Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A top Cornell food researcher has had 13 studies retracted. That’s a lot.
Vox ^ | 20 Sept 2018 | Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz

Posted on 09/20/2018 7:15:00 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT

Cornell says Brian Wansink “committed academic misconduct,” and is leaving the university. He’s a cautionary tale in bad incentives in science.

Thirteen of Wansink’s studies have now been retracted, including the six pulled from JAMA Wednesday.

...To date, 13 of his papers have been retracted. And that’s stunning given that Wansink was so highly cited and his body of work was so influential. Wansink also collected government grants, helped shape the marketing practices at food companies, and worked with the White House to influence food policy in this country.

(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Education; Food; Science
KEYWORDS: brianresnick; brianwansink; cornell; dietandcuisine; dnctalkingpoint; dnctalkingpoints; experts; fake; globalwarminghoax; jama; juliabelluz; mediawingofthednc; obamascandals; partisanmediashills; presstitutes; smearmachine; vox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: bwest

Nah. Scripture is VERY clear that “evolution” — the process of developing genetically more complex over time, through cycles of death and life and death — is false.

Death did not enter the storyline until *after* the first humans sinned. And Jesus came to address this sin and death. If death wasn’t the result of sin, then the purported reason for Jesus crucifixion is baseless.

Evolution is Satan’s attempt to discredit Jesus’ sacrifice, His overcoming death through His death on the cross.


41 posted on 09/22/2018 8:39:30 PM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1998 ... drain the swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
"How about retracting this?"

One of the most well confirmed and foundational theories in science? No.

42 posted on 09/23/2018 10:07:38 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“One of the most well confirmed and foundational theories in science? “ Since when? It’s a theory, by its very definition unreproducible through experimentation. Read this, you missed it. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1891873.G_A_Kerkut


43 posted on 09/23/2018 10:35:17 AM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Theo

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Scripture is not a science text. Scripture and science, including evolution, co-exist harmoniously.


44 posted on 09/23/2018 7:17:19 PM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bwest

Not so.. evolution is against what the Creator had penned. He Created all souls/spirit intellect long before He formed a flesh body.


45 posted on 09/23/2018 7:23:35 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You are going to be lost when your soul and spirit intellect return to the Maker that sent you. Biology of flesh is an earthly study and will end at the end of this flesh age.


46 posted on 09/23/2018 7:29:00 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

We disagree. Evolution does not address the origin of life.
And I’m a Christian like you.


47 posted on 09/23/2018 7:36:39 PM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bwest

The Adam’s flesh body was not ‘living’ until the ‘breath of life’, soul, was breathed into his nostrils. Some Christians know all souls/spirit intellect were created long before this flesh age.


48 posted on 09/23/2018 7:42:28 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

All human studies are earthly studies, so what is your point?

What are you even saying?


49 posted on 09/23/2018 8:24:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
“No legitimate scientist” There is the false premise. Please define.

A legitimate scientist is one who has actually studied science and understands the principles. In this case, it would be a life scientist, since other scientists might study something peripheral to evolution (for instance, geology), but only life scientists study the theories of biology in depth.

50 posted on 09/23/2018 8:27:05 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Still can’t answer your premise. Lead a horse to water but you.......


51 posted on 09/23/2018 8:33:26 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

This world that is now has a Heavenly expiration date. The Creator did not set evolution into motion. Commonality of species biological traits does not give evolution credibility.


52 posted on 09/23/2018 8:36:12 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

In many passages, the Scripture is allegorical. It conveys truth through literary devices.


53 posted on 09/24/2018 4:58:12 AM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

Evolution does not address the origin of life. You know that, right?


54 posted on 09/24/2018 5:00:06 AM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bwest

Of course “Scripture is not a science text.” But where it purports to lay out a historical narrative, that historical narrative is accurate.

I do agree that Scripture and science, including Creationism, co-exist harmoniously. Evolution is anti-Creation, cycles of death and death and death and death. The Creator spoke life; He didn’t speak death ... until after the Fall of Man.

The whole purpose of Jesus overcoming sin and death is absurdity if the Creation/Fall account is false.


55 posted on 09/24/2018 6:45:59 AM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1998 ... drain the swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Theo

As a Christian, I am perfectly comfortable with the co-existence of Scripture and evolutionary theory. Creationism, however, is not science—it is rationalization. Science is falsifiable, whereas the adherents to creationism accept no such conditions.

I have the greatest respect for Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible on FAITH. However, Christians of lesser faith who must rely on false science to bolster their belief only serve to make Christians look bad.


56 posted on 09/24/2018 5:58:19 PM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: bwest

There is strong scientific evidence in support of Creationism. If you care to learn more, feel free to browse a site like creation.com ...

For someone who considers himself a Christian, you come across as bewilderingly arrogant. “Christians of lesser faith” rely on the false science of biblical creation. Nice.

And no, evolutionists are not open to falsifiability.


57 posted on 09/25/2018 7:15:03 AM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1998 ... drain the swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Actually, the arrogance is yours. I do not only “consider” myself a Christian, I am a Christian.

Regarding creationism, it is, in fact, nonsense. You’re definitive source, creation.com, is a laughing stock of rationalization.

Further to your note, evolutionists, more precisely, scientists, are most definitely open to falsification. In fact, the theory (yes, theory) has changed and evolved (!) significantly since it was first posited.

God gave us a brain. We are not in any way prevented from studying history and our environment to understand how He brought us to the position that we now occupy.

I hope that you seriously consider these points. It would be the Christian thing to do.


58 posted on 09/25/2018 6:07:33 PM PDT by bwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DUMBGRUNT

Open data sharing: Increasingly, scientists are calling on their colleagues to make all the data from their experiments available for anyone to scrutinize (there are exceptions, of course, for particularly sensitive information). This ensures that shoddy research that makes it through peer review can still be double-checked.

When I was an undergrad RA in the 1980s I know that it used to be the case that if your research paper had received NSF or NIH funding that you were obligated to make your raw data available to anyone upon request if they paid you for the cost of making the copies and the postage. But in the 1990s they quietly changed the rules to drop that requirement so now everybody hoards their data.

59 posted on 09/25/2018 6:36:31 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bwest

Wow. You’ve made up your mind, I guess.


60 posted on 09/26/2018 5:49:51 AM PDT by Theo (FReeping since 1998 ... drain the swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson