Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.

[Longhorn]

It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results. The results and the conclusion taken from those results should have been exposed during peer-review. Peer reviews are meant to anaylse the veracity of the source data. Once a paper has passed peer-review, it is widely acknowledged to be reliable, with no further investigation necessary.

Uh...What's your point though? That science is fallible? That peer reviews don't always eliminate all error? Well... DUH. Point me to someone who'd be insane enough to deny that.

[vorlon13]

That's it.  I'm officially done with science.

Someone pass me a bible.  I'm going to stick with things that refuse to correct themselves when proven wrong.

Go all the way then:

Mormonism

[Thumpalumpacus]

What's new?   The bible had been mainstream for 1700 years, and it's a total fraud.

How many more retractions are due which are yet to be discovered, i wonder? There has already been more fraud in the 'science of evolution', than all other sciences put together.

The fact that scientists seek to replicate studies is what brought out this fraud. What that means for you is that the scientific method is actually doing its job.

I'll take you seriously when you criticize the many factual errors in the many different religionis which remain even though we've known for centuries that they are wrong.

Until then, you're simply another internet theist beholden to his double-standard. *yawn*

[Anomalocaris]

That's it.  I'm officially done with science.

Someone pass me a bible.  I'm going to stick with things that refuse to correct themselves when proven wrong.

Go all the way then:

Mormonism

All the way would be Pentecostalism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Those saying 'science self corrects', erm, no. This was corrected by pure chance. The fact is that the fraudulent data passed through peer-review and entered the Science journal with no-one so much as batting an eye.

You clearly don't understand the process of peer-review.

Due to the exclusive nature of the vast majority of studies, no-one can attempt to replicate the results.

You clearly don't understand the process of replication. A laboratory doesn't have to get permission from the first experimenters in order to duplicate the experiment.

How many times have we said that before with so called evolutionary 'missing links'?

You tell us. Please link to each and every instance you can find of fraud with regards to evolutionary science.

[robvalue]

Uh, yeah. Science is not one big organisation. It's a method. Some people will abuse the method and fraudulently publish results. It happens. And when it does, they get found out. This is because anything scientific must make meaningful claims that can be tested. So you just test them.

It's totally wrong for people to abuse the scientific method and publish nonsense under the pretence of peer review. Of course. But that's not a problem with science, it's a problem with people. The idea that we should just scrap everything is ludicrous. Science works, that's what makes it science. The thing you're typing on: science. Stuff like that doesn't just magically work with no basis.

[YGninja]

It is pure chance that a separate group tried to replicate the results. The results and the conclusion taken from those results should have been exposed during peer-review. Peer reviews are meant to anaylse the veracity of the source data.

On the contrary, virtually every result in science will be subjected to repeated efforts at duplication, not only shortly after the publication but down through the ages when the result could be of any relevance to any other scientific inquiry.     Even now newton's results in duplication are still sought every day in huge array of experiments and inqueries, and any deviation, real or through experimental error, rigorously investigated.    Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

when did any of you co-religionists attempt to duplicate virgin birth and resurrection?

"Down through the ages", is pretty much irrelevant as it is the implications of the beliefs held to be true by society today which decide what is studied in the future.
"Shortly after the publication", is also wrong for the vast majority, as many studies are highly exclusive, they cannot be recreated by independent groups. Take the LHC, how can someone endeavor to recreate their results? Only the people already at the LHC can, and they're the same people who did the original study, or if not, they are still paid by the same interests. Look how long it took to expose the Piltdown man fraud. Evolution was put into schools on the basis of that 'evidence', it was widely accepted on the basis of that 'evidence', and when it was later, silently, shown to be a fraud, no-one heard about it, and beliefs had already been established. The damage had been done.

The virgin birth and resurrection are not naturalistic thesis. Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

[Anomalocaris]

On the contrary, virtually every result in science will be subjected to repeated efforts at duplication, not only shortly after the publication but down through the ages when the result could be of any relevance to any other scientific inquiry.     Even now newton's results in duplication are still sought every day in huge array of experiments and inqueries, and any deviation, real or through experimental error, rigorously investigated.    Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

when did any of you co-religionists attempt to duplicate virgin birth and resurrection?

"Down through the ages", is pretty much irrelevant as it is the implications of the beliefs held to be true by society today which decide what is studied in the future.
"Shortly after the publication", is also wrong for the vast majority, as many studies are highly exclusive, they cannot be recreated by independent groups. Take the LHC, how can someone endeavor to recreate their results? Only the people already at the LHC can, and they're the same people who did the original study, or if not, they are still paid by the same interests.

The virgin birth and resurrection are not naturalistic thesis. Were you brain dead during your education years or were you "home schooled" such that you could be unaware of this?

What science studies may be influenced by what society hold to be true, but how science studies it is not comstrained by what society holds to be true. This is how science can rigorously examine what society holds to be true and call it false. This is how a Christian society can, in its hubris, think it can subjugate science into another servant for Christianity, and yet science can call Christianity false.

Highly exclusive studies are in fact examined by rival groups who look for different explanations for the phenomenon under study. PEople at LHC are not people who all want the same resultss, as your Christians all want God to exist regardless of what evidence say. In fact they want different, muturally exclusive results. That's why they rigorously examine the evidence, including the evidence of what others in the group say had been achieved as evidentiary result.

To say something is not a naturalistic thesis is the same as saying bullshit. That is what you would have learned were you not brain dead. And no, I was not home schooled. Which is why I am better than you.

[Alex K]

Troll...

[Angrboda]

Look how long it took to expose the Piltdown man fraud. Evolution was put into schools on the basis of that 'evidence', it was widely accepted on the basis of that 'evidence', and when it was later, silently, shown to be a fraud, no-one heard about it, and beliefs had already been established. The damage had been done.

(bold mine)

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species.

It was not retracted 'silently'.

From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above).

G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere. Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.

Skepticism occurred very early on and only increased as more finds failed to replicate the features of the Piltdown find.  Once again, science self-correcting through further studies.  You're just blowing hot air.