The entire point of the discussion you got into back on page 24 was claiming that scientists were liars and that we shouldn't listen to them. Here's a few quotes.
I don't know what you could possibly have to say other than that it is proper to discount the science. First you say that there's faith in science, and that people don't really understand it. That's the complete opposite of the truth, with conclusions reached by careful consideration of evidence. If you actually respect what scientists do, and respect their integrity, why are you trying to show their work as improper?
Frequently. As in, often enough to be of statistical relevance. You actually said that the body of scientific knowledge contains willful lies. That is what I'm addressing. You keep jumping backwards and refusing to either retract or stand by that comment. You brought out some numbers, but then didn't address whether peer review caught those discrepancies.
I'll accept that you support the scientific method, and aren't really claiming that the scientific community intentional attempts to deceive the public for their own ends. But it damn sure sounded like you were making that claim. And I certainly don't want anyone reading this thread to get the wrong impression.
Horse****. Go back to the post that you suddenly got your silkies pulled tight on.
261- In a response to Scourge and his use of the word “willful deception” I stated Willful deception is commonly practiced. Even by those science minded folks. People frequently research things not to find the 'truth' but with the specific intent to prove a hypothesis. Mans gotta publish...right?
You of course jumped in with
262-Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
To which I replied in 264
ALL of the scientific community? No...of course not. Some? Helz yes.
Of course, scourge, like you, lost all objectivity and made ‘some’ mean all and declared I was indicting ALL of science which of course was an idiotic thing to say because I in no way impunded ALL of science and affirmed that fact
282-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.
Ah…but not to be outdone in the arena of idiocy, you jump right back with
265-So... you think that they're earnest... but wrong? By all means publish some evidence that contradicts the established theories.
In 289 I repeated what I had been saying. For some moronic reason you decided to take up the shield of defense for science when in fact I wasn’t ATTACKING science, merely pointing out it is not pristine.
“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.”
Then…just for fun I threw in a survey BY scientists ABOUT scientists and the potential for flawed data to demonstrate what I had been talking about. It was pretty compelling stuff…right? I mean…2% of survey participants admitting to fraud, up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data (which kinda puts a lie to the 2% that actually admit to it…but hey…who wants to admit to being part of that 14%) and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
That’s all I had ever suggested. Not that science was improper or incorrect. Not that science should be discounted because some (and apparently a LOT) scientists skew their research data (side note-anyone that has worked in a university setting already understand this to be common). Not that evolution was wrong…hell…twice before I had affirmed my knowledge of and acceptance of micro-evolution as we know it today.
Should be clear to anyone…but…not to the idiot triplets now joined by BMAC who not only completely glossed over a study of scientific integrity by a group of scientists but then went on to do this head spinning rant about how I was a liar for stating I even believed in any type of evolution and that I was really a god worshipping candle burning tie your children down and sacrifice them at the altar creationist.
Which proves one thing…you people lose your ****ing MINDS when someone dares to challenge your faith base. And people think religious types are bad…