How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

[Man of Faith]

I want to thank everyone for the lively discussions. I am going into seclusion to a limited number of people for about two weeks to be with God. I am being ordained as Deacon at my church, giving my testimony and then we are going to have a revival which we will be praying for each day and night. Maybe that was why I was so talkative today so I could get the forums out of my system for a while. It's an important time in my life and I want to clear my head and thoughts to only what is important to God and the church.

Maybe God will give me some divine arguments to use against evolution when I get back. God Bless.

 

[Alceste]

Well I saw the word evolution, so I'm sure I know the case they are trying to make.

Attinburgh does not "make a case" for evolution, because there is no case to make. The fact of evolution is not in dispute outside your church, which is a very tiny minority of people in the grand scheme of things. Attinburgh will simply take you on a fascinating guided tour of an awe-inspiring diversity of creatures populating God's green earth, with running commentary on where they fit on the tree of life and the benefits of their various adaptations.

It's a great show. You would not be disappointed. You may not even find it particularly challenging to your beliefs, since "proving evolution" is not his point. Celebrating the abundance and innovation of God's creation is the point, but this can't be effectively done without acknowledging the way he actually did it.

 

[Man of Faith]

Then the world would be quite different from this one. In any case, it's irrelevant to this thread, so can we get back on the subject.

Here's a challenge for you:
If you are willing to take the time to listen and learn, I will teach you what ToE is, how it works, and what the evidence is in its favor. It will take a big investment of time for both of us. I am willing if you are. I warn you, though, once you understand it, you are much more likely to accept it. Your alternative is to remain ignorant, and oppose a non-existent theory in which cats give birth to oranges. Which do you prefer?

Thanks for the offer, but I don't have time right now, maybe another time, I am going in front of the living God in Heaven with all my mind, heart and soul. You can understand I am sure.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I predict he will decline. For no reason then he just doesn't CARE. His mind is made up. More accurately frozen in the distant past by myth. Evidence doesn't matter to him. Only faith.

And he has said as much elsewhere.

Originally Posted by -Man of Faith-
Thanks for the offer, but I don't have time right now, maybe another time, I am going in front of the living God in Heaven with all my mind, heart and soul. You can understand I am sure.

During the time I had been a Christian I would have immediately thumbed my nose at anything akin to The life of Mammals as well and would have discarded the film right off the bat as dangerous secular trash without ever having any gumption to watch it. Like a lot of other Christians, I would have feared that by watching, I would summarily open myself to a potential act of sin that could sway me away from Gods protection (or falling for influences perpetrated by Satan) therefore my capability to rationally learn anything "Outside the Box" would effectively be held indefinitely in check by a mentally contrived deathgrip generated by personal fear, and reinforced by the camaraderie of those faithful proclaiming the virtues of sticking with faith and avoiding anything else not following doctrine.

 

[Autodidact]

I want to thank everyone for the lively discussions. I am going into seclusion to a limited number of people for about two weeks to be with God. I am being ordained as Deacon at my church, giving my testimony and then we are going to have a revival which we will be praying for each day and night. Maybe that was why I was so talkative today so I could get the forums out of my system for a while. It's an important time in my life and I want to clear my head and thoughts to only what is important to God and the church.

Maybe God will give me some divine arguments to use against evolution when I get back. God Bless.

Looks like he chose option #2: remain ignorant.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't have time right now, maybe another time, I am going in front of the living God in Heaven with all my mind, heart and soul. You can understand I am sure.

That's what I figured.

 

[Tristesse]

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.

So, would you tell a detective piecing together a crime, not to bother because he never witnessed the crime take place? Thats the exact attitude you have with regards to biology. We have enough confirmable data in the field of biology to say, yes evolution of species has occurred. You don't have to witness it with your own eyes. Not to mention we have seen some species evolve new traits or features within a very short period of time.

 

[MSizer]

Doesn't it make you wonder about what you think when you have to go digging for potential flaws? Do you really not see how dishonest Ben Stein and Kirk Cameron are? Doesn't it make you question your thoughts when the others who think like you stoop to trickery to try to promote their ideas?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Doesn't it make you wonder about what you think when you have to go digging for potential flaws? Do you really not see how dishonest Ben Stein and Kirk Cameron are? Doesn't it make you question your thoughts when the others who think like you stoop to trickery to try to promote their ideas?

Don't you see? They have to lie to get the truth out. It's the only way!

 

[MSizer]

Here is the problem I have with common ancestry of all species, it is not observable.

False.

Evolution witnessed in a petri dish. If we could live long enough, we'd see it in larger animals too.

Witnessing what Darwin could only dream of: live evolution

 

[Nepenthe]

False.

Evolution witnessed in a petri dish. If we could live long enough, we'd see it in larger animals too.

Witnessing what Darwin could only dream of: live evolution

I love that study. :yes:
Live Evolution Witnessed In Controlled Environment Of Microbial Predator And Prey

This is pretty cool as well: Biologists ID Molecular Basis Of High-altitude Adaptation In Mice

 

[Twilight Hue]

Looks like he chose option #2: remain ignorant.

No surprise there. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Brings about however a sincere appreciation for those who truly and sincerely want to seek out the hard truth even when the truth becomes uncomfortable on a personal level. Without whom we would likely be still writing away with quills and parchment rather than computers and monitors.

 

[lamplighter]

Isn't dismissing the science behind evolution the same as dismissing the science behind DNA evidence? So by creationist logic shouldn't we just let thousands of murderers back out on the street? I mean obviously there's some major flaw in DNA analysis, the EXACT same DNA analysis used for studying species and their relationship between other species. As well as radiocarbon dating, since the EXACT same science behind radiocarbon dating is the one in the same for DNA analysis. I mean clearly Satan put Carbon-14 at advance stages in fossils to deceive us, and put us astray from the right path of literal translation of the Bible, knowing very well that Willard Libby would invent the radiocarbon dating method in 1949. We need to save those poor people in prison who were wrongly convicted by DNA evidence now! To think that such atrocities could occur in a god fearing country like the USA which was founded on reason! I don't know what country y'all were born in, but I was raised in America where we don't convict people on such silly nonsense as DNA evidence.

 

[cardero]

Its actually called The Scientific Method by most people.

Look it up, it works.

Moldy paper written by moldy men, well...

So are you implying that scientists don't have faith or are you implying that scientists are the only ones who know how to use it?

 

[Morse]

Neither.

The Scientific Method in no way pertains to religion, I was just being a jerk (which I apologize for). SM and religion can operate independently, which is obvious.

It is also obvious that not only scientists know how to use it, as I know how to use it (and I am far from a scientist), and many other people know how to use it (I'm assuming you do as well, and are not a scientist).

Which leads me to believe you were being aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. And while I was aggressive in that comment, attacking me back helps nothing.

 

[cardero]

Neither.

The Scientific Method in no way pertains to religion, I was just being a jerk (which I apologize for). SM and religion can operate independently, which is obvious.

It is also obvious that not only scientists know how to use it, as I know how to use it (and I am far from a scientist), and many other people know how to use it (I'm assuming you do as well, and are not a scientist).

Which leads me to believe you were being aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. And while I was aggressive in that comment, attacking me back helps nothing.

Nothing of the sort. Just trying to help link and compare some of the things faith can do in the name of God compared to those done in the name of science. Faith and hope may deter even the most stringent and logical methods.

 

[Alceste]

Nothing of the sort. Just trying to help link and compare some of the things faith can do in the name of God compared to those done in the name of science. Faith and hope may deter even the most stringent and logical methods.

Deter them from what?

 

[Morse]

Well then I apologize for being aggressive in my post telling you to not be aggressive, for I was incorrect.

Quite a few scientists believe in both religion and science, and often times the theories and data need to be separated completely and finished before they are linked. A scientist doesn't consider "What does biblical philosophy say about ____" while working. A scientist simply executes the experiment and collects data. AFTER the fact, is when Religion and Science may safely meet.

"Well, we got this from our experiment, what does this have to do with religion?" Religion muddles procedures, but allows us to connect results.

Of course there are some who choose to ignore this fact and restrict themselves based on religious beliefs during an experiment which requires no bias. And more often than not this tends to be non-scientists (After all, scientists developed and implemented the method, they SHOULD use it the most. It'd be like Henry Ford driving a Chevy.)

Hope that pieced together an iota of sense. I tend to not make much sense when I type.

 

[cardero]

Deter them from what?

Probably from a positive or negative conclusion.

 

[Morse]

Deter them from what?

Accuracy, Objectivity, and Logic.