look you all are just making the same excuses you would not accept from a creationist or christian.
"look you are just making the same unsupported assertions and off-topic rants you would not accept from an evolutionist or atheist".
Ah, I could do that all day. But it's kind of immature and makes no reasonable support of a rebuttal, so, onwards:
stop embarrassing yourselves andjust admit the scientific field is not as great as you want it to be andnever will be because it is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin
Well, good thing that Adam is a fictional character and his sin is a fictional plot device. Since that sin isn't real, it won't hurt us in the slightest.
Oh, it's definitely not immune to corruption though. Nor will it ever be as good as we want it to be. And you know what? Nobody has EVER claimed that it was perfect or immune.
Guess what, though? Science has the perfect response to corruption: requiring that stuff be repeatable and falsifiable. But creationism isn't either, so you have no basis for detecting corruption whatsoever.
I won't bother criticising your hypocrisy nor your rambling. You'd just misinterpret half of it, not understand the rest, and continue to bandy about your nonsense claims of "bias" and truth".
you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire fieldor for that matter try to clean it up
"You have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire religion or for that matter try to clean it up."
Couldn't help myself. Sorry everyone, it was just too easy not to have a shot at.
I'll back up my assertion when you back up yours. Got proof? Bring it. Don't? Fuck off.
because your reputations, the money, the power is too great of a temptation that keeps you all from being honest.
Fact: a scientist's reputation hinges on being as right as possible every time. If a scientist is demonstrated to be wrong even once, they are pretty much screwed.
Fact: there is no power in an individual scientist. A vast majority of people in the scientific community with expertise must agree that the work is valid and that the method is repeatable (both of these are checked often actually by repeating it).
Fact: You cannot hold the patent to a natural process. There is hence very little real money in it for a scientist; things like the Nobel Prizes or several various groups offer monetary reward for specific problems, and many companies can offer largeish paycheques to their better scientists, but a majority of scientists are paid no more than the average salary and their jobs are only as reliable as their results (which are checked to be valid as mentioned above).
Fact: honesty is the only way to ensure your results are based in reality and that they are testable. Because if you lie, and everybody else tries to replicate your method, and they get different numbers, then you will be found out for sure. As Marc Hauser is discovering now.
So, there is very little real power or money in it for a scientist. As to being worried about your reputation, well sure, everyone wants to keep their job. But when that reputation relies inherently on being good at what you do, being good at what you do is the only way to ensure you will have a reputation.
We could easily contrast this with creationism, where all of the major institutions are paid big bucks just for being creationists; whether or not they actually turn out new data or decent research is never an issue because there is no peer review system.
We could easily contrast this with creationism, where one person can maintain a cult following with a few flicks of the wrist; simply write a book about how creationism is right, and thousands will flock to your camp in eager anticipation of how you will next invalidate the evil secular atheist natural science in favour of The One True Truth. No outside or independent controls are necessary at all, since anybody who advocates creationism is fine by creationists regardless of their methods.
We could easily contrast this with creationism, where people who are demonstrated conclusively to be liars and frauds remain celebrated proponents; where books which have been acknowledged as flawed reprinted in the exact same edition; where the same claims known to be false are used repeatedly by the aforementioned liars, frauds and books. The only reputation they need is of being a staunch creationist; nobody actually cares if they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help them, God!*
*see what I did there? Nice wee "Pune, or a play on words" as the indefatigable Death would say.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.
™ Version 4.2
