First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is Science Corrupt?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/10
We all know of the corruption within politics, but what about within the scientific community?

Science says it deals with facts and what we find can be proven, but at the same time is conducted by individuals who may be corrupt and say whatever someone wants to here.

Recently emails from East Anglia University in the UK were leaked and the contents of these emails expose the corruption within climate science and global warming. Here is a nice article on some of that http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ There is admitted fraud and corrupted science that is exposed.

When I see the scientific community I see many scientists being fueled by governments or associations that want them to give them an answer they want to hear. Science depends on grants, and grants come from the government and other organizations. Typically it isn't wanting independent research and real answers, but instead seeks to hear a scientist tell them what they want to hear. Science is fueled by political agendas and philosophical movements. Not all scientists are skeptics, most are sell outs and achieve the high positions they reach because they have given the higher ups what they want to hear.

Within peer review journals there is censorship. In regards to global warming, skeptics are laughed and and not listened too. They are put down and treated as like garbage. Looking at the UN and the IPPC I don't see any skeptics, or any that are allowed to voice their opinions. They tell people that global warming is proven fact and anyone who challenges it is ignorant of the science behind it. In regards to evolution (probably the most corrupt field), there is very little consensus as to how things evolved, but the one thing they all say is that evolution is proven fact. When looking at many evolutionists they blatantly just call intelligent designers and creationists hacks with no science. That intelligent design isn't science and to accept that evolution is proven fact (when it isn't). Their arrogance is disgusting, and what's even more disgraceful is the outright name calling and refusal to listen to anyone that doesn't believe as they do. How do we learn? How do we reach a better understanding of truth? By having many scientists from many view points present data and critique it. What is going on is people of differing view points are demonized and refused entry into peer review. Science has been hijacked by the naturalists philosophy. What is evolution is true, but that it is proven that something beyond the natural had to bring it about (theistic evolution), do you think science would accept this? No, they would reject it and put blind faith in research hoping one day they can muddle an "explanation" as to how their truth may be represented. What if evolution was proven wrong blatantly? What if it was without a doubt proven that organisms cannot evolve into a new species. Would science accept this? I highly doubt it. There is blind faith in science and suppositions that are treated as true simply because it must have happened in order for their beliefs to hold fast. A prime example is the planet Mercury. Mercury has a high density, and it's high density contradicts current models in regards to planetary formation. It was also discovered that Mercury has a magnetic field. The most accepted answer given to these problems is that Mercury has hit by something that stripped away less dense material and thus we have the planet we have today. There no proof of this, but it is the most accepted answer because we already know without a doubt that planets formed billions of years ago with the current models we have... they make suppositions because they aren't willing to let the facts challenge what we know. Uranus also poses a problem to current models. Science says Uranus formed as other planets did, but was hit by an object that tilted it the way it is now... Answers are given without any sound evidence so that current theories may be appeased.

My main point is that science is not out for answers, but out for pushing ideology. The scientific community is very corrupted and arrogant. It pushes things that haven't been proven true as undoubtedly true and they say anyone who disagrees is ignorant... Global warming is true without a doubt and anyone that says otherwise is ignorant. Evolution and naturalism are proven true without a doubt, anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant theist. Many scientists believe we already know the truth, and things we don't know yet will align with current models. This is blind faith, believing that because we know naturalism and a billions of years old universe is true, answers supporting this theory will and must follow. If answers no contradict the accepted views then that research is flawed or some event occurred (like meteors striking an object) that would fit the models. Science is very corrupt, more so than politics. We are fed like sheep to put our faith in the "experts" and not think or do research for ourselves. The scientific community should be ashamed of itself, it needs serious reform and equality. My advice is to not trust an expert because they simply say so, but to examine the evidence yourself and find truth. Experts are paid to say what they say, and they say it to appease those who pay them.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/16/10 , edited 1/16/10
this is from somebody who thinks 3000 year old bronze age creation myths is science and reject 300 years of scientific discovery and advancements the most absurd claim he believes is light from millions of light years away observed by telescopes is created in transit
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/10 , edited 1/16/10
Btw light has a problem for the big bang http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang I respect you as a person and I respect your beliefs, but please stop making personal attacks towards me and making fun of my sources. Please look at the content and make a reply about that.

This thread is about corruption in science. Is it corrupt or not? I have posted my arguments, lets please stay on topic and look at material objectively.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/16/10
if the earth in 6000 years old we should not be seeing light from distant stars and galaxies millions of light years away. if you want respect stop posting false information stop peddling ancient bronze age myths
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/10 , edited 1/16/10
There is an answer to that. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf. Did you look at the problem that light poses for the big bang? I really don't want this thread to go off topic, it's about corruption int he scientific community. I will not respond to anymore posts here regarding things other then what the thread was created for. I don't want this to go off topic.
2271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 1/16/10 , edited 1/16/10
it's obvious that digs is deluded or suffering from delusions an example is this starlight problem he constantly whine about from is bronze age myth website


here is a picture of the andromeda galaxy




it is 2.5 million light years away which means light takes 2.5 millions to get to earth now if the earth/universe was 6000 years old. WE SHOULD NOT BE SEEING THAT GALAXY with our telescopes. this alone proves that YEC are wrong. YEC not only reject biology they also reject physics and astronomy which all explain light

YEC reject all fields of science

To be completely honest, you pretty much need to ignore the entire realm of science, but if "all of them" is too broad for you:

* Anthropology
* Astronomy
o Astrophysics
* Chemistry
o Biochemistry
o Reaction kinetics
* Biology
o Botany (particularly Dendrochronology)
o Genetics
o Immunology
o Molecular biology
o Morphology
o Pharmacology (Germs developed MRSA drug resistance? Oh noes!)
o Zoology
* Cosmology
* Computer Science
o Automata theory and cellular automata applications: self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored.
* Geology
o Geomorphology
o Plate tectonics
o Petrology
o Stratigraphy
o Vulcanology
* Materials Science
* Meteorology
* Paleontology
* Physics
o Mechanics (Including newtonian mechanics with gravity)
o Nuclear physics (due to the decay rates of certain isotopes)
o Fluid mechanics (Where did all that water go?)
o Thermodynamics

[edit] Humanities

The following are more humanities than science, but they are included for the sake of completion, and to emphasize how retarded YEC is.

* Archaeology
* Anthropology
* History
* Linguistics
* Biblical criticism
* Philosophy of science

Is there anything left?







The triangulum galaxy is 3 million LY away again we should not be seeing this galaxy if the universe is 6000 years old



No double posting.


Hugs and kisses from ~AHTL
Posted 1/16/10 , edited 1/16/10
You'll find corruption everywhere. Illegitimacy runs rampant since so many people don't want to put in the effort to make something really official. A good scientist doesn't push his views on people just as a good religious person would do the same. Science and religion will always be at odds. It will be a war waged between minds and what I think will prevail is sheer logic. Science seeks proof while religion goes by faith. Coming along and speaking of science as being corrupt is an attempt to counter what has been observed in corrupt religious people firsthand. Most people would do whatever it takes to defend their beliefs, even if it so happens to be quite laughable. Often times, people need government grants for a project. No one just creates large sums of money out of thin air to fund anything. I am neither for nor against some things, but one thing I will say is this; if you think without any reasonable doubt that your claims are true while not having the concrete evidence to back them up, you will be pushed off into a corner to sit with a dunce hat on your head.

Most will say that religion is the old way of explaining things without the real knowledge of how they work. There are endless possibilities in people's minds as to how everything works. Naturally, I opt for an explanation which can be seen and comprehended by people instead of telling everyone that the way everything works is governed by celestial entities in ways which we can never understand. It is unforgivably insulting to disallow people from finding things out for themselves. Intelligent people throughout history have been treated like malefactors simply because they were right. Beliefs run so deep that people can't allow anything new into that system they already have. It causes a disruption which they aren't able to deal with. In other words; change is often feared greatly by people who believe in something instead of really knowing it. It will be observed as only a waste of time when all this true and wholesome dedication to faith yields nothing to no one. You can pray all you want because religion is shielded by laws against discrimination. Without those protective laws, religion would have been burnt to the ground ages ago. Think of all the wonderful advancements we would have made. It would have been nice. Really fucking nice. But nooooooooooo we can't have that "decadence" because we will burn in Hell for it.

Corruption belongs where people feel it has its most potent effect and that is in defiling something sacred. Science isn't necessarily sacred, it is a handbook to the universe. Use it!
137658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Georgia
Offline
Posted 1/16/10
It is in a way. Scientist try to make it seem that their way is the true to answering the complexities in life. also I think they're conducting up dumb theories & experiments just for funding. I'll edit my comment later to add more since I'm having writer's block atm lolz :3
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/16/10
1, This topic is named so as to mislead the members. If you are inquiring into the nature of the scientific society rather than the nature of science itself, you could at least clearly state it in your topic title.

2, You have presented an article from the Telegraph in claiming that scientific society is corrupt. I wouldn't really call this much.

3, Your other argument has been dispatched by shinto-male.

4, If no proof or evidence exists for a specific view or allegation, there is no reason to accept it. It is not taken as wrong, rather as not right. The closing paragraph of the OP is just conspiracy theory-laden nonsense. I'll partially take the advice formulated therein and ask digs here: What is your last paragraph grounded in? Certainly not in sources disclosed in this thread. An allegation that the whole scientific community is corrupt a bit too ambitious when matched with the support provided by a Telegraph article.
Posted 1/16/10
By just watching particular US movies, you'll see scientists are always so concern about "the funding." lol
And, they don't talk in thousands or millions, it's always in "billions."
Posted 1/17/10
The reason why people need funding for projects is that they will hire scientists ans others for aiding and delivering, the funding consists of many people being employed, so it is more of a help than a nuisance for it creates jobs and pumps the money back into the public. Tax is made to fund the government to set up projects and create jobs that pump money back... For instance, the government wants to build a dam, is the president and a bunch of old people going to help? No, they hire contractors and engineers and others of the sort.
Posted 1/17/10

shinto-male wrote:

it's obvious that digs is deluded or suffering from delusions an example is this starlight problem he constantly whine about from is bronze age myth website


here is a picture of the andromeda galaxy




it is 2.5 million light years away which means light takes 2.5 millions to get to earth now if the earth/universe was 6000 years old. WE SHOULD NOT BE SEEING THAT GALAXY with our telescopes. this alone proves that YEC are wrong. YEC not only reject biology they also reject physics and astronomy which all explain light

YEC reject all fields of science

To be completely honest, you pretty much need to ignore the entire realm of science, but if "all of them" is too broad for you:

* Anthropology
* Astronomy
o Astrophysics
* Chemistry
o Biochemistry
o Reaction kinetics
* Biology
o Botany (particularly Dendrochronology)
o Genetics
o Immunology
o Molecular biology
o Morphology
o Pharmacology (Germs developed MRSA drug resistance? Oh noes!)
o Zoology
* Cosmology
* Computer Science
o Automata theory and cellular automata applications: self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored.
* Geology
o Geomorphology
o Plate tectonics
o Petrology
o Stratigraphy
o Vulcanology
* Materials Science
* Meteorology
* Paleontology
* Physics
o Mechanics (Including newtonian mechanics with gravity)
o Nuclear physics (due to the decay rates of certain isotopes)
o Fluid mechanics (Where did all that water go?)
o Thermodynamics

[edit] Humanities

The following are more humanities than science, but they are included for the sake of completion, and to emphasize how retarded YEC is.

* Archaeology
* Anthropology
* History
* Linguistics
* Biblical criticism
* Philosophy of science

Is there anything left?







The triangulum galaxy is 3 million LY away again we should not be seeing this galaxy if the universe is 6000 years old



No double posting.


Hugs and kisses from ~AHTL


I agree, even though light travels super fast, it still travels quite a way. and the light traveling from those galaxies is old light, which contradicts everything Digs said and all of his links are obsolete ...
114144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 1/18/10 , edited 1/18/10
we dont even have to look at the stars to prove that the earth is way way older than 6000 years old we can prove it by examining the earth itself if thats not enough than explain dinosaur fossils...

this thread can b so easily be turned back on religious people.


Science says it deals with facts and what we find can be proven, but at the same time is conducted by individuals who may be corrupt and say whatever someone wants to hear*.
(*i fixed his typo)

the same logic behind this quote can b applied to religion after all it can b practiced "by individuals who may be corrupt and say whatever someone wants to hear" to achieve their goals. Want proof? look back at our history its not hard to find it unless ur blind
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 1/20/10



It is no longer politically correct to use the word "retarded". If someone has a mental or intellectual disability, that is what you call it, whereas if you believe that someone is being ignorant or stupid, those are the words you use.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/20/10

madlibbs wrote:




It is no longer politically correct to use the word "retarded". If someone has a mental or intellectual disability, that is what you call it, whereas if you believe that someone is being ignorant or stupid, those are the words you use.


If you want to impliedly insult someone, it is encouraged that you use a word with a pejorative connotation.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.