Why does it have to be something?
I think the universe is the creation of an infinite intelligence (i.e God). Just because Evolution exists, it doesn't mean there is no God.
But why do you think this? Where is the proof to defend such a claim???
Do you have any idea how many things people believe that are not backed up by science? Look at all of the faith-based liberal policies. Unless someone is forcing you to believe their position it is probably better to follow this advice: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Again...where am I suggesting all or even most of the evolutionary scientists are frauds? I think most are doing what they do...postulating, researching, postulating some more.the theory of evolution is based on a large body of evidence. for this whole conspiracy theory to work would require that a majority of biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc are all in on the conspiracy.
That sounds very much like the very foolish and fantasy based position of most elected democrats! Can you IMAGINE the type of people that vote for them?I think the universe is the creation of an infinite intelligence (i.e God). Just because Evolution exists, it doesn't mean there is no God.
Again...where am I suggesting all or even most of the evolutionary scientists are frauds? I think most are doing what they do...postulating, researching, postulating some more.
First off though evolution exists PERIOD. This is not debatable, it has been proven and we have seen evidence of it over and over again. To deny this makes you blind, dishonest and bias on THIS subject or you are just an idiot.
Anyone who believes that the existence of evolution itself is a topic up for debate should ask themselves one simple question; where did my cute, fluffy, toy poodle come from?
The history of animal domestication alone provides enough evidence that evolution does exist to one extent or the other, and that singling out and promoting 'favorable' genes through the breeding process will shape the way an animal will think, look, and act over time.
Perhaps the science based one that caused the big bang or the existence of all known matter in the cosmos?what force? The Force? The invisible hand? Natural selection?
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.So... you think that they're earnest... but wrong? By all means publish some evidence that contradicts the established theories.
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.
Can I interest you in a piece of cloning research from famed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk?
Not all. Definitely some.
random, unguided evolution did not create your cute little poodle. so how did it happen??? intelligent design
Im just sayin...piltdown man anyone?
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.
Can I interest you in a piece of cloning research from famed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk?
Not all. Definitely some.
Originally Posted by VanceMackI'm attempting to get you to actually say that you think the body of research that suggests evolution is false. But you won't commit to that. You just say that some scientists lie, while refusing the implications of that statement. Okay, which ones? Do you have proof for any individual theory being a deliberate fabrication, or do you just not trust smart people? You're using this notion that scientists lie to discredit their findings. But you're not making the connections yourself. Find some evidence and prove it false. Go ahead. Until you do the legwork, you don't get to call anyone else a liar.
Your position is that some scientists lie. I wouldn't doubt it. Everybody lies. But what I will doubt is that those lies go undiscovered. And there is certainly no concentrated effort to suppress the truth. You keep implying that such an effort exists. And you suggest that scientists are immoral people who lie in order to get paid. But what you keep refusing to say aloud is that you think enough scientists do this to affect the results that the scientific community puts forth. Until you actually say that, without equivocating, and show some evidence to back that claim up, you're just blowing hot air.
And based on your comment about "moving goalposts", I can only conclude that you either don't understand why what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, or that you know it's bunk just as much as I do. You keep trying to implant the idea that scientists are all liars or incompetent without actually saying it. Either put up or shut up.
Anyone who believes that the existence of evolution itself is a topic up for debate should ask themselves one simple question; where did my cute, fluffy, toy poodle come from?
The history of animal domestication alone provides enough evidence that evolution does exist to one extent or the other, and that singling out and promoting 'favorable' genes through the breeding process will shape the way an animal will think, look, and act over time.
Just something to chew on...
"On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
In surveys that asked about the behavior of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. If you choose the latter interpretation, it may be due to fears that only government sponsored scientists have a motivation to be ethical and industry is distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.
A meta analysis of how honestly scientists think scientists in other disciplines or in the private sector behave in regard to ethical conduct would be interesting."
Science 2.0 - ® The world's best scientists, the Internet's smartest readers.
no one claims all scientists are saints or are immune to error. but science continues to be the most consistant and reliable means to uncover truth about reality. one reason is because science doesnt rely on a single or small set of data points. science is cumulative. it is self correcting as new data becomes available.and I know I've never fudged the truth on a Soldier's NCOER in order to improve his chances of getting promoted
So what is your belief? You haven't said Nor, Conspicuoulsy, Voted in the Poll! Not even an "I don't know"......" Did I accuse "the scientific communtiy"? No. Did I state some research and even (gasp) researchers can be flawed, sometimes intentionally? Yes. I even gave you an example. Have I said all or even most evolutionary theory is corrupt? No. But off you go in your typical idiotic fashion creating a pretend argument then crowing in accomplishment when you have finally succeeded in biting your own tail. Good boy!!!