once again my high school education comes out. You are correct, I was thinking that the Pu-244 4.04x10^7 would be worse because it has a longer half-life and keeps its radioactive traits longer. But it would be the decay to worry about.