How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

[Autodidact]

You mean the biblical ethic of "thou shalt not lie" would destroy science?

Where in your Bible does it say, "Thou shall not lie?"

 

[Man of Faith]

Which commandment(s) did Adam and Eve disobey? Cause from the dim reaches of my memory, I seem to recall that the part about being given the tablets, etc happened significantly later (like entire chapters of 'so-and-so begat such-and-such and lived to be 800' later). So how exactly did Adam and Eve (or really just Adam since he was the only one yahweh told not to eat from the tree) disobey commandments not given for several hundred more years? In fact not until well after both had died?

You are correct the Ten Commandments came after Adam and Even when Moses was leading the Israelites through the wilderness. However Adam and Eve could have disobeyed them before they were given and I believe they did. Also if you will notice in Genesis 3 when the serpent was talkiing to Eve, she knew the commandment not to eat of the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden because she said so in verse 3. We can conclude that Adam told her about it. Then in verse 5 the serpent tells Eve that if they eat the fruit they will become like God.

I believe Adam and Eve broke commandment one to have no other Gods before him. They were trying to put themselves on equal status with God or become like God.

 

[Autodidact]

No, but we can validate most science. When I jump, I come back to earth, I just validated the theory of gravity. When I type on a computer keyboard, I see it appear on my screen, I just validated my computer, but I cannot validate common ancestry of all species because that would take millions of years, so that takes faith to believe, and I'm not willing to have faith in something that goes agin the Bible.

You're putting your ignorance on display. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) has been better validated, and is more accepted by science, than the Theory of Gravity. Jumping and falling does not validate the theory that gravity is a curvature in the space/time continuum.

Would you like me to review the evidence that persuaded the skeptical world of Biology to accept ToE over a hundred years ago?

You've also demonstrated your bias: you accept the scientific method, except when the result violates your pet dogma. That's dishonest. It violates scientific ethics, which is honesty.

And you say you value honesty? Apparently not.

 

[Atheologian]

Yes...thank goodness the Scientific Community as a whole is regulated by peer review. Otherwise these false claims would be accepted by all, instead of torn down by their peers.
Case in point, the study you cited was conducted by a scientific peer review.
When making major claims (Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines, Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs,Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's Cold Fusion claims) there is no shortage of peers eager to tear them down, looking for any flaws in the data or methods.

Whereas unscientific claims of Young Earth, humans walking with dinosaurs and global floods are easily accepted by creationist without any peer review. All they need in these claims is to line up with an old black book.

Amen to that.

 

[Autodidact]

Science is great to learn about creation, but not the creator or how we got here, that takes faith. Science has to have a theory on how we got here, I understand that, but it could be wrong because it can't be validated.

You're drawing your line in the wrong place. We are part of "creation," as is the question of how we get various different species. You're right, though, science cannot study God or the existence of God, and does not try to. We do know a lot about creation, including how we get such a diversity of species, thanks to science.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is the problem I have with common ancestry of all species, it is not observable. What we do observe is exacly what the Bible says, animals and man reproducing after their own kind.

Feel free to promote yourself all you want in my thread. We are all humans on the same planet and need to share resources.

Gravity is also not observable. What we do observe is the evidence that supports the theory.

Oh, and by the way, new species have actually been observed to evolve.

My guess is that you have no idea what ToE says or what the evidence is that supports it, am I right?

 

[Autodidact]

We need faith to believe in the unobservable, I have no problem with that, if someone wants to have faith in God, or in common ancestry of all species that is fine.

I believe the evidence for evolution is the exact same evidence for creation, it depends on your worldview on how you interpret the evidence. For example is homogenous bone structure because of common ancestry or a common designer? It depends on who you ask, someone that believes in creation or someone that believes in ToE.

Yup. If you have a scientific world-view, you accept scientific evidence. If you have a magical worldview, you reject evidence in favor of religious dogma. That's your prerogative. Just be honest and admit that you're against science. Oh, and do so on a stone tablet. Get off the computer--it's a product of the scientific worldview.

And ToE isn't something you believe in. It's not a religion. It's a scientific theory. Do you know what that is?

 

[Man of Faith]

Where in your Bible does it say, "Thou shall not lie?"

Well I shortened it. It says thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor and Jesus clarified that you neighbor means all people when he told the story about the good Samaritan in Luke 10. And in Revelation 21 it says that liars will have their place in the lake of fire.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Here is the problem I have with common ancestry of all species, it is not observable. What we do observe is exacly what the Bible says, animals and man reproducing after their own kind.

Feel free to promote yourself all you want in my thread. We are all humans on the same planet and need to share resources.

Sorry, wrong again.
Mitochondrial DNA , and RNA evidence most definitely proves common ancestry. You may choose to ignore the evidence, but that will not make it go away.

 

[Atheologian]

Let's get something straight here, while we're at it. A THEORY does not mean it's just some idea some guy had and everyone beleives it. That's called religion. Theory is back by peer review, as mentioned before, and is widely accepted and can be PROVEN as fact. This means an expirement will produce consistent results, each time, that support the theory.

Now consider this: common knowledge said, centuries ago, that the sun revolved around the Earth. Theories changed, as evidence changed, and eventually, we discovered the true positions of the heavenly bodies and their nature in orbit. This is the advantage of theory. It can be modified and corrected as the evidence suggests, through the scientific method.
For the theists out their crying, "so scientists can be wrong!", sure. The great thing about science, however, is that we accept when we were wrong, fix the problem, and continue to learn. The scope of our knowledge only broadens, never funnels back, as with religion. Where theologians seek to fill gaps in knowledge with fairy tails and imaginary entities and deities, scientists seek to fill those gaps with more knowledge.

 

[Autodidact]

Well I shortened it. It says thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor and Jesus clarified that you neighbor means all people when he told the story about the good Samaritan in Luke 10. And in Revelation 21 it says that liars will have their place in the lake of fire.

So, in short, it doesn't.

I find that YECs generally lie about their Bible as well as science.

 

[Autodidact]

As to the OP: Why would general data about how scientists behave in general undermine only one theory in one field of science? It either calls all of science into question equally, or none of it.

Do you accept that the scientific method works, or don't you?

 

[themadhair]

My DNA contains:
1) The genes for generating a tail (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
2) The gene for generating vitamin C (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
3) The gene for superior olfactory function (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
4) Sub telomeric duplication in exactly the right spot on my chromosome #2 to be consistent for common descent.
5) Duplicated inactive centromere in my chromosome #2 in exactly the right place to be consistent for common descent.
6) Dozens of endogenous retroviruses in exactly the right places to be consistent with common descent.

No evidence huh? If any of the above were in any other location in my DNA then common descent would be falsified. But yet they are in the right spots. And this is only one small little piece of evidence in the huge tapestry that verifies common descent.

So whenever anyone claims to support science while ignoring evidence like the above they are lying to both themselves and others. Lying is ok when it is done for Jesus though.

 

[Nepenthe]

One problem I see is how long does it take before false claims to be torn down, or what if some claims can't be falsified like common ancestry of all species?

As bio-chemist Dr. Douglas Theobold points out common ancestry can be falsified:
“Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code.”

Nested hierarchies could be challenged if we found non-vascular plants that have seeds, fish with cusped teeth, etc.- it would all raise serious questions about nested hierarchies.

Finding ancestral species in the fossil record out of sequence would also raise serious doubts. Mammalian fossils found before Devonian deposits would be a real eye opener.

There are tons of examples- see here for more.

 

[Atheologian]

My DNA contains:
1) The genes for generating a tail (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
2) The gene for generating vitamin C (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
3) The gene for superior olfactory function (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
4) Sub telomeric duplication in exactly the right spot on my chromosome #2 to be consistent for common descent.
5) Duplicated inactive centromere in my chromosome #2 in exactly the right place to be consistent for common descent.
6) Dozens of endogenous retroviruses in exactly the right places to be consistent with common descent.

No evidence huh? If any of the above were in any other location in my DNA then common descent would be falsified. But yet they are in the right spots. And this is only one small little piece of evidence in the huge tapestry that verifies common descent.

So whenever anyone claims to support science while ignoring evidence like the above they are lying to both themselves and others. Lying is ok when it is done for Jesus though.

You just opened the door for the irreducible complexity argument. I really like debunking that one...

 

[Man of Faith]

My DNA contains:
1) The genes for generating a tail (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
2) The gene for generating vitamin C (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
3) The gene for superior olfactory function (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.
4) Sub telomeric duplication in exactly the right spot on my chromosome #2 to be consistent for common descent.
5) Duplicated inactive centromere in my chromosome #2 in exactly the right place to be consistent for common descent.
6) Dozens of endogenous retroviruses in exactly the right places to be consistent with common descent.

No evidence huh? If any of the above were in any other location in my DNA then common descent would be falsified. But yet they are in the right spots. And this is only one small little piece of evidence in the huge tapestry that verifies common descent.

So whenever anyone claims to support science while ignoring evidence like the above they are lying to both themselves and others. Lying is ok when it is done for Jesus though.

DNA or chromosome evidence doesn't prove common ancestry of all species, it just shows that it could be possible, but also a common designer could be another possiblilty. What we observe goes along with the Bible, not the ToE, so the observational evidence does not agree with the common ancestry theory, but more so for the common designer theory.

 

[Alceste]

DNA or chromosome evidence doesn't prove common ancestry of all species, it just shows that it could be possible, but also a common designer could be another possiblilty. What we observe goes along with the Bible, not the ToE, so the observational evidence does not agree with the common ancestry theory, but more so for the common designer theory.

There is no such thing as a "common designer theory". If a "common designer" proposal wishes to become a "theory", it must first be advanced as a hypothesis. Then a methodology must be proposed by which this hypothesis can be evidenced or falsified. Predictions must be made as to what the empirical investigation will find if the hypothesis is correct. The findings of the empirical investigation must be consistent with your predictions. Once this process is complete, it must be reviewed by others so any flaws in the methodology or conclusions can be addressed. Then the entire process must be repeated by dozens of different research teams approaching the question from dozens of angles. All of them must reach the same or similar conclusions (regardless of their religious background). THEN you have a "theory", like the theory of evolution.

So, your hypothesis is that a common designer created each individual species. That's step one. What is step 2? What is your proposed method by which your hypothesis can be empirically verified or falsified?

 

[Man of Faith]

There is no such thing as a "common designer theory". If a "common designer" proposal wishes to become a "theory", it must first be advanced as a hypothesis. Then a methodology must be proposed by which this hypothesis can be evidenced or falsified. Predictions must be made as to what the empirical investigation will find if the hypothesis is correct. The findings of the empirical investigation must be consistent with your predictions. Once this process is complete, it must be reviewed by others so any flaws in the methodology or conclusions can be addressed. Then the entire process must be repeated by dozens of different research teams approaching the question from dozens of angles. All of them must reach the same or similar conclusions (regardless of their religious background). THEN you have a "theory", like the theory of evolution.

So, your hypothesis is that a common designer created each individual species. That's step one. What is step 2? What is your proposed method by which your hypothesis can be empirically verified or falsified?

Well, let's watch two cats reproduce and see what we get. If we get a banana, then ToE wins.

 

[Autodidact]

DNA or chromosome evidence doesn't prove common ancestry of all species, it just shows that it could be possible, but also a common designer could be another possiblilty. What we observe goes along with the Bible, not the ToE, so the observational evidence does not agree with the common ancestry theory, but more so for the common designer theory.

You don't know the first thing about it. I doubt that you even know what science is or how it works.

To begin with, and pay attention, because this will be important as we go along, science isn't about proof. Nothing in science is proven, including that the earth is round and not flat. What we work with is evidence, so we'll be looking at the evidence and what it tells us about how God created all things.

That's right, science does not address the issue of whether God created everything, so we can all assume that He did. The only question is, what design method did He use, magic poofing of two of each species 6000 years ago, or evolution?

We will see that the evidence strongly supports the former hypothesis, and the latter is not possible, if science works. So once again I ask you, does science work, or doesn't it?

Are you interested in learning what ToE actually says, and what the evidence is that supports it? Or do you prefer to maintain your beliefs in ignorance of the facts?

 

[Alceste]

Well, let's watch two cats reproduce and see what we get.

What would that prove? Biologists can already watch new species of fruit flies emerge, which is accurately predicted by evolutionary theory. Do you now have a SECOND hypothesis that cats (unlike fruit flies) are not subject to the genetic mutations that lead to speciation, as predicted by the ToE? What method do you propose to validate your second hypothesis? And why have you abandoned your first hypothesis, that a common designer created each individual species?