It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Blarneystoner
Science has no conscience and doesn't care about whether a theory gets proven or disproven. That's because science follows scientific method...which makes it a prerequisite that theories are falsifiable and that they have to be tested and peer reviewed. Hypothesis are constantly destroyed, it's not something science tries to "prevent". ... $$$
“Ethics in Science”
“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.
“Do Scientists Cheat?”
“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.
“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”
“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.
“A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research”
“A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers.”—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.
“NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper”
“Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.
“‘Permissive Behaviour’ Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory”
“Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.
“Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud”
“Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread, warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.
“Researcher Accused of Plagiarism Resigns”
“A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.
“The Pill: Professor’s Safety Tests Were Faked”
“His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.
“Senior Drugs Researcher Resigns in Disgrace”
“He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.
“NIMH Finds a Case of ‘Serious Misconduct’”
“A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.
“Research ‘Fraud’ Puts Poison Into the Ivy League”
“A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.
“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”
“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.
“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”
“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.
So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report.
“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,”
“Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.”
“is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.” U.S.News & World Report
“Kickbacks, fraud and misconduct are rife among American medical researchers, according to a scathing critique published by a US Congressional committee this week. The report says that the National Institutes of Health has ‘endangered public health’ by failing to police the scientists it supports.”—New Scientist, September 15, 1990.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Yeah, there's some fraud, like in anything where people involved. However, there's no chance that they managed a "cover up" for over 150 years. That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy. The mere thought is laughable and should earn you a tinfoil hat
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
Yeah, there's some fraud, like in anything where people involved. However, there's no chance that they managed a "cover up" for over 150 years. That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy. The mere thought is laughable and should earn you a tinfoil hat
“That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy.
Science gains nothing from lying...unlike religious based churches, because they'd lose members and therefore $$$
.
“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
I'm not sure why evolution and creationism are so intertwined. I just don't get it. Why does the mention of one almost universally bring up the other?
Evolution is just as compatible with the existence of a deity as heliocentrism....
Originally posted by edmc^2
Huh, reading your post knocked off my tinfoil hat. Let's read that that portion again:
“That would require every biologist, chemist, doctor, paleontologist, and a ton of other professions had to all work together in one giant conspiracy.
You mean that would also include those who are true believers of creation and don't accept evolution? Does this also include those honest hearted scientist whose main goal is to search for the truth whether atheist or not?
Are you sure about your statement “EVERY...”?
Because if you are, then you might as well include Prof. Behe on the list or Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, etc.
Honestly, if you go back to what I said I was just showing the facts and agreeing with you about the fraud in science.
But showed the reason why in response to your statement below that:
Science gains nothing from lying...unlike religious based churches, because they'd lose members and therefore $$$
just to repeat one:
.
“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.”
...yes, because scientists are never kicked out for fraud...oh wait, they are. You can't take a few examples of fraud and apply them to 150 years of science.
Note: fraud is present in both the religious and scientific community. In fact the entire system of things is built on a lie. A lie that man can succesfully govern himself apart from his Creator.
I made a thread about how this came to be and what will happen in the end if you are interested.
Um...I'll skip a thread endorsing theocracy kthx
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"Every" was used. Not "most" or "more".
Obviously, the original member did not mean to use 'every scientist believes in evolution', and it's a small point but it is in fact what he wrote.
We all write things we wish wouldn't have, we're human, we make mistakes. So no biggy.
But trying to defend the remark by saying project steve (which is the name) has 'more' scientists does not validate his point. It actually proves that not 'every' sceintist believes in evolution - i.e. because 'more' is not 'every' by definition.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by edmc^2
In your opinion, does evolution try to explain 'the beginning'?
If not, why couldn't have God created it all, and then He directed the adaptation, (what they call evolution)?
Is that idea out of the equation for you?
p.s. I just re-read your enitre post. Please don't start with me too. I'm on your side. And you don't have to quote the Bible to me since I read it nightly to my kids and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior decades ago. BTW - you and I both know this a spiritual arguement. So if we can get 'them' to acknowledge God, isn't that a good thing? - considering where 'they' are starting from. Are we suppose to plant seeds or try to ram a tree down their throat?
edit on 21-11-2010 by mrvdreamknight because: update
"In your opinion, does evolution try to explain 'the beginning'?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I was taught that evolution did try to explain the origins of life. I find it hilarious they have since retreated from that stance.
You should look at the other thread I'm on talking about the fact that evolution is based on heredity and heredity must have a first generation and came from somewhere. Otherwise evolution can't stand in the first place.
Let me know your thoughts on that line of reasoning.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So I ask you where did the first parent come from? Where?
If evolution is based on this premise the theory must address it.