What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

we knew this was coming LOL your a plagiarist.

Pretty quick on the name-calling, aren’t you? I truly hope that you are prepared to prove that.

at this site your required to paste a link from where you steal material

What if there’s no link and the material was duly credited? What does that make you? Slander is quite serious activity. I didn’t and don’t steal anything.

are you joking dude???? is this POE

Don’t know what that’s about!

this was from 1987 and this was medical students and has nothing to do with evolution.

What medical students? What evolution?
I was talking about fraud in the scientific community and the peer-review system. Get your story straight, will you? I asked why you trust the peer-review system. The system is run by scientists and I am simply showing that fraud and dishonesty prevails in the field of science.

Your big news is laughable at best as there was one or two medical students I believe that cheated on there test the other studenst were cleared.

You are convincing me that you cannot read with comprehension. You missed the point completely and now indulge yourself with in-depth rationalizing.

This is laughable for you to base creation as a viable conclusion. they were probably christian! Lol

You lost me there, fella!

flase information, sources please for your accusations

What accusations? Who’s accusing whom? I said that fraud exists in the scientific community and I produced news items that prove it.

you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution that are two seperate departments.

I know the difference and you won’t slip out from under your burden of proof so easily.
I am told that a single unicellular organism suddenly came to life and that all other forms of life on earth sprang from that single source. I refuse to believe that and, while I am not accusing anyone, I am questioning the concept directly.
I am asking: How can any form evolution take place if there is no first cell? Where and how did that unicellular organism get its start?

You are dwelling in a huge evolutionary structure that has no foundation. Don’t tell me that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. That won’t wash!

I explained this to you already, your only alive because of science, you owe your life to science

So, science is YOUR sacred cow - your god. You can swallow that piece of hogwash. Not me. Now - prove it!

by the way i'll let you in a news flash. the debate over evolution was over a long long time ago. there is no debate.

I’ve been told that before but you’re here debating it - aren’t you? Somebody fooled you, pal! It is still being debated all over the internet. Google it - you’ll see.

 

[painted wolf]

I tend to trust the peer review system... because it is the way frauds are found and punished.
If we just accepted what was written it would be a very poor system indeed.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

You want examples? I can do that!
I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.

What you have done is, at best, come with examples of individuals who have been caught cheating. This says nothing about the system itself, except, perhaps, that it works since these people apparently got caught.

Do you have reason to believe that this practice of cheating has ended?

That some people will from time to time try to cheat? Not at all. The system is in place however to mediate that problem and it's doing a good job.

Why do you continue to trust the peer-review system?

See above and in other posts. Nothing has changed about what I wrote earlier.

Now, do you think that you could see your way to answering my question?

Since you apparently do not believe in the peer review system, what do you suggest we replace it with?

 

[wilsoncole]

Who wrote this? Was it a creationist? I hope you don’t think that Nova programs are peer-reviewed? Hope this “scientist” was not a creationist. Creationists tend to pretend to be scientists, while most of them are not. So, there’s nothing wrong with the research itself, people just want to be co-authors? Nothing to do with peer-review. This sounds way too much like a creationist who doesn’t really know what science is. This doesn’t say anything about peer-review. I hope you realize that people who do the peer-review have no idea of who conducted the research or who the authors are? They don’t know whether it is one researcher or a million researchers. They look at the science, not the authors. This doesn’t question peer-review, it questions the number of authors. How does this influence peer-review? I’ve never heard that any scientist ever has regarded peer-review as infallible. Science is not like religion. They don’t work the way churches work at all! They’ve never claimed that they can eliminate fraud. They have claimed that they will try their utmost to minimilize it. A medical writer. Great. Why do you believe him? He’s not a scientist and has never been subjected to peer-review, you know. How did they know it was plagiarism? He tried to get it peer-reviewed under his own name. He was caught. Guess what, peer-review worked again. When he tried that, peer-review caught him. Peer-review works! Peer-review worked very well in this case. He was caught and can’t do any research anymore. Those people were really naive (nearly said stupid). Scientists are human too. Ever heard of temptation? They still are morally superior to Kent Hovind! They don't lie as much. It’s because the peer-review system works very well and is getting better. More frauds get caught. They can’t publish anymore due to the peer-review system. Fraud will always happen. It has to be minimalized. Maybe the churches should start learning from science. I hope you do realize that "fraud" is not the same as "peer-review"? What does this has to do with peer-review?
And what does this have to do with the peer-review system? Oh no, you haven’t. You haven’t mentioned even one case where peer-review was to blame. In all your cases, peer-review actually did it’s job very well. It stopped the fraud. You seem to tend to think that, even if any scientist does anything wrong, you blame it on peer-review, even if his/her work has not even been submitted for peer-review. You don’t realize that some scientists commit fraud, when it is discovered by peer-review, peer-review works. Has Kent Hovind stopped cheating the IRS? It works. very well. More often than religion.

Krok,
Why should programs like NOVA and Science journals be peer-reviewed? They don't write academic papers.
You know what? You have proven one thing:
You have no idea what peer-review is. I think you'd better find out:
Wikipedia says:
"In academia the term is often used to denote a prepublication reviews of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing."

 

[outhouse]

Pretty quick on the name-calling, aren’t you? I truly hope that you are prepared to prove that.

the rules of this forum have been shown to you, and your being a plagiarist.

post a link to your source fixes this problem. Dont have one, dont post copied material.

It is still being debated all over the internet

the creation myth is only debated by religious people out of the scientific community.

We dont teach your myth in schools anymore for a reason.

 

[outhouse]

7. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am told that a single unicellular organism suddenly came to life and that all other forms of life on earth sprang from that single source. I refuse to believe that and, while I am not accusing anyone, I am questioning the concept directly.

Heh... Whoever told you that didn't know the first thing about Abiogenesis.
No credible biologist or chemist claims that the first single-celled organism sprang into life out of nowhere. I strongly suggest you read up on the subject from some more reliable sources because that description is utterly wrong.

I am asking: How can any form evolution take place if there is no first cell? Where and how did that unicellular organism get its start?

From replicating molecules most likely. Probably some early variant of RNA or similar, but at this point we're not sure.

You are dwelling in a huge evolutionary structure that has no foundation.

Explain the foundation of the Theory of Gravity to me please.
Just to make sure we understand each other.

Don’t tell me that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. That won’t wash!

They are separate areas of science. Get used to it. Oh, and Cosmology is a separate field as well, just so we're clear.

I’ve been told that before but you’re here debating it - aren’t you? Somebody fooled you, pal! It is still being debated all over the internet. Google it - you’ll see.

The fact that we're, for lack of a better word, debating it here on a forum does not mean that there is a debate within the scientific community about whether Evolution is correct or not.
That would be like having forum discussions with people who believe in Crystal Healing and then claim that there is a debate in the medical community about whether magic actually works or not.
Hint: It doesn't.

 

[painted wolf]

Krok,
Why should programs like NOVA and Science journals be peer-reviewed? They don't write academic papers.
You know what? You have proven one thing:
You have no idea what peer-review is. I think you'd better find out:
Wikipedia says:
"In academia the term is often used to denote a prepublication reviews of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing."

Yes and post publication the work is then submitted to the scruteny of the scientific populace as whole, where it is further reviewed, tested and picked apart.

Reviewers aren't expected to catch everything by themselves. This is why there is a comments section... for open review and discussion of given papers and flaws.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Now, do you think that you could see your way to answering my question?

Since you apparently do not believe in the peer review system, what do you suggest we replace it with?

We? What "we?"
I do not get involved in things like that.
Clear?

 

[wilsoncole]

7. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. To quote another author you must always identify the Title, Author, and Publisher. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.

If you believe that I plagarized something, why don't you prove it? Eh?
PRODUCED THE PLAGIARIZED MATERIAL! OK?
I don't think you can do it.

 

[David M]

Why do you continue to trust the peer-review system?

Because its the peer-review system that enables people to catch others out when they commit fraud, which is still very rare. Hundreds of thousands of papers published and a handful of cases of fraudulent papers passing peer-review.

And to be accurate plagiarism is not fraud in the sense you are trying to argue, it is not a case of lying about the data or the results but lying about the ownership of the original work.

Peer-review is not perfect, no human system is. But its hugely better than the system used by creationists where there is almost no independent peer review.

So, any evidence for creationism?

 

[jarofthoughts]

We? What "we?"
I do not get involved in things like that.
Clear?

Ah, so you just want to complain, you don't want to contribute, is that it?
The last fifty years has seen an explosion in technology and knowledge unprecedented in all of history thanks to the Scientific Method, of which the peer review system is an integral part. Apparently you don't like it, but until we can remove it we will have to replace it with something equally efficient.
So unless you have any ideas of your own I suggest you keep quiet and enjoy the perks that science has given you, and maybe, just maybe, we'll avoid pointing out how hypocritical that is...

 

[outhouse]

If you believe that I plagarized something, why don't you prove it? Eh?
PRODUCED THE PLAGIARIZED MATERIAL! OK?
I don't think you can do it.

post 42 and 43

 

[wilsoncole]

What you have done is, at best, come with examples of individuals who have been caught cheating. This says nothing about the system itself, except, perhaps, that it works since these people apparently got caught.

You didn't think this one through - did you?
I set out to provide examples of fraud. Cheating is fraud. Now - tell me:
How would we know it was fraud if they were not caught?
What I have done is provide examples of fraud.

 

[wilsoncole]

Ah, so you just want to complain, you don't want to contribute, is that it?
The last fifty years has seen an explosion in technology and knowledge unprecedented in all of history thanks to the Scientific Method, of which the peer review system is an integral part. Apparently you don't like it, but until we can remove it we will have to replace it with something equally efficient.
So unless you have any ideas of your own I suggest you keep quiet and enjoy the perks that science has given you, and maybe, just maybe, we'll avoid pointing out how hypocritical that is...

Oh, I have lots of ideas - you'll see. In the meantime, I will point out the flaws in the system as I find them.
You will read them as I write them.
What can you do about that?

 

[outhouse]

You didn't think this one through - did you?
I set out to provide examples of fraud. Cheating is fraud. Now - tell me:
How would we know it was fraud if they were not caught?
What I have done is provide examples of fraud.

and it doesnt discredit evolution one bit

 

[outhouse]

you'll see

show us something, theres no proof for the creation myth as you cant prove a myth is real in my opinion


you can attack science all you want its not going anywhere

 

[wilsoncole]

post 42 and 43

What makes you think they are plagiarized and where did I steal them from?

 

[wilsoncole]

So, any evidence for creationism?

There's no such thing!

 

[wilsoncole]

and it doesnt discredit evolution one bit

Mr House,
With such adequate defenders, who would dare?