Thread: Bad Atheist Responses to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes; the faked Homo ancestor tooth, for one.

A tooth is very minor, I'm talking about something big. A transitional piece or something of that nature.

...which is what the person was trying to indicate with that.

Very little data is found to be "bad data" after being accepted because the peer-review system WORKS.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

...which is what the person was trying to indicate with that.

Very little data is found to be "bad data" after being accepted because the peer-review system WORKS.

Bluefinger mentioned peer-review and a 3rd party, would you happened to know who or what would constitute as a 3rd party?

Somone who wasn't involved with your research, etc.

Okay, sweet thanks!

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Good. Now that brings me on to my next question. I can understand peer-review, however I like to know of at least one example of a third-party repetition, in this case would it be a group, organization or just a particular individual with credentials. Also has there been "ANY" instances where new data has arised and it's been peer-reviewed and processed thoroughly through a third-party repetition but has later been proven that the new data has been fabricated or inaccurate?

First question: The whole Cold-Fusion fiasco. Though peer-reviewed, when third-parties (other scientists in the same field, in other research centres, etc) went onto trying to replicate the results, they found that they were not able to do so despite meeting the specific methodology laid down by the paper. This lead to the conclusion that the data had been forged or changed to create more favourable results. The paper looked solid until the experiments were repeated and failed to show the results.

As for the last question, I'm not aware of such situations, as all the cases I've heard about would have fallen into the category set out by your first question. But even if this was the case, bad data/science gets found out sooner or later, because as more data is collected, if the pieces don't fit properly, one must examine the data you already have along with the new data. Eventually, this'll mean you'll find out which bits of data can be left out in order to promote consistency. Data that is not consistent with everything that has been collected and verified can be viewed as being poor data, whether from poor methodology or actual forgery, but either way, it is something that is resolved over time. I can only really think of one potential example that may fit this, and that is Piltdown man. It seemed to be real, but over time with the addition of further data, its validity was increasingly questioned, until it was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

Science may not be perfect, but it is self-critical and self-correcting, and that is where its greatest strength lies. It changes and adapts according to the evidence that is presented and verified (one might say it... evolves).

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Where did you get that from? Sorry but you probably mixed me up with someone else because that clearly wasn't me, The scriptures doesn't support people going to Hell when they die. I don't believe in hell.

Oh alright, my bad