More "non-existent" YEC evidence

[Wally]

Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.


Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

And, most importantly, they are uncovered and corrected by the "evil atheist, baby-eating, scientific community" themselves.

[Jorge]

Do you ever do anything besides duck questions and run that big mouth? Just curious.

I made a claim and I supported it. How is that "ducking", you Dodo?

Oh, wait ... for a second I forgot that Beagle Boy made that accusation.

As we all know, he uses the Double-Standard New Age Dictionary (DSNAD).

BTW, didn't you just ban me from another thread for allegedly doing EXACTLY what you
are doing here? Oops, I forgot again ... the ol' DSNAD is used by Beagle Boy.

Jorge

[klaus54]

I made a claim and I supported it. How is that "ducking", you Dodo?

Oh, wait ... for a second I forgot that Beagle Boy made that accusation.

As we all know, he uses the Double-Standard New Age Dictionary (DSNAD).

BTW, didn't you just ban me from another thread for allegedly doing EXACTLY what you
are doing here? Oops, I forgot again ... the ol' DSNAD is used by Beagle Boy.

Jorge

What supported claim was that?

K54

[Jorge]

Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.

Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

"Thankfully very rare"? Waaaaat?

May I ask, what planet have you been on for the last 20 years?
Even the cases that make it into the mainstream media are too many to count.
Most, I am betting, never make it out beyond the walls of the institutions.
Why? Because they would taint the image and the funding of those institutions.
And so the culprits are very quietly hushed out the back door.

No, I'm not going to do the work for you. Just do a computer search for
things like "Peer Review crisis"; scientific data falsification; ethics crisis in science;
and stuff like that.

BTW: who can ever forget the intercepted emails in which the "Global
Warming" fiasco / smoking gun came to light? Notice how it all just "went away".

Another one: until recently, there were scores of products representing billions
of dollars a year for "Testosterone treatment". It seems that the laboratory data
(investigation is currently ongoing) was "not all there" and so the FDA approved
the products. Result? Men started dropping like flies. The products were
removed (but too late - the damage has been done) and now the lawyers are
having a field day (as they always do).

At times where if results aren't produced the funding - gigadollars - goes away,
there is way too much incentive to cut corners and give em' what they want to see.

On and on and on and on and on ... the list is endless.

What planet was that?

Jorge

[Jorge]

What supported claim was that?

K54

Post # 70 - claim and support right there in one small paragraph.
Somehow, Beagle Boy misses it and then accuses ME of "ducking".

Of course, I know what he's referring to but I am so sick-and-tired
of explaining myself.

Jorge

[klaus54]

"Thankfully very rare"? Waaaaat?

May I ask, what planet have you been on for the last 20 years?
Even the cases that make it into the mainstream media are too many to count.
Most, I am betting, never make it out beyond the walls of the institutions.
Why? Because they would taint the image and the funding of those institutions.
And so the culprits are very quietly hushed out the back door.

No, I'm not going to do the work for you. Just do a computer search for
things like "Peer Review crisis"; scientific data falsification; ethics crisis in science;
and stuff like that.

BTW: who can ever forget the intercepted emails in which the "Global
Warming" fiasco / smoking gun came to light? Notice how it all just "went away".

Another one: until recently, there were scores of products representing billions
of dollars a year for "Testosterone treatment". It seems that the laboratory data
(investigation is currently ongoing) was "not all there" and so the FDA approved
the products. Result? Men started dropping like flies. The products were
removed (but too late - the damage has been done) and now the lawyers are
having a field day (as they always do).

At times where if results aren't produced the funding - gigadollars - goes away,
there is way too much incentive to cut corners and give em' what they want to see.

On and on and on and on and on ... the list is endless.

What planet was that?

Jorge

So how would YEC biochemists do pharmaceutical research any differently than "evolutionists"? Were any of the researchers YECs? And this was more a business issue than a scientific one.

I love the "dropping like flies" hyperbole. Cute.

Your testosterone treatment example is irrelevant to the discussion.

K54

[klaus54]

Post # 70 - claim and support right there in one small paragraph.
Somehow, Beagle Boy misses it and then accuses ME of "ducking".

Of course, I know what he's referring to but I am so sick-and-tired
of explaining myself.

Jorge

Your "Claim-and-Support" was an ipse dixit.

The Truth: Physical data and induction drive Scientific Method to tentative conclusions that are malleable to further discover. A particular Bible interpretation is the CONCLUSIVE and the body of evidence is cherry-picked to fit the conclusion.

And that's a fact, Fact, FACT!

It was demonstrated that the red highlighted claim is simply nonsense. Testosterone treatment? Really?

You know better than that but you can't stand being shown up as an intellectually dishonest person (said dishonesty, of course, boils over into all aspects of life). So let me support my claim, lest you use your 'powers' to ban me: that cartoon that you post - "The Scientific Method v. The Creationist Method" - is right up there amongst the most lying, fact-free, libelous myths. Not to mention the fact that notable, secular philosophers of science generally agree that most scientists often begin with a set of beliefs and then go out to support them. The extreme example of this is when "scientists" fabricate (false) data in order to support their beliefs, gain fame and keep the money rolling in - something that is done quite often by NON-Creationists.

Thus, anyone with a microgram of integrity would never use that cartoon against Creationists. Has this stopped you? Nope, of course not. Why? Because that "microgram of integrity" isn't there, that's why.

I trust that my meaning is clear as fine crystal. Oh, and don't take this personally. The same may be said of most of those belonging to your 'clan'. They know who they are.

Jorge