from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Say it's not so!
392,673 views
266 replies
Stardock ForumsFirst, there are just as many corrupt people in religion as there are in science. There are good and bad people in every possible group. It's just how it is.
Second, there are people that claim to be religious so they can be viewed as credible to others that are religious. They don't really care about how God may judge them.
Third, there have been hoaxes from both the religious and scientific fields. Lying is in human nature, so you will get it from every end, you just have to learn how to find what is the truth.
Fourth, just as using a few examples of human dishonesty in the religious field to discredit all religion/faith/spirituality is ridiculous, so is using a few examples of human dishonesty in the field of science to discredit all science.
Fifth, not everyone that is involved in science is an atheist. That's a ridiculous, and incorrect, over-statement.
Moral of this article? Don't believe anything at face value, whether it's from a religious perspective, or a scientific one.
Of course, since human's are lazy, there will always be people that fall for lies from both sides.
It never ceases to amaze me that Christians are ridiculed for their faith in an unchanging God while their atheistic counterparts put their faith in Science that is either continually changing or deliberately falsified.
I find it amusing that you criticize science when it gets things wrong, and in the same sentence manage critcize it for changing to correct those wrongs. Christian aren't ridiculed for faith in an unchanging God. If they are ridiculed for having faith in an unchanging book.
The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. Of the hoaxes you list, the first one actually benefited opponents of evolution, the second was debunked by scientists from its beginning. Has "bigfoot" ever been taken seriously by science? Archaeoraptor was never accepted by the science community, and was completely debunked less than a year after it was introduced.
You then go on to post what amounts to the results of some sociology surveys. Ironically, an attempt to discredit science (including the hardest, most rigorous scientific fields) with science (from one of the "softest" least "scientific" fields). I'll give you credit for including the following, even though you gloss over it.
Another explanation for the differences between the self-report results and colleague-report results could be that people consider themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal case, people might characterise their colleagues’ behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their own.
Of course, you'd and Fanelli would much rather go with a "guilt until innocent" theory
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”
The usual apples/oranges silliness, trying to use science to debunk science to boot. Of course, scientists have faked data - been true as long as 'science' has been around.
I'm willing to admit it. Are you willing to admit that there may be 'faked data' (as you define it) in the Bible?
...
...
...
...
Didn't think so.
First, there are just as many corrupt people in religion as there are in science. There are good and bad people in every possible group. It's just how it is.
I agree.
Second, there are people that claim to be religious so they can be viewed as credible to others that are religious. They don't really care about how God may judge them.
I agree on this as well.
Third, there have been hoaxes from both the religious and scientific fields. Lying is in human nature, so you will get it from every end, you just have to learn how to find what is the truth.
You're three for three. I agree with this. We need to search out what is true and what is not. I have spoken alot about those phonies in the churches, but this article was strictly about science since that was what the article in the times was about.
Fourth, just as using a few examples of human dishonesty in the religious field to discredit all religion/faith/spirituality is ridiculous, so is using a few examples of human dishonesty in the field of science to discredit all science.
True. I'm not trying nor would I ever attempt to try and discredit science.
Fifth, not everyone that is involved in science is an atheist. That's a ridiculous, and incorrect, over-statement.
Did I say that? Almost anyone here who knows me knows that I have a son who is a Scientist. His undergrad degree is in Molecular Biology and he's almost done with his graduate work mostly in the Neuro Science field. He's working on a cure for epilepsy and has a few written articles in the Scientific Journals.
Anyhow this son is very Christian and is even not close to being atheistic.....although so far all of his colleagues he's worked with are atheists. There are Christians in the science field but the majority of them are unbelievers from what I see, especially today. I don't believe it was always like that. We have some pretty famous Scientists in history who believed in the Supreme Creator.
Don't believe anything at face value, whether it's from a religious perspective, or a scientific one.
Agree
Of course, since human's are lazy, there will always be people that fall for lies from both sides.
Agree. Wow Silver and Jade, we are mostly in agreement on this one.
Christian aren't ridiculed for faith in an unchanging God. If they are ridiculed for having faith in an unchanging book.
they are ridiculed for both. And they both go together. An unchanging God is going to have an unchanging word. Truth never changes and since God is truth he nor his word would change, would it?
I'm willing to admit it. Are you willing to admit that there may be 'faked data' (as you define it) in the Bible?
No, not in the bible anymore than I am willing to admit there is faked data in true Science. The bible has proven itself over and over to the most sincere critics out there.
Gravity is truth........thermodynamics is truth.....the earth revolving around the earth is truth....the bible is truth.
while their atheistic counterparts put their faith in Science that is either continually changing or deliberately falsified.
That is where, in my opinion, you implied that if one were to believe in science, they were an atheist. Perhaps I misunderstood.
true Science
Just for grins, gimme the academic differentiation between Science & true Science (when the Spirit moves you, of course 
). Would true Science be to a believer as Science is to a Jesus Freak? Something along those lines?
while their atheistic counterparts put their faith in Science that is either continually changing or deliberately falsified.
That is where, in my opinion, you implied that if one were to believe in science, they were an atheist. Perhaps I misunderstood.
That is where, in my opinion, you implied that if one were to believe in science, they were an atheist. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Yes, that's what I said meaning that the Scientists with no faith put their faith in science not God. I'm not talking about those who are Christians which I could name many well known Scientists over the years.
Dawia,
I just put up this today.....check out what Einstein had to say about atheistic science and religion: http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/355230/Secular_Totalitarianism
there's true science and there's junk science. There's true religion and there's false religion. A Jesus Freak like me has no problem with true science. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive as Einstein goes on to say.
So a picture of 'true' science is beginning to emerge: that would be science practiced or conducted by believers in the Christian God, as opposed to any form of (by implication, 'false') science practiced or conducted by atheists (or perhaps believers in other gods?). If that's not your position, let us know, 'cause I'm interested in understanding the difference between 'science' and 'true science.'
KFC,
I just read your article, but not the comments yet....I'm aghast...just when you think it can't get worse, we learn this...
Can it really be that a Scientist would purposefully deceive us? Falsify data?
the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results .....presenting data selectively and or changing the conclusions of a study..Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests."
This is outrageous. Lives are virtually at stake.
It's not like these corrupt Scientists care that God will judge them someday and hold them accountable for deliberately deceiving people to make themselves look better.
So unethical! Who can we trust anymore? According to the link, it seems to be mainly about money.
I think it really comes down to the fact that we, as humans, were made to worship. We will worship something. If not God, something else. There's a myriad of possiblilites. Faith is not found only in God. You can have faith in anything. Of course, as a Christian, I believe the only true genuine faith can be found in our worship of God. Everything else pales in comparison.
One is Divine Faith and the other is human faith.
You mentioned some of the hoaxes that have been developed from human faith in pseudo science. Evolutionary icons that show drawing of "ape to mankind" and Haeckel's embryos are two more. Unwwary school kids see these in their science textbooks and believe they "evolved" from animals!
S&JT
First, there are just as many corrupt people in religion as there are in science.
I dont know if there are just as many, but yes, there are corrupt religious people and "Woe to them" come Judgment day ...those who are given more authority over people will be judged more harshly so the Holy Bible says.
Fourth, just as using a few examples of human dishonesty in the religious field to discredit all religion/faith/spirituality is ridiculous, so is using a few examples of human dishonesty in the field of science to discredit all science.
I understand your point of comparison, but KFC is not discrediting science. Your point of comparison also doesn't lessen or justify these unethical and dishonest doings by scientists in the medical and pharmalogical fields. For example, how would you like to be one of the those who gets a shot, vaccine or prescription that seriously harms your health?
What if the chemicals, in say, hair coloring products really cause bad side effects and the scientists know this but are shutting up becasue they'll lose their job?
Daiwa posts:
Of course, scientists have faked data - been true as long as 'science' has been around.
Evidently. 
But with this it's getting exposed. Light is being shed on the wrong-doing and this is a good thing.
If that's not your position, let us know, 'cause I'm interested in understanding the difference between 'science' and 'true science.'
There is no difference between science and true science...they are the same.
There is science and there is pseudo science; sometimes called junk science....in the long run, science will expose pseudo science.
The Science of genetics has debunked pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory.
Haechel's Embryos is an example of pseudo scientific fraud.
there's true science and there's junk science. There's true religion and there's false religion. A Jesus Freak like me has no problem with true science.
Ya, that's the ticket!
Your point of comparison also doesn't lessen or justify these unethical and dishonest doings by scientists in the medical and pharmalogical fields.
I didn't attempt to lessen or justify it, I just simply pointed out that religion and science both have corruption because people are corrupt.
Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 12
The Science of genetics has debunked pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory.
Haechel's Embryos is an example of pseudo scientific fraud.
No it hasn't, at least amougst scientists. The other main examples of fraud all have been.
Quoting KFC, reply 4
Christian aren't ridiculed for faith in an unchanging God. If they are ridiculed for having faith in an unchanging book.they are ridiculed for both. And they both go together. An unchanging God is going to have an unchanging word. Truth never changes and since God is truth he nor his word would change, would it? I'm willing to admit it. Are you willing to admit that there may be 'faked data' (as you define it) in the Bible?'No, not in the bible anymore than I am willing to admit there is faked data in true Science. The bible has proven itself over and over to the most sincere critics out there. Gravity is truth........thermodynamics is truth.....the earth revolving around the earth is truth....the bible is truth.
I thought that gods laws changed between the old and new books?
Gravity is a theory, in just the same as evolution.
And to think - when I tell people that global warming advocates are probably just financially motivated, they laugh at me as though it's impossible.
I thought that gods laws changed between the old and new books?
Not really. We are under a diff dispensation but his laws are constant. We've gone from being under the law in the OT to being under the law of Grace in the NT. But God never changes. To murder is the same against God whether in the Old dispensation or the new. Same with adultery the same with stealing ...etc.
Gravity is a theory, in just the same as evolution.
They're not the same. Gravity has proven itself and is truth. The theory of evolution is constantly changing with no clear answers as of yet. Diff scientists have diff views and can't quite seem to get their stories to match. I guess you could say the same with religionists.
So again, my point is there are alot of similarities to faith in science and faith in religion. I believe and worship the God of science who put the cosmos in place using the laws of gravity and other scientific means. The bible does not contradict science but there is some psudo-science out there that attempts to disprove God.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results.
the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results"
In case anyone needed to have this pointed out to them, these sentences are not equivalent. To spell it out with an example.
Let's say the survey group consisted of 7 million scientists, and only one scientist was guilty of misconduct. If a full 1 million scientists considered that scientist a "collegue" and knew of his misconduct, then the "one in seven" reporting statistic is satisfied. Even more to the point, even if no scientist was guilty of misconduct, but 1 million just thought someone was, the statistic would still be reached.
lula posts:
The Science of genetics has debunked pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory.
Haechel's Embryos is an example of pseudo scientific fraud.
BASMAS POSTS:
No it hasn't, at least amougst scientists. The other main examples of fraud all have been.
When I say pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory, I'm talking about Darwinism....The chapter on Evolution in my daughter's 10th grade biology textbook alleges over eons of time natural transition from reptiles to mammals, etc. It's chock full of half truths, untruths, and nonsense.
The science of modern genetics of DNA has debunked that.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results.
the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results"
In case anyone needed to have this pointed out to them, these sentences are not equivalent. To spell it out with an example.
Let's say the survey group consisted of 7 million scientists, and only one scientist was guilty of misconduct. If a full 1 million scientists considered that scientist a "collegue" and knew of his misconduct, then the "one in seven" reporting statistic is satisfied. Even more to the point, even if no scientist was guilty of misconduct, but 1 million just thought someone was, the statistic would still be reached.
the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results"
In case anyone needed to have this pointed out to them, these sentences are not equivalent. To spell it out with an example.
Let's say the survey group consisted of 7 million scientists, and only one scientist was guilty of misconduct. If a full 1 million scientists considered that scientist a "collegue" and knew of his misconduct, then the "one in seven" reporting statistic is satisfied. Even more to the point, even if no scientist was guilty of misconduct, but 1 million just thought someone was, the statistic would still be reached.
Re: the highlighted, I am guilty of writing that.
Your point is well made and well taken.
And so is KFC's. The article reports that
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.
And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.
And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.
and she rightly asks:
Can it really be that a Scientist would purposefully deceive us? Falsify data?
That it is happening at all and they are seemingly getting away with it is unconscionable.
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.
And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.
And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.
I automatically begin to question articles that read like this. Not because it threatens any "faith" I have in scientists but because it seems to be trying too hard to force a particular conclusion. For example, instead of saying a study suggests something, the article starts off saying it as undisputed fact with it only being possibly "suggested" as a foot note. Also, generally studies don't "suggest" anything, they present statistics (hopefully properly collected and appropriate) and leave it to people to draw conclusions. So when it is said that a study suggests something, I have to ask, "who is drawing the conclusion that it suggests that"?
Once again, that 46% say they have observed states almost nothing. I won't go through the 1 in 7 problem again, but here's another. If 100 scientists are viewing an experiment by one of their colleagues and afterwards 46 say he engaged in "questionable practices", while the other 54 say he did everything fine, did he actually do anything wrong?
Then we get the conflicting statistic and the writer suggests it means the scientists are lying. The possibility that human beings are actually more critical of others than of themselves is presented as an alternative instead of possibly a primary conclusion. It sounds to me like someone is trying to make an inconclusive study seem like it was worth funding.
my point is there are alot of similarities to faith in science and faith in religion.
I used to think that scientists were similar to religious adherents, but then I realized that science is a system that can alter itself over time, If things don't add up, then that means it is a time for a change. When has religion ever stopped itself and said, "Wait a sec, maybe we need to do things differently?" Science bases such things on evidence, which can change and change it; religion bases it on faith, which has yet to change.
Discover magazine says it well here.
the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results .....
Statistically it isn't that significant, but scientifically...it stinks. That being said, I find it humorous that you're agreeing to the attempted debunking through a vary scarce sample.
Are you willing to admit that there may be 'faked data' (as you define it) in the Bible?
...
...
LOL - You deserve a cookie for that.
That being said, Discover magazine says it well:
If things don't add up, then that means it is a time for a change. When has religion ever stopped itself and said, "Wait a sec, maybe we need to do things differently?"
Happens all the time. Have you been watching what's going on in the Anglican church? A split? Splits in churches over religion in the name of change?
Now, if you're talking about the bible....that's different. That never changes and is still relative to today. It will be here long after you and I are dust even tho there was some in history who said different. They're long gone and the bible is still here.
Scripture can be read by us today with the same results as those who read it years and years ago and years and years from now. It never ages. Back a while we were reading the book of Colossians written in the first century and it was like it was written specifically just for us. We kept commenting on how relevant the words word for us today. There is nothing new under the sun.
What was wrong in God's eyes back then is still wrong in God's eyes now. What is right and holy in his eyes now is still right and holy now.
If things don't add up, then that means it is a time for a change. When has religion ever stopped itself and said, "Wait a sec, maybe we need to do things differently?"
I'm not talking about churches, but the very principles and foundation of faith, etc.
Lucas, sorry to inform you but we have no jurisdiction on changing the word of God. We can ignore it. We can disbelieve it. We can do our own thing with it, but we can't change what God has written down for us. It's there for us whether we want to believe it or not. I believe we will all personally be held accountable for what we did with it.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!