Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I gave you the summary in my own words, and then pointed you to the site.  I did what I asked you to do.  I am consistent.

You are right. You did put the argument into your own words. Consider your efforts there acknowledged.

What you haven’t done is support your assertions with anything other than a screenshot that I suspect you took from somewhere else that is not Retraction Watch. Will you show us the link, or not?

Your hypotheses are that scientists lie all the time without penalty and scientists act as their own peer reviewers. A screenshot of dubious procurement doesn’t really support either of those.

[Sparks]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You are right. You did put the argument into your own words. Consider your efforts there acknowledged.

What you haven’t done is support your assertions with anything other than a screenshot that I suspect you took from somewhere else that is not Retraction Watch. Will you show us the link, or not?

Your hypotheses are that scientists lie all the time without penalty and scientists act as their own peer reviewers. A screenshot of dubious procurement doesn’t really support either of those.

OK.  This is the last thing I will do for you, since you are effectively calling me a liar rather than just going out there and doing this incredibly easy kindergarten level research yourself.

So, I will take you to the Retraction Watch Leader Board.  These are a list of the top ten repeat offenders who continue to have their papers retracted, without any punishment.   My proof of of that claim:

Leader Board

Once you see the Leader Board, it's easy to click one of the linked names like Yoshitaka Fujii, and it will take you to his specific retractions in the Retraction Watch database.

Once there, at the top of the query screen, click on Clear Search to remove all entries from the search fields.  In the the search field labeled Reason(s) for Retraction type in the word peer, and click Search button.  You will see exactly what I posted in my screenshot.

You really could not do this yourself? 

Goodbye, and God Bless.

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So, I will take you to the Retraction Watch Leader Board.  These are a list of the top ten repeat offenders who continue to have their papers retracted, without any punishment.   My proof of of that claim:

Leader Board

Once you see the Leader Board, it's easy to click one of the linked names like Yoshitaka Fujii, and it will take you to his specific retractions in the Retraction Watch database.

Thank you, I honestly did not know this was a feature there. I've used specific examples to illustrate the type of fraud that can occur, but apparently should look in more detail. I appreciate the explanation.

It appears to have taken far too long, but Fujii was removed from his position at Toho University (https://www.toho-u.ac.jp/english/information/march_6_2012.html). I would assume that he is no longer a candidate for any faculty position.

[teddyv]

12 hours ago, Sparks said:

So, when a person knows the name of the site, but simply won't go there, it's suddenly my problem?

Well, this is a screenshot of the database query I ran.  Looks like 960 cases of fake peer reviews, exactly like I said.  That's sure a lot of scientists lying.

Now which fallacy was it that you accuse me of? 

By the way, you know you could have done this query yourself with a lot less typing than you did above, Teddy.  Why not at least try looking yourself, next time?

 

 

I don't need to visit that site to point out a fallacy. You are using the misconduct of the few to apply to the whole. You appear to assume the worst of every scientist.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I don't need to visit that site to point out a fallacy. You are using the misconduct of the few to apply to the whole. You appear to assume the worst of every scientist.

I suspect you realize I have made no fallacies in my argument, as you are still trying to claim. 

You have made two straw man fallacies, in your statement, though:   I have neither stated that the misconduct of a few scientist apply to the whole (or even implied it), nor do I assume the worst of every scientist. 

Your statement, as a whole, was also a red herring (fallacy) designed to take the heat off your false accusation, and an attempt to maintain that your claim still has merit.

Scientists don't always lie; to the contrary.  The point I made was that some do lie, or commit fraud, or steal other's work for various motivations, and I showed my claim is true.  Some of you were struggling with this concept, and my being an iconoclast obligated me to show you that cracks can exist even in sterling institutions.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The point I made was that some do lie, or commit fraud, or steal other's work for various motivations, and I showed my claim is true.  Some of you were struggling with the concept,

No one, including me, actually disagreed with you in principle. I did push back on your statement that there were no consequences for unethical publishing. I was surprised to see the extent of fraud for specific researchers, but did note that Fujii lost his faculty position.

This whole portion of thread traces its roots back to a comment from another poster that scientists were lying about the Big Bang. Evidence tells us that it occurred. They could be mistaken, but are not lying.

[Sparks]

13 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No one, including me, actually disagreed with you in principle. I did push back on your statement that there were no consequences for unethical publishing. I was surprised to see the extent of fraud for specific researchers, but did note that Fujii lost his faculty position.

This whole portion of thread traces its roots back to a comment from another poster that scientists were lying about the Big Bang. Evidence tells us that it occurred. They could be mistaken, but are not lying.

You pushed back in several ways, but I think you realize the state of affairs in the White Paper business is not exactly sterling.  White Papers can be a source of censorship (as it depends on who is paying, as to who gets published), and it's clear that people can be bought.  It's a shame it's that way because, I too, wanted to believe that scientists are always honest about their work. 

I did not go research Fujii, but after so many years of false White Papers with no punishment, the first thing I thought of when you said he is no longer at the university, is that he simply retired.  183 and they finally act?  Yeah, right.

Mistakes are acceptable.  We all make them, but as I said, a fake peer review is no mistake.

 

[one.opinion]

15 hours ago, Sparks said:

You pushed back in several ways, but I think you realize the state of affairs in the White Paper business is not exactly sterling. 

I was a bit of a jerk in the way I pushed back. I ask your forgiveness.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I was a bit of a jerk in the way I pushed back. I ask your forgiveness.

Thank you for that apology.  I accept your apology, and forgive you. 

[Still Alive]

On 4/30/2021 at 9:05 PM, BeyondET said:

Dark matter wasn't something that is simply made up, there are forces that has effects on normal matter. As its name suggests, dark matter does not reveal itself by emitting light because it does not interact via electromagnetism.

Its existence is instead inferred through its gravitational effects on normal matter. Hence the dark, scientist have no idea what it is an unknown element or something else.

Dark matter is basically a expression of matter that can not be seen or directly observed, scientist are in the dark about it per say.

might be some of those highly intelligent scientist do not believe in a creator yet after years and years of trying to figure out dark matter they come across a bible verse that reconnects them to their creator God. who can say how all the ways God reveals Himself to others.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

With all due respect, BET, if you remove the part I bolded, it sounds like it is an hypothesis. that is, something they "made up". I think where we differ is just in the wording. Perhaps I could have been more careful in my wording. I was just trying to say they came up with a type of matter (not proven to exist, though) to explain wonky behavior. But since it can not be tested, it is not a theory but only an hypothesis. It is "made up" just as Ptolemy's hypothesis was "made up" - and eventually proven false.

That is really all I was trying to say.