Piltdown Superman

If my experiences online are any indication, denizens with Atheism Spectrum Disorder seem compelled to attack biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents and defend particles-to-peer-reviewer evolution. Some will falsely claim to be scientists, others demand a creationist's "credentials." I lack belief that many scientists are interested in trolling. On occasion, someone with knowledge joins a discussion. David Coppedge briefly interacted with Dr. Ralph Marcucio. Dr. Marcucio was involved in a paper on genetics (the science started by Gregor Mendel, peas be upon him). He claimed that the paper supported evolution. Background image :  The Passion of Creation ,  Leonid Pasternak, 1880s Apparently Ralph's work has some good science, but his emphasis on canalization (an organism's tendency to go back to its earlier form when provoked) actually works against him. Further, canalization is compatible with teachings of biblical creationists! This illustrates a

When people call something a pseudoscience , the meaning depends on who is making the claim. The definition is vague and malleable like a putty you can squish between your toes and track onto the carpet. It is used to provoke negative emotions, often by those who are attempting to protect consensus in the secular science industry from scrutiny. Ironically, Wickedpedia defines and discusses pseudoscience , and its material can be used to define evolution as a pseudoscience. Further, pseudoscience supposedly lacks falsifiability — a frequent problem in evolutionary research. Phrenological skull, WikiComm / Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Phrenology was, to state it simply, the study of the brain and skull to determine behavior. It was also considered for use in criminology. Phrenology is listed as a pseudoscience, but was it really that or simply discredited by better science? Asking for a friend. Several fields considered pseudosciences (astrology, f'rinstance) are pro

The secular science industry has had a long-standing problem with junk in peer-reviewed papers. Sometimes bad science gets through and papers are retracted, but the number of plagiarized, poorly researched, and outright fraudulent papers is increasing at an amazing rate. When found, retractions are often issued. When found. You see that, Seymour? Some tricksters are skilled and subtle. By the time bunko is discovered, serious damage may have been done. Like fraudulent human ancestors in the evolutionary parade, bad science can be built on fake science. Indeed, science paper fraud can be dangerous. There are many reasons for fraudulent papers. While scientists are viewed as paragons of virtue and impartially following where the evidence leads, that image is the opposite of the truth. They are often pushed to publish, and some will do almost anything to get their name in lights and the money that goes with it. One way that bad science and fraud can be missed is when reviewers are having

It has long been known that there is a reproducibility crisis in many areas of science. Briefly put, someone will conduct research, submit a paper for peer review, get recognition — but the research cannot be replicated by other scientists. Social sciences such as psychology are notorious for having research that is not reproduced, but other sciences have few such problems. Biology and the like have reproducibility problems as well. The public and other scientists want to be able to see results in the same way with the same data. Scientist with seaweed, Pexels / Chokniti Khongchum A big-time study on reproducibility indicates that it is a problem because of scientists themselves. That is (as mentioned many times here) scientists have strengths and weaknesses, and they have biases that influence their work. Each researcher may give a different response even when given the same data. It also reinforced what many people know: Peer review is not a guarantee of accuracy or truthfulness. Rep

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, but special interests have long sought to keep inconvenient information hidden from consideration ( just ask Galileo ). Although creationists publish in peer-reviewed journals, it must be on acceptable topics — the Genesis Flood and recent creation are streng verboten . There is tremendous pressure on many in the secular science industry, and some scientists have a "publish or perish" sword dangling over their heads. That and personal greed  motivate quite a few to cheat so they can have their names on display in prestigious journals. Many topics are either taboo or the narrative is preordained by secularists in power. Sure, go ahead and discuss climate change or other subjects near and dear to the cold, hard hearts of the left. Just make certain that the contents follow the limitations; no one here will save you, just replace you. Got that, chief? For that matter, adherents of Scientism often think that peer review is

Several months ago, we examined how the Dunning-Kruger effect, frequent fodder for anti-Christian and anti-creationist remarks, has been debunked . You know the routine: A Christian makes a statement of fact and atheopaths talk to each other as if the Christian was not seeing it, saying he is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or it is a direct insult. People who do this are not citing science. (More like they got it from the seventh planet.) The D-K effect took another hit. This time, from mathematics. Partially made at ImgFlip , plus a great deal of editing The key point for Dunning and Kruger was that people don't know that they don't know. This came from a use of statistics. In that peer-reviewed paper, those fellas did it wrong. Now it is refuted three ways. Something this child has enjoyed is showing misotheists who think they are smarter than they really are is that they are using an ad hominem  from fake science. It also illustrates how atheists and evolutionists

Misotheists and other evolutionists frequently use dysteleology arguments, which basically mean that they think something was the product of bad design, therefore, no Creator. The human eye  and the panda's thumb  are two of their favorites. Not too long ago, we considered similar claims about knee joints . This time we go a mite lower and dispense with bad design arguments about the human foot and ankle. Like knees, feet and ankles give us problems. The Master Engineer cannot be blamed when people do not use them in keeping with their design. Feet and ankles, Unsplash / Jan Romero Professor Nathan Lents wanted to slap leather with creationists and Intelligent Design proponents (and possibly to bolster the faith of fundamentalist evolutionists). Like other evolutionists, he apparently argued from ignorance instead of knowledge of the subjects he discussed. Lentz wrote a book about the things that are supposedly products of evolution, no designer need apply. It did not go well. Befo

Creationist and Intelligent Design folks often take the ejecta from Darwinists that is paraded as actual science, showing flaws in their reasoning, and more. It is necessary to remind people that the flaunted peer review process has many problems; just because a paper passes does not guarantee truth. One may wonder if peer review is a tool used to advance a materialistic agenda and deny the Creator rather than promote scientific research. Peer review or not, much research boils down to Just-So Stories to advance evolutionism. Storyteller by Anker Grossvater, 1884 A couple of writers wrote a paper in an effort to elevate evolution to the level of hard sciences. It passed peer review — which supports speculations that the process is horribly flawed and probably agenda-driven. There are numerous logical fallacies (a good reviewer would have spotted those and pulled back on the reins) and other things that should make taxpayers demand their money back. For that matter, Darwin's Flying

As we have discussed numerous times, people think that if a paper has passed the peer review process, it is a guarantee of truth (an appeal to authority). They use that idea as a weapon to promote evolution and atheism. Of course, most people do not actually read peer-reviewed scientific papers. They are often behind an expensive paywall, too. Most of the time papers are submitted from scientists and academics working for well-heeled organizations that pay the expensive review fees. However, it gets difficult finding an actual peer to review submissions from specialists. Reviewing, Pexels / Vanessa Garcia There are many reasons for bad papers getting accepted, such as the large number of submissions, lackadaisical attitudes and lack of qualifications of reviewers, and more. Corruption exists because academics and scientists are just as prone to unethical behavior as everyone else. Indeed, some folks submitted computer-generated papers and outright hoaxes to show that the process has pr

Everyone here knows what sediment is, right? "You mean getting emotional about the past, like 'I'm Getting Sedimental Over You', Cowboy Bob?" A couple of letters off, that song and what you're describing is Sentimental . Sediment is the dirt, small stones, and so on that are transported by rivers. When they are moving quickly, they carry more and heavier stuff, and when the water slows, things drop out of it. Come on, you all knew that even though I over-simplified it. A branch of geology is dedicated to the study of all this and has the sensible name of sedimentology . Sediment-laden water from a tributary, entering the clearer Chattahoochee River / USGS , Public Domain (endorsement of site contents not implied) We have seen numerous times that secular journals and the secular peer review process have numerous difficulties. Some of the peer review problems are from Darwinists consistently living the morality of their worldview and doing what they feel makes t

A paper passed peer review, but it should have been bounced back. The story is that savanna chimpanzees differ from their forest brethren, and they should be studied to learn about human evolution. Mayhaps that is why it passed: because evolution. Remember, evolution explains everything according to secularists, but it is so flexible, so malleable, it explains nothing . Darwin's acolytes use "selection pressures" to evosplain some of their conjectures, but it is murky. Even so, they use it in discussing these chimps. Wikimedia Commons / Burgers' Zoo / Mira Meijer  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) If those so-called selection pressures still exist, other chimps should be forced to evolve into social(ist) media fact checkers or even something useful. Notice that these pressures are not identified, so that makes it easier to say that they affect chimpanzees on the savanna, but not those that live in the forest. This peer-reviewed paper ignored facts, used the Big Lie of DNA similaritie

They sure did pick the right location for the Darwin Ranch, what with being near Deception Pass and all. (Not the one in Washington, this is where you take Folly Road past Stinking Lake, which is not as bad as it sounds.) These folks even deceive themselves. We have seen how silly stuff passes the gasconaded peer review process and that retracted papers are still referenced,  resulting in zombie science . A claim of the world's tiniest dinosaur has been refuted despite resistance, but the fake news is still there. Original image: Freeimages / Paige Foster , modified at PhotoFunia Shoddy research based on fundamentally flawed presuppositions such as dinosaur-to-bird evolution is frequently conducted. Consider the  feathered dinosaur tail in amber , or the risible Archaeoraptor  fraud . Some owlhoots said that the world's tiniest dinosaur was caught in amber, but it was published anyway despite other scientists objecting to the claim. Eventually it was retracted, but still avail

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, edited for clarity 2 November 2021  This material should come in handy — especially the featured article linked below. When defending Darwin, The Mighty Atheist™ online is reflexively confrontational. The content that put a burr under his saddle is not dealt with adequately, however. There are several common tactics that are used in their efforts to dehumanize Christians and creationists. (Do not expect civility from a misotheist, because that indicates you are a person.) Their  ad hominem  attacks involve "Poe's Law", "projection", and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Partially made at ImgFlip , plus a great deal of editing Although many who have Atheism Spectrum Disorder insist that they love science and want extraordinary evidence from creationists (which they promptly ignore), many accept internet parlance when it suits their purposes. We know that ridicule is usually their first course of action. (A newer trick on socialist media is when

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  When Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ try to hornswoggle people by asserting "evolution has been proven", there is a wagon train-load of baggage attached. First,  science does not prove anything   People familiar with its workings should know it, and that science disproves  things. Another problem is that such a sentence uses subtle appeals to authority and popularity. Do you want people to think you are a science denier? Scientists accept the fact of evolution, and so does everyone else . Never mind the manipulation, there are other problems with the claim. One of the main problems is the word evolution . You may have noticed that I often use terms like microbes-to-misotheist evolution , Darwinism, and so on because there are several definitions. Some definitions are vague (such as "change") and worthless without context. Some of the baggage that comes along with the false claim that "evolution has been proven" are from a sneaky falla

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Okay, so I get peer review. That's the process that seems like a good idea for scientific accuracy, but is saturated with problems. Sure, I know Star Wars, but only the first three that were released. But what's this thing called rogeting ? We had a post at The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook about peer review. Charlie Wolcott and I commented back and forth, and he mentioned that someone pranked the system with a Star Wars -themed paper [ 1 , 2 ], and the actual paper can be had as a PDF [ 3 ]. Some caught the prank, and one reviewer had fun with it [ 4 ]. The author used rogeting as well. Photo before modification: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) At this point, I need to interrupt because of a development that occurred while this article was in process. Deciding to have a break, I went to YouTube. It suggests videos, and there was one on Agnes Moorehead, who played the part of Endora on the  Bewitched  television serie

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  It is increasingly common to encounter phrases like, "Follow the science!" Well, first of all, science  is not an entity, so it cannot lead anyone anywhere. Darwin's disciples often claim that evolution has been proven, but science proves nothing . Evolutionists tacitly admit to their pagan mythology by treating  evolution  and Natural Selection  as decision-making entities when it suits their storytelling purpose.  They also jeer at Question Evolution Day with irrational remarks like, "Ya gonna have a Question Gravity Day, too?" Credit: CSIRO /  Frank Filippi  ( CC BY 3.0 ) Another horse apple they polish is, "Why don'tcha write up your evidence for creation and get it published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal and win a Nobel Prize?" Come on, man! We've been over those things. So often, people claiming to follow the science are simply virtue signaling. Urging others to do the same can many times be an appeal to a

A few days back, Sebastian and Jimbo, the latrine trench diggers at the Darwin Ranch, were in town buying shovels. Although they are unable to grasp the concept, they knew that the rest of the ranch hands were upset about recently retracted peer-reviewed paper. Some jaspers insist that evidence for creation must be presented in "legitimate, peer-reviewed journals", meaning atheistic. It is a form of ad hominem , a genetic fallacy, a blatant falsehood — and a wrong assumption that peer review is a guarantee of truth. Fight for the Water Hole  / Frederic Remington, 1903 There are numerous retracted papers. (Apparently I misunderstood retraction, thinking that something was removed, but that isn't necessarily the case.) There's a reproducibility crisis, some pass peer review even though they are computer-generated nonsense, blatant fraud, and other problems exist. One was even retracted because delicate atheopaths were offended because it used the word "creator"