Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

a reply to: cooperton

That's weird. Find a new hobby?

Why? This is way more amusing.

Atheists killed the most people in history. That's a fact.

It’s spelled O-P-I-N-I-O-N

But I don't judge them for it.

And that there is a lie. You’ve repeatedly judged atheists.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
"Atheists killed the most people in history. That's a fact."

It’s spelled O-P-I-N-I-O-N

No, Mao was an atheist, he alone killed about 75,000,000. Stalin was the second biggest murderer in history, also an atheist, he killed 23,000,000.

It is not an opinion. The numbers may be slightly higher or lower, but they are factually the two biggest killers in human history.

a reply to: cooperton

It is not an opinion.

100% opinion.

I know, I know. English is difficult for you, but dictionaries (real books or online) helps.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

100% opinion.

Why are you denying history? It is a fact. Atheists Mao and Stalin are the two biggest killers of all time.

I know, I know. English is difficult for you, but dictionaries (real books or online) helps.

'helps' should actually be 'help'. Because 'dictionaries' is plural, 'help' should not have an 's' at the end.

a reply to: cooperton

O
P
I
N
I
O
N

It’s ok though. Everyone can be wrong sometimes.

a reply to: cooperton

I’ll leave you to it now.

Been fun watching you get all muddled again!

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Been fun watching you get all muddled again!

I think the only person you were successfully trolling was your self

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Heard all that before from religious extremists. You also hear things like that right before some religious extremist starts killing a bunch of people.

Hopefully you’re not allowed to be around guns, knives or just other people.

"But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
-founder of Christian philosophy

If only someone could have convinced Mao and Stalin.....

Or maybe YOU. You never turn the other cheek, you ALWAYS fight back and hurl meaningless lies and projection at people after they debunk your false claims. I guess it's you that isn't a true Christian LOL.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Actually, the biggest killer of all time was that scumbag Old Testament God who drowned every mf'er on the planet except an incestuous family.

Nope. Old Testament God attributed to about 2,000,000 deaths. Mao, an atheist, killed about 78,000,000. Stalin, an atheist, killed about 23,000,000.

Atheism wins the kill count. OT God doesn't even get a bronze medal.

Funny how you neglect the fact that the world population was much much higher during Stalin's time.

Calculate the population % killed by god and the population % killed by Stalin. It's not even close! You can't claim that Stalin was a bigger killer because the world population had between 2 and 3 billion people at the time, but when God allegedly flooded the planet there were a few million people total and he only spared like 10 people. Plus he murdered billions of innocent animals that had nothing to do with it. Sorry based on your myths God was a far more destructive force on the planet than ALL of the 20th century dictators put together. He killed 99.9% of the human population while Stalin didn't even kill 1/100th.

It's also hilarious how you keep ignoring the fact that today countries with the highest atheist population percentage has the lowest violent crime and the biggest committers of atrocities are theists. That's just a simple fact. You can keep living in the past if you want, but it literally doesn't prove # and we don't have exact numbers for most of those old religious conflicts, regardless.

originally posted by: Barcs

Or maybe YOU. You never turn the other cheek, you ALWAYS fight back and hurl meaningless lies and projection at people after they debunk your false claims. I guess it's you that isn't a true Christian LOL.

No one on earth is currently a true Christian. I'd like to think I get closer daily, the effects are revolutionary.

Funny how you neglect the fact that the world population was much much higher during Stalin's time.

The motives were totally different

Stalin wanted to kill people who believed in God, a lot like what you've been saying on these forums:

originally posted by: Barcs
perhaps a meteor is the best way to help this messed up planet where 2/3 of the human population believe in fantasies

a reply to: cooperton

Stalin wanted to kill people who believed in God,....

Whereas God wanted to kill people who didn't believe in God.

And that's ok with you?

Evolutionary science saves billions of lives repeatedly through medicine.

That is more than any religion ever has.

originally posted by: Freeborn

Whereas God wanted to kill people who didn't believe in God.

It was unanimous among cultures describing the global flood that it occurred due to the immense depravity of the humans on earth. It was apparently a necessary purge that saved the planet. Way different than killing humans for simply believing in God.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Evolutionary science saves billions of lives repeatedly through medicine.

No, antibacterial resistance is an epigenetic phenomenon, not evolution. It involves the microbe increasing production of genes that are already in their genome, which indicates it is not evolution.

source

believing and researching evolution has brought no advancement to medicine. It also wastes tax dollars.

a reply to: cooperton

believing and researching evolution has brought no advancement to medicine. It also wastes tax dollars.

It has probably been instrumental in you being alive, but keep telling us how an invisible sky daddy saved you.

originally posted by: cooperton
The motives were totally different

Stalin wanted to kill people who believed in God, a lot like what you've been saying on these forums

I don't ever advocate murdering people over their personal beliefs. This is the most dishonest nonsense yet. I joked about aliens sending a meteor so you compare me to Stalin? Do you ever stop and think for a few minutes before posting? I'm a non violent person. My weapons are logic and reason and they are quite effective against you.

Yeah the motives were REALLY different. God killed people for not blindly believing in and worshiping him, basically for his own ego. Stalin killed to try to take over the world and eliminate religion because it was his biggest obstacle. The fact that both are comparable speaks volumes, though. You basically worship a dictator and tyrant while hypocritically denouncing a dictator tyrant as evil in the same breath. It's hilarious.

The endocannabinoid system has played a revolutionary role in evolution on Earth and you can learn more about it and evolution in this thread

originally posted by: Barcs
You basically worship a dictator and tyrant

Jesus is the opposite of a dictatorial tyrant. Love, altruism, humility and so on.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

(Evolution) has probably been instrumental in you being alive,

How? Theres no medical application that relies on the validity of evolution. Antibacterial resistance was the only claim that Evolution had on medical science, yet that has recently been proven to be an epigenetic phenomenon, involving the change of expression of various genes, and therefore not evolution

originally posted by: cooperton
Jesus is the opposite of a dictatorial tyrant. Love, altruism, humility and so on.

So you don't even care that God committed mass murder cuz Jesus loved people? Hitler and Stalin loved people too. If any other person in history killed the entire planet except 10 people and a handful of animals, you would be talking about how evil they were, but since your alleged god did it, you just make excuses and blame the victims, like always. I'm not immoral enough to make excuses for dictators committing mass murder. I don't make exceptions for deities, I don't think any group of people deserves that.

Do you even follow the teachings of Jesus? Last I checked:

- You aren't humble
- You don't turn the other cheek
- You don't put yourself in other peoples shoes
- You exhibit hypocrisy
- You judge other people
- You don't love the sinners
- You bear false witness

I'm willing to bet I'm a better "Christian" than you.

How? Theres no medical application that relies on the validity of evolution. Antibacterial resistance was the only claim that evolution had on medical science, yet that has recently been proven to be an epigenetic phenomenon, involving the change of expression of various genes, and therefore not evolution

And you go spewing more lies. Evolutionary knowledge is absolutely relevant in vaccines and flu shots. I get that you are probably an ignorant anti vaxxer as well, but pretending like bacteria and viruses can't evolve is laughable. The flu shot is different every single year because of that. They have to account for and predict new possible mutations. You are so full of crap dude, just stop. You are incapable of leaving people with different beliefs alone and are so arrogant you think you know more about science than actual scientists. Not very Jesus like. The meek shall inherit the earth, bro.

During the last century, science has greatly increased our knowledge of the natural world around us. Its telescopes have revealed the awesome wonders of the starry heavens, just as its microscopes have disclosed the amazing complexities of molecules and atoms. The marvels of design in plants and animals, the wisdom reflected in our own fearfully and wonderfully made bodies​—this knowledge also comes to us through the discoveries of hardworking scientists. Their efforts and accomplishments are appreciated.

But there is another side to scientists. Not all scientists measure up to the image of the objective, passionate pursuers of truth, regardless of where it might lead. There are too many scientists who select the material that supports their theory and discard what doesn’t. They report studies they have never made and experiments they have never performed, and they fake what they cannot establish. They plagiarize the writings of fellow scientists. Many claim authorship of articles they have never worked on and maybe have never even seen!

Flagrant fraud may be rare, but some of the manipulating of data mentioned above is common. Even more common, however, are two additional kinds of fraud, both involving deceitful propaganda. More on that later.

“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.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish​—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.

The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.” (quotation from around 1990)

Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’

Does anyone care to have a try pin-pointing which ones of those apply in the following case of fraud?

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “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.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “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.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

The publish-​or-​perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones​—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-​page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

[continued in next comment]

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-​review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

Fraud in Science​—A Greater Fraud

Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.”​—Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

“Evolution is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

In April 1989, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-​earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Here are some excerpts from the article:

Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.”

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. In 1989, however, The New York Times reported that California’s school board has issued guidelines for science textbooks that apparently de-​emphasize teaching evolution as a fact.​—November 10, 1989.

It copies the tactics of the chief priests and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. When officers sent out to arrest Jesus came back without him, the Pharisees demanded: “‘Why is it you did not bring him in?’ The officers replied: ‘Never has another man spoken like this.’ In turn the Pharisees answered: ‘You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.’” (John 7:45-49) The tyranny of authority: ‘None of the important people, none of the educated people, accept Jesus as Messiah. Only the stupid accursed ones do.’

Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’

[continued in next comment]