1. Of course. Stating 'there has been fraud in evolutionary science' requires that there are fraudsters (or willing dupes, or both) among evolutionary scientists. By claiming fraud, and by unmistakeable implication fraudsters and/or willing dupes, you are making an ad-hom argument which boils down to "anyone who agrees with that group of people cannot be trusted because those people are fraudsters, willing dupes, or both."
2. I am merely following your poor arguments to their logical conclusion, so as to illustrate why they are poor arguments. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm demonstrating where your words necessarily lead.
3. Careful not to equivocate. You asked what relevance medicine has to do with the basis of my worldview. You wrongly assumed that my worldview is based on evolution. I corrected your error, and explained why medicine has as much to do with the basis of my worldview (which is science, not evolution). That you feel science is too limited to serve as a valid basis is opinion, nothing more.
4. Probably for the same reason that many YECs fight so fiercely to protect their pet theory from scrutiny. People mistake wall decorations for weight-bearing pillars all the time.
5. None of those branches of science would remain the same, since all of them use predictive models based on the assumption that evolution is occurring all around us. Those predictive models would have to be scrapped, and new ones found.
6. You still appear not to understand what I was saying. I never thought that you "mixed up" what has happened, merely that you were a few years behind.
7. It has to do with the physical properties of collagen molecules. I'm speaking from memory here, as a layman, so if you want details you'll need to do some research, but iirc the fact that collagen forms long, twisted strands which themselves twist around similar strands (like a rope) creates a natural protective "shell" around the inner strands. Under the right circumstances, this shell can prevent the mineral displacement which occurs in fossilization. If you want more details, check the university library for journal articles. I'm sure there are numerous sources available. My own limited understanding comes from articles aimed at lay-persons, not actual scientific publications.
8. You're studying to be a scientist and you haven't figured out how the political structure of academia works??? Come on! If the status quo were immobile due to stubbornness among scientists, no change would ever take place. This is clearly not the case. Conversely, if every new discovery were immediately embraced, published scientists would be giving up a measure of prestige without any struggle. Human nature tells us this won't happen, either.
9. You're a grad student in Biology, and nobody has taught you about the likely origin of complexity within cells? Are you getting your degree online or something?
10. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What exactly is being "automatically claimed" according to you?
11. Nobody has said it on this thread, but it's a common claim. I'm sure there are innumerable examples of the claim made on this board. "God did it" is the core of the creationist argument. God is the supposed creator, right? How can you claim creation without a creator?
12. Technically, it isn't. I am not making the claim that all creationist arguments must be dismissed because there are numerous communities of scientifically ignorant ideologues among creationists. I'm explaining the irrational, emotional reaction from many in the scientific community.
13. You claim to be a biology student. Go ask a prof what is meant by "scientifically established fact," and if this usage of the word "fact" is synonymous with "that which can never, under any circumstances, be disproved, let alone doubted."
1. Quote where I have called people fraudsters or retract your slanderous claim (which you have yet to do elsewhere). You are drawing a long bow as well as putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that in an area which is largely influenced by a person's own worldview, the history of having fraudulent "evidence" puts doubt in the objectivity of the people assessing the "evidence". This is merely a claim of doubt, certainly you've heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf.... Just change the word to evidence... What this means, and is my ultimate point is that people need to be rigorous in their justification of evidence and provide clear lines of falsification and multiple lines of independant evidence to support the claim. I rarely see this happen in evolution, (as far as I have seen via the textbooks and personal experience).
2. Um no you are putting words in my mouth just like point one. Again I ask you to quote where I stated that nothing can ever be trusted now that there has been one fraud... I beleive I did say that it increases doubt, however that should be expected. So essentially I am telling you how people would and should react to such things.
3. No it is YOU who is equivocating, we are discussing evolution. This entire forum is dedicated to evolution, if you wish to discuss medicine go to a forum about medicine.
4. Then you admit that both are as bad as each other
That is simply what it is. Evolution is more about philosophy than science, since its simply a paradigm with which people view the world... The same as Religion.
5. I'll fix it for you... "predictive" models... Claiming "evolution did it" is not a predictive model, but that is what is claimed after
every new discovery... Epigenetics, "evolution did it", microRNA, "evolution did it"... Yet again you fail to realise what an actual prediction is. Additionally it can be infered that your use of the word "predictive" was used to add additional (unfounded) authority, I've caught you out doing this a few times now. Please ensure that what you say stays truthful, elaborating for the sake of trying to make something look better is not very intellectually honest.
6. I didn't say that I mixed up, I said that YOU mixed it up, which you just did again. Yet again you display your intellectual honesty or lack thereof. The only reason I brought it up was to debunk your claim that anyone with evidence against evolution would be hailed as a hero and would get a Nobel prize, I showed you how this was not the case with the evidence of soft tissue found in bones, where the reasearcher was chastised for finding such evidence and a concerted effort was created to try and refute this evidence (which didn't work). Whether or not they accept it now is of no consequence, since it demonstrates that someone with evidence that ran counter to the current evolutionary claims was not treated as you said they would. Therefore this whole extra discussion has sidelined my point, which refuted what you claimed.
Now what this demonstrates is the evolutionist's community a priori commitment to evolution in that they will not allow anything to run counter to it, such is evidence of bias and uncritical thinking.
7. Its ironic that this only comes to light AFTER tissue has been found. No other tests before hand ever mentioned such a thing, (and the structure of collagen was known before). Therefore it will be interesting to see what lines of evidence they give and how it differs to the experiments done before... Perhaps now that they already the conclusion, as it "must" exist millions of years since evolution is true... Very curious.
8. This has got nothing to do with the "politics" of scientists... I called you out on ad hoc claims in that evidence that ran counter to evolution doesn't refute it ad hoc hypothesises are added so the evidence that was refuting it now fits in.. This is trademark of pseudoscience, where something can NEVER be claimed wrong since all opposing evidence is hand waved away with spurious hypothesis claims.
9. You complain about (supposed) ad hominem claims yet here you are making one of your own... Hypocrite much?
I have been taught the proposed claims of complexity... Too bad that there is no evidence of the mechanisms claimed, meaning its merely an idea.... therefore very far from "likely"... (what did I say about elaborating to try and make your claims seem good... here is yet another example).
10. Evolutionists claim that since Creationists don't have something to replace evolution then evolution should still stand by default. (I believe you made this claim in a different thread, or was it someone else?)
11. Considering that, as you said, nobody here has used that claim, I cannot see how you can claim its the core of our argument... If it was the core then wouldn't someone have said it by now? Ergo reality doesn't support your claims, only your confused interpretation of the Creationist's position. The actual core of Creationist claims is that what we do know about the world act as signposts which infer a designer. Much like how if you find an arrowhead in the sand you would infer an arrowhead maker, or cave drawings in a cave would infer a cave drawer.
12. You called people ignorant. That IS an ad hominem, and no amount of mental gymnastics can help you here. Otherwise you'd simply open the gateway for people to speak obscenities to you, (though most probably won't because unlike the atheist forums where that is deemed a "tactic", (a few years ago I read an atheist debate guide claiming that to win you need to get your opponent angry and you do that by calling him / her names), we try and not stoop to that level.
13. I am a Biology student, you're attempts to belittle me will not work. How about we check the actual arbiter of the definition of words...http://dictionary.re...act?s=t&ld=1126 fact
/fækt/ Show Spelled [fakt] Show IPA noun 1. something
that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is
now a fact.
a truth known
by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said
to be true
or supposed to
have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Law. . Often, facts. an
actual or alleged event
as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact
, question of law
Unless of course you'd claim that a fact in science is not an actual fact, however one could ask why call it a fact then, why confuse terms? Why not call it something else? Unless there is a modicum of intellectual dishonesty here whereby one can claim fact in order to pose authority for a claim, but then is not obligated to demonstrate how it is an actual fact...