Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Excuse me, but if you would like credit for intolerance of fraud for you own side, you should be willing to advance some evidence for it. Otherwise, you are asking me to imagine some subset of your side's bogus collection of mantras which you know to be false but have not exposed. I don't think you've ever uttered a single peep of protest to a creationist poster on any crevo thread where you were active, no matter what sort of wild-eyed yahoo was "witnessing" against satanic old Eeeeeeviluuushun.
You're making an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence.
Probably this thread: Evolution Disclaimer Supported. Almost 7,000 posts. (More posts, perhaps, than years since Creation.)
And I believe in the very same Creator God -- and that He (through scientifically-demonstrable laws that He created to govern His works) continues to control all that transpires in ALL of His creation.
I am, however, offended by 'believers' who insist that I must adhere to their interpretation of "yom" -- that, out of all His mighty creation, the ticks of the Infinite, Etarnal Creator's clock are measured by the rotation rate of this specific, miniscule spheroid of dirt.
My God is too big for such limitations!!!
I don't know the individuals, nor have I looked at, or followed their posts. So, I can't speak truthfully to the cases you've asked about.
But, lies, distortions, partial truths, restructuring of statistics to favor predetermined conclusions, fibs, are all but various forms of deception.
There is NOTHING that any Christian should hate any more than deception. Christ called Satan the Father of Lies, and indicated how we must be repulsed by lies as much as we are by Satan.
If ANY Christian knowingly repeats lies, slander, mistruths or the such, he/she will utimately undergo not just a 'peer review', but a 'superior review' that will have "Cataclysm" written all over the final page.
I don't like intellectual dishonesty. From either side.
How've you been doing? Beautiful day here in Colorado.
...now, if my fingers could just learn to spell, "Eternal"... '-{
"This scientist obviously made a name for himself by conducting proper science, and then misused the authority he'd thereby been granted for whatever unknown reason (perhaps for personal renown, or perhaps for nationalistic reason, or whatever)."
OK. Maybe I'm being too opaque here.
HOW DID IT GET PAST PEER REVIEW?
Peer review is the golden gate past which nothing false should normally enter.
I belive more people would show up for discussion if it were as you stated.
I wonder if thats what PH thinks when he posts this general statement to the begining of his threads. "Everybody be nice."
IT OBVIOUSLY GOT PAST PEER REVIEW BECAUSE WHOEVER WAS ENDORSING HIS FRAUDULENT DATING CLAIMS WAS ACCEPTING THEM ON THE BASIS OF HIS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED REPUTATION THAT HE CHOSE TO MISUSE. IT DID NOT HOWEVER GET PAST PEER REVIEW INDEFINITELY, BECAUSE IT WAS PRECISELY PEER REVIEW THAT ULTIMATELY EXPOSED HIS FRAUD.
Do you comprehend now, or do you need bigger letters? BTW, all my answers are essentially a variation of post #110, so please just refer back to it unless you have something new to ask.
Same way non-bacterial origins of ulcers did.
Human error.
Scientists recognize it and deal with it as fast as possible.
As I have said several times.
Why do you seem to have a problem with this concept?
The kind of civility I mean is a response to the consistent put downs, accusatory tones and remarks used to stifle discussion.
I'm not pointing out individuals (from any side of the aisle). I believe we could all recognize it when we saw it.
The good professor's fraudulent data/findings are published in my kids' science textbook. That's why it's a problem. Textbooks tend to stay in circulation quite awhile. There are countless examples of this happening. I guess peer review ain't all it's cut out to be.
"I don't think you've ever uttered a single peep of protest to a creationist poster on any crevo thread where you were active..."
Well stated. I stand rebuked.
It is true that I don't actively respond to what I see as incorrect statements by Creationists on these threads. It seems that I have my plate full with the marvellous claims made my evolutionists, and their opprobrium towards those who don't believe in skepticism/evolution/atheism/whatever as they do.
I do, however, utilize the knowledge that I gain (from both sides of this argument) here at FR to teach my fellow Christians, at church and/or in personal conversations about what I believe to be strong, supportable positions that are believable, rational, and Biblical all at the same time. And some of those have been modified by the formidable materialistic arguments that some of you have professed here at FR.
I'd be interested to know if there was any such honest review of the spiritual amongst my esteemed opponents!
It is not a task for the timid.
And just for the record, the posts where you rebuked a fellow evo for patently loony, over-the-wall, statements could be found (by us now-interested parties) where?
Was the museum created or did it just evolve?
There's something else to consider about flame wars, and that is the less polite they are the more hits they get. This is due to the inflammatory nature of the discussion. Sure, it keeps some people away though. The flip side to this is that over-moderated threads are boring, and get less hits. Moderators have to walk a fine line between stifling discussion and keeping trolls in check.
You mean, like the first 10 posts? :)
A theory is not disproven by pointing out occasional acts of academic misconduct, or even outright fraud. There are tens of thousands of scientists, and a few have disgraced themselves. (Similarly, a religion is not discredited because of the personal flaws of a few clergymen.) A demonstration of fraud could be a successful attack on a theory, but only if the theory can't survive without the fraudulent material.
Back when I was teaching I seriously advocated printing textbooks on newsprint with the cheapest possible binding.
Science progreses too fast for anything else; although in the basic human anatomy course I did suggest to students that they purchase the oldest book they could find and I'd let them know about any updates.
What is the info from this guy and what grade textbook is it in?
There's always something new to ask:
Does the fact that 'peer review' in the scientific community is so prone to manipulation cause you to be less religious in your acceptance of the 'new' revelations about evolution that get printed in the latest journals?
For instance, I have an enormously healthy skepticism about what I read in religious journals, which must undergo 'peer review'. Do you read science journals with the same skepticism? Or do you receive it as gospel?
That's the root rationale for my probing posts, whether it appeared evident, or not.
Anything to bring some dignity back to these threads. The Evo-Creo threads are the Rodney Dangerfield of Fr.
Good stuff. I shoud have included that in my original reply, but, of course, didn't think if it. Thanks, I'll store it in a corner of my brain for the inevitable next time.
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.