Ray Comfort #fundie

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

Major Publisher Retracts 43 Scientific Papers Amid Wider Fake Peer-review Scandal

A “peer review” is an evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field. According to the Washington Post,

“A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of ‘fabricated’ peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.”

Here is the weak and shaky foundation upon which Darwinian evolution sits. To believers in evolution, if something is peer reviewed it is the gospel truth, and should be embraced.

The Washington Post further stated:

“With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.”

Darwinian evolution (as Richard Dawkins likes to call it) is an outright fraud. Don’t believe it? Then watch "Evolution Vs. God," and see what the experts say (evolutionary scientists from UCLA and USC).

27 comments

old comment by Yossarian Lives

This news proves that science roots out the frauds and hoaxes, as is the case with favoured creationist memes like Piltdown man. Whereas, if your beliefs are ever proven false, you engage in rejecting evidence, stretching the goalposts, and creating straw men to ignore reality and uphold your worldview as correct.

What would you rather them do, Ray? Ignore the dodgy papers? That would severely damage the credibility of science, and, as stated several times before, the ability to change and accept mistakes is part of the beauty of science. The inability of creationism to do likewise is why it's not trustworthy.

Besides, when discounting these papers, many of which won't be related to evolution by the way, the overwhelming evidence from credible research papers back evolution, not Goddidit.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston

'He has published over 300 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.'

Religion: Orthodox Judaism

(From Wiki link):

'Winston is researching male germ cell stem cells and methods for their genetic modification at the Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London.'

A religious person writing about the very basis of Evolution: DNA. And who better than the UK's most eminent Gynaecologist to do so, eh Ray Cumfart...? Someone hasn't actually [i]read[/i] his Bible. For if he did, he'd know about the utterly Scripture-destroying Romans 11:26-32, which states that [i]all[/i] Jews - religious or not; from the Pork & Shellfish-eating Adam "Man Vs. Food" Richman, to the [i]Orthodox[/i] Robert Winston - are going to heaven, regardless: bypassing your J-boy & the very basis of your doctrines: John 14:6.

For when a Jewish Professor who has written that many papers that have been peer reviewed, and can write a book on Evolution, then the equally august Dr. Buzz Aldrin, who can say (quote; on the Moon landings):

'It is a magnificent testimony to the evolution of humankind'

Yet is a devout Christian himself, is the least of your problems. I'm sure even he would be able to remind you that Gravity does exist in space, despite your previous clams to the contrary; for after all: have you written a peer reviewed paper to back up your assertion...?!

Otherwise, why did you later do a volte face when it was pointed out to you - and by an Atheist, no less - that Gravity does exist in space, and you were forced to admit he was right? So howsabout you take that final step, and admit that we Atheists are right?

Because if the Conservative Christian Dr. Buzz Aldrin accepts proven scientific fact - as backed up by stringent Peer Review - and he has a rather unique perspective; a more-than 'Worldview', therefore...!

old comment by Dr. Razark

"Then watch 'Evolution Vs. God,' and see what the experts say..."

I'm about ten minutes into it. You are given information, and you reject it for stupid reasons.

You're given many examples of evolution, but you respond "That's not a change in kind" or "A fish is still a fish". The only thing you've proven is that you either don't understand evolution, or that you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Edit:
Ok, you keep bringing up this concept of "change in kinds" as being Darwinian, macro-, or true evolution. Some quotes from Darwin's book:
"...it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly..."
"I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds..."
"...the fruit of the different kinds of gooseberries differ..."

As you can see, when Darwin speaks of "kinds" here, he's not talking about a fish turning into a bird. He's talking about different species or subspecies at the most. In your video, you clearly accept that these sorts of changes do occur, referring to them as "adaptations" or "variation".

Congratulations, Ray, you have acknowledged that you accept Darwinian Evolution with changes in kinds.

Edit:
Just wondering, when you ask "Can you give me an example of a change in kinds?" and show a string of people unable to answer you, how many responses did you have to edit out that said "What is a 'kind'?"

old comment by OHP

Funny how Ray doesn't mention what subjects the fake papers dealt with. Given Ray's desperate attempts to throw out every little thing he can to back his ever failing position, if these papers had dealt with evolution then he'd have been in a rush to detail them in full. That he didn't suggests that they were either completely unrelated to the science/creation debate or were published by fellow creationists to prop up their position.

Not that it matters either way. If the grand conspiracy that these dumb shits believe runs the scientific community were real then this self-policing action wouldn't have happened. That it did just hammers another nail in the coffin for his already long dead arguments.

old comment by Jason_the_Cripple

"Here is the weak and shaky foundation upon which Darwinian evolution sits. To believers in evolution, if something is peer reviewed it is the gospel truth, and should be embraced. "

And here is just one of your many, many problems: you don't know what peer review means in this context.

When they say a paper was peer reviewed, they mean a group of experts who work for the publication examined the paper, and decided if it met their criteria for publication. The see if there is any errors with the paper, or with the conclusion, or the experiments, ext. and if it all passes their scrutiny, the paper is published. That's it, peer review is now over.

The discussion about the paper does not end there, it only just begins as the rest of the world now has a chance to read, and comment on the paper.

And nothing in science is "gospel truth and should be embraced." It's only, "Well, this is the best explanation that we have for the evidence. We'll go with this until something better is shown to fit better."