quote:
You are not going to tell me there have been no frauds are you?
No.
There are, however,
1) extremely rare, and
2) uncovered almost immediately
by other scientists.
quote:
I did not say they would not get caught. There have been several frauds that I have seen you mention a few of. Those got caught.
Again, they were discovered to be frauds, by other scientists, through the process of peer-review.
Science is self-correcting, becasue it is extremely rigorous in examining and testing every claim.
quote:
How many have not?
If somebody lies such that data is fudged or inappropriately tweaked, it will likely be noticed. First, a scientist's graduate students and post doctoral students will notice, becasue they are the ones doing the actual experiments and most of the writing of the paper. If things are fishy in the final product, they will be likely to notice. Second, the reviewers at the journal who reads the manuscrips is an expert in the field and will also likely notice if something doesn't add up. Third, if the work is presented at a conference, other scientists will have no qualms whasoever about grilling a scientist to his or her face about results or numbers that appear to be dodgy. Fourth, even if the fraudulent paper gets through all of this and is published, for the research to be granted anything more than the most tentative of acceptance, other independent labs will attempt to replicate the experiments and if nobody gets the same result, the hypothesis simply dies.
quote:
Problem is when they happen they never go away.
Actually, as I explained, they
do go away in science. The scientific peer review process is designed specifically to keep the good stuff and purge what isn't useful.
Lies aren't useful becasue they do no correspond with reality, so they are rejected.
quote:
But I guess my question would have to be how many of these scientist you are talking about are really working on the ToE, or creation.
All professional Biologists "use" the ToE in that all of the work by all of the scientists that
their work is based upon flows from the basic premise of the ToE, which is that all life originated from a common ancestor and has descended with modification.
quote:
I would think they are concerned with trying to come up with new foods, new diets, new medicines, new cures, new technology, new fuels, new products all the thing's that will bring them real fame and fortune.
LOL! Yeah, tell me about how highly we regard scientists in this country that we read about them in
People magazine, and how many European villas all of these millionaire scientists own.
The vast, vast majority of basic research is done by modestly-compensated professors toiling away in academia, ICANT.
quote:
If as you say they all accept the ToE why question it.
Every single experiment a Biologist does is a test of the ToE.
quote:
The first single cell life form HAD TO EVOLVE FROM SOMETHING.
I know you say no no no no no no no no evolution did not start until after that life appeared. You can say no all you want to it does not change the FACT that, that life form had to EVOLVE from something. It did not just happen.
Okay.
But even if you believe God just poofed life into existence it changes nothing at all about the positive evidence gathered over the last 150 years in favor of the ToE.
The ToE doesn't attempt to explain where the first life came from any more than Aerodynamics explains where wind comes from.
My question stands "How can anybody believe in the theory of evolution?"
The reason they accept it is because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it.
quote:
Would you care to answer this question beginning from just before the first single cell life form appeared, rather than jump on every little or big mistake I make?
That question is irrelevant to the ToE, just as where the wind comes from is irrelevant to the field of Aerodynamics.
Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from?
Do you disbelieve the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System because it doesn't explain gravity?
quote:
How do you expect to convince me of anything by jumping up and down throwing a temper tantrum as you do in most posts?
I'm not angry. I am direct.
Now, would you please actually answer the question I asked, since it wasn't merely rhetorical? If you cannot answer it, then please retract this most serious and insulting accusation.
I would also appreciate an ackowledgement that you read and understood my description of how and why the way science is conducted is likely to detect wrongdoing.
ICANT, science is a painfully open, honest profession. Scientists who "twist anything to say what they want" will have an extremely hard time getting published in any legitimate peer-reviewed professional journal. This is because science is progressive; it builds upon the work of others. Fraud in science is extremely rare because the penalty for doing so is very harsh. (and they are nearly always eventually caught because when other scientists try to replicate their work, they won't get the same results, and also because graduate students and collaborators are very willing to be whistleblowers, since nobody wants their own work to be tainted by association) Scientists who cheat can't get work in their field ever again.
So, I ask again; exactly which Biologists are willing to "twist anything"? Which scientists, exactly, distort or fabricate their findings in favor of their "agenda"? Which legitimate scientific journals have their papers been published in?
™ Version 4.2