Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

No, they are not fired.  There are no consequences.  

You've been misled about that.  

Dong-Pyou Han, a former biomedical scientist at Iowa State University in Ames, was sentenced to 57 months for fabricating and falsifying data in HIV vaccine trials. Han has also been fined US$7.2 million and will be subject to three years of supervised release after he leaves prison.

His case had a higher profile than most, attracting interest from a powerful US senator. Han’s harsh sentence raises questions about how alleged research fraud is handled in the United States, from decisions about whether to prosecute to the types of punishments imposed by grant-making agencies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17660

A landmark study linking the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism was "an elaborate fraud," according to a new article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The original study, published in 1998 in the journal Lancet by former doctor Andrew Wakefield, was retracted in February of last year because several elements of the article were found to be incorrect.

But the new findings showed the original study got more than just a few things wrong it found that Wakefield conducted deliberate fraud by changing and falsifying the medical information of the 12 study subjects so that a link between autism and the vaccine would appear real.

In 2004, many of Wakefield's co-researchers withdrew their names as authors of the 1998 study after it was discovered that Wakefield had been paid by a law firm that was looking to sue the vaccine manufacturer.

Wakefield was stripped of his medical license in May of last year by the British Medical General Council.

https://www.livescience.com/35341-mmr-vaccine-linked-autism-study-was-elaborate-fraud.html

Here's a list of scientists who have been disciplined over dishonesty.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

There are about 9 million PhD scientists in the world, last count.  So you see that while scientists are much more truthful than professional creationists, there are still a few case of scientific dishonesty.    There are more cases of scientists making errors that invalidate their reports such as the "cold fusion" case.    But that isn't what we are talking about.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It does not say the pictures are a fraud.   My advice is not to present fraudulent pictures if your point is they are not describing facts. 

Rather, it points out that Haeckel's conclusions are false.   Are you now retracting your claim that biology textbooks teach Haeckel's ideas?

Notice that some of these are actual photographs, showing the same things as Haeckel's drawings.   As you just learned, it's not the data, but Haeckel's incorrect conclusions as to what they meant that was the problem.   And as you also learned, textbooks haven't supported Haeckel's ideas since von Baer refuted them about 1825.  

And that is why (contrary to your claims) you can't show us a biology textbook that teaches recapitulation.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by The Barbarian

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, The Barbarian.

It really doesn't matter HOW long the test may be "accurate!" The numbers CAN'T be used legitimately back before the earth existed! The dilemma is of the same caliber as determining "impossibility" in probability, or determining "where an electron is" in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!

Since YECs claim that the earth is no older than Adam, who was on earth about 6,000 years ago, it seems rather reasonable that if the test is accurate out beyond 6,000 years, it proves the earth is far older.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

It's just that scientists are less likely to lie than most creationists.  For the obvious reason; lying on their reports will cause them to lose their careers.

Creationists simply believe what God told them he did.   We see that scientists lie for money.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's take a look at the theory.  Here's Darwinian evolutionary theory:

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.

2. Every organisms is a bit different than either parent.

3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce, and the favorable ones tend to be preserved in the next generation while the unfavorable ones tend to be removed.   Over time, this leads to speciation and the evolution of higher taxa.

Which of these do you think are lies?   Be specific and support your claims with evidence.

That's something you made up.  Here is the definition of Darwinian Evolution:

The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Undirected means, no God and no purpose to evolutions' choices.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Rather, it points out that Haeckel's conclusions are false.   Are you now retracting your claim that biology textbooks teach Haeckel's ideas?

Notice that some of these are actual photographs, showing the same things as Haeckel's drawings.   As you just learned, it's not the data, but Haeckel's incorrect conclusions as to what they meant that was the problem.   And as you also learned, textbooks haven't supported Haeckel's ideas since von Baer refuted them about 1825.  

And that is why (contrary to your claims) you can't show us a biology textbook that teaches recapitulation.

 

Answer my question.  Why add fraudulent drawings about evolution and never claim they were fraudulent?

They are the drawings colorized, not photographs.  Exact overlays of color.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been misled about that.  

Dong-Pyou Han, a former biomedical scientist at Iowa State University in Ames, was sentenced to 57 months for fabricating and falsifying data in HIV vaccine trials. Han has also been fined US$7.2 million and will be subject to three years of supervised release after he leaves prison.

His case had a higher profile than most, attracting interest from a powerful US senator. Han’s harsh sentence raises questions about how alleged research fraud is handled in the United States, from decisions about whether to prosecute to the types of punishments imposed by grant-making agencies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17660

A landmark study linking the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism was "an elaborate fraud," according to a new article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The original study, published in 1998 in the journal Lancet by former doctor Andrew Wakefield, was retracted in February of last year because several elements of the article were found to be incorrect.

But the new findings showed the original study got more than just a few things wrong it found that Wakefield conducted deliberate fraud by changing and falsifying the medical information of the 12 study subjects so that a link between autism and the vaccine would appear real.

In 2004, many of Wakefield's co-researchers withdrew their names as authors of the 1998 study after it was discovered that Wakefield had been paid by a law firm that was looking to sue the vaccine manufacturer.

Wakefield was stripped of his medical license in May of last year by the British Medical General Council.

https://www.livescience.com/35341-mmr-vaccine-linked-autism-study-was-elaborate-fraud.html

Here's a list of scientists who have been disciplined over dishonesty.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

There are about 9 million PhD scientists in the world, last count.  So you see that while scientists are much more truthful than professional creationists, there are still a few case of scientific dishonesty.    There are more cases of scientists making errors that invalidate their reports such as the "cold fusion" case.    But that isn't what we are talking about.

 

183 fraudulent White Papers without consequence is the truth.  The fake trial of the MMR vaccine was, ... um, fake.

Why not grow the courage to checkout the documentary for the truth?

[Retrobyter]

7 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Since YECs claim that the earth is no older than Adam, who was on earth about 6,000 years ago, it seems rather reasonable that if the test is accurate out beyond 6,000 years, it proves the earth is far older.

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Well, not necessarily. See, the earth was created FOR the man and woman. PURPOSE can make a big deal, as well.

The "earth" is just a few DAYS older than the man and woman, on the third day, and technically, "the earth," so translated from "haa'aarets," refers to the GROUND or LAND on the surface of the earth. Then, evening, morning, evening, morning, evening, and the next morning the land animals and man and woman were created on that day.

It's true that the Creation account is mostly about the crust of this planet, particularly the topsoil. However, while we don't know for certain how long the planet itself has been around, we DO know that it was LIFELESS before the Creation Week (Genesis 1:2). The fauna of the earth between Adam and Noach INCLUDED the dinosaurs, who were also created on Day 6, and all land animals were HERBIVOROUS! (Genesis 1:30.) Again, it wasn't until AFTER the Flood was over that meat was allowed for consumption, and some animals became carnivorous or omnivorous. (Genesis 9:1-5).

Rather than an OLDER earth, we had a GREENER earth before the Flood. I would imagine that a canopy of H2O, regardless whether solid ice, liquid water, or gaseous water vapor, above the atmosphere, would do SERIOUS damage to the expectations of the N-14/C-14 conversion rate, AND would greatly influence the C-14/C-12 ratio, both in the atmosphere and in the plants that aborbed the C-14. When you consider that human beings lived 12 to 13 times longer before the Flood than after, it's very possible that the amount of radiation penetrating the "waters above the sky" was much more limited.

How long after the Flood did the C-14/C-12 ratio stabilize in the earth's atmosphere? Who knows but God?! For all we know, it might STILL be changing, even though the assumption is that it is stable!

Think about it.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Rather than an OLDER earth, we had a GREENER earth before the Flood. I would imagine that a canopy of H2O, regardless whether solid ice, liquid water, or gaseous water vapor, above the atmosphere, would do SERIOUS damage to the expectations of the N-14/C-14 conversion rate, AND would greatly influence the C-14/C-12 ratio, both in the atmosphere and in the plants that aborbed the C-14. When you consider that human beings lived 12 to 13 times longer before the Flood than after, it's very possible that the amount of radiation penetrating the "waters above the sky" was much more limited.

As far as I'm aware "Canopy theory" has been discredited even by creationist scientists (there could still be some hold-outs though).

[Sparks]

23 minutes ago, teddyv said:

As far as I'm aware "Canopy theory" has been discredited even by creationist scientists (there could still be some hold-outs though).

You would be happy to know that Kent Hovind has made a pretty good case for it using scripture.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

183 fraudulent White Papers without consequence is the truth. 

Hmm... I just showed you cases of fraud with consequences.   But I'd be pleased to see a few of those "fraudulent white papers" without consequences.   You're on.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

The fake trial of the MMR vaccine was, ... um, fake.

You were fooled about that, too.  Which is why the FDA approved MMR vaccines.    But I'd be pleased to see where the research that led to approval was "fake."   Evidence from checkable sources, please.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Why not grow the courage to checkout the documentary for the truth?

I depend on actual research data, not YouTuber videos.   Rational people are funny that way.