Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Sapiens]

I think the majority of scientist have not considered the evidence critically, but have been conditioned by years of indoctrination to accept macro-evolution without question. Any scientists or educators who dare question the theory, (and an increasing number are doing so) are met with antagonism, ridicule, and damage to their careers and livelihood.

There are millions of people, worldwide, better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see, and yet, you come to the cockeyed conclusion that they have not "considered the evidence critically" and that you have done so better than all of them are capable of doing. Your hubris is overwhelming.

As to accepting macro-evolution without question, yes, two hundred years of careful investigation have convinced these millions (better educated than you are, trained to be skeptical of all they see) that it is a reality, but we do not do so "without question," healthy debate about details and mechanisms are ongoing.

People who deny the reality of the TOE are in fact met with antagonism (because they waste everyone's' time and effort), ridicule (it has the same root as "ridiculous), and self-inflicted damage to their careers and livelihood (as it should be).

 

[Skwim]

[poe]
The evidence is that evolution is a lie and creationism is true. Therefore any scientists who disagrees is either lying of just not doing their job.[/poe]

Absolutely, and I'm now thinking rusra02-troll here more than anything else.



.

 

[Sapiens]

I generally have a problem with best-fit theories being accepted on the level of something like the theory of relativity. (which has been proven out with data) Here are legit complaints:

1) DNA, genes, and other markers such as this degrade too quickly in most cases and we are unable to actually confirm anything past say 30k years. So we know our own family tree up to that point, and know exactly who is related through that material to that point. Past that point...

2) Everything past the 30k mark is speculative. Things look like this or that so they are classified together, etc. It's barely science and mostly educated guessing. That includes taxonomic guessing as well. That means we can say chimps are 98% like us because of modern DNA, but have no idea in an actual sense if we were once directly related or that isn't just some freak coincidence. We share similar DNA with a lot of creatures such as various plants, cats, dogs, etc. We are literally biologically similar to everything else on the planet in some way, but whether there is a lineage or not is questionable because it is possible that similar "evolution" occurred in two places at once. If it did, then we don't know it and lack the ability to say. If it does occur like this, then our taxonomic understanding would be inaccurate.

I'm mostly middle-of-the-road with the concept, and I accept what we can prove through DNA and reject the best-fit information -- at least until we can prove it.

You do not understand science. Nothing is ever "proven." Everything is always, "best fit." That is the nature of the beast.

 

[metis]

We work on the basis of evidence, and nothing is considered so sacred that it cannot be challenged. We don't have any "absolute facts" that are beyond questioning. IOW, nothing is "sacred"-- nothing can be assumed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

microevolution : the intellectual development of the average creationist.

 

[Zosimus]

I think that if someone starts with a religious point of view (creationism, whatever), he or she is pretty unlikely to get federal funding for the research.

I think that most things don't get fossilized. Thus, if something is a fossil, it's an aberration. Accordingly, I don't understand why scientists love looking at known aberrations and saying, "This must be typical of all members of the species alive at that time." I just don't get how that follows.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

There is always a possibility that it's a lie and most people are more concerned with condescending statements than giving evidences or explanations that support their beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

There is always a possibility that it's a lie and most people are more concerned with condescending statements than giving evidences or explanations that support their beliefs.

Which three scientific books on evolution have most influenced your view that scientists don't give "evidences and explanations" that support their beliefs?

 

[atanu]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

No ...... Yet.

I am a geoscientist myself.

The problems begin when scope of one type of observations and interpretations thereof are superimposed on realms where these observations do not fit.

I study bio markers, relict chemicals that are linked to evolutionary development of plants and animals through time. It is exciting to fit all pieces together, solve a jigsaw puzzle, and be very happy when a solved model successfully predicts presence of oil or gas somewhere.

But what if I assert that this data points to generation of consciousness/life?

Professional scientists know the scope of their observations and models and will not usually impose their models inappropriately. But there are cheats who are driven by greed for fame. And there are genuine mistakes too. What we have are models and not the truth itself.

Same, I believe happens from the opposite side also.

There is a Hindu story about 4 blind men describing an elephant that often applies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

My half cent only.

 

[Valjean]

I think that if someone starts with a religious point of view (creationism, whatever), he or she is pretty unlikely to get federal funding for the research.

That's because the "religious point of view" begins with a premise and cherry-picks facts in defense of it. If no supporting facts are found, or contradictory facts are found, it does not change the premise. The premise becomes axiomatic.
This is exactly the opposite of a research methodology. The scientific method attempts to disprove the theorem and, if flaws are found, the theorem is altered or discarded.
That's why religious people have a hard time obtaining funding.

I think that most things don't get fossilized. Thus, if something is a fossil, it's an aberration. Accordingly, I don't understand why scientists love looking at known aberrations and saying, "This must be typical of all members of the species alive at that time." I just don't get how that follows.

It's the process of fossilization that's rare, and there's no reason to suppose a given fossil is "aberrant" unless it exhibits some very unexpected features.

True, scientists do sometimes draw provisional conclusions based on very scant fossil evidence, but the paucity of evidence is generally known to paleontologists, who take poorly supported conclusions with a grain of salt till additional evidence is found.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Which three scientific books on evolution have most influenced your view that scientists don't give "evidences and explanations" that support their beliefs?

The ones where they simply refer to other hypothesis and theories to make further theories and rely from a thumbs up from the "most prominent" archaeologists, which is practically all of them, doesn't seem like "facts" to me but again an assumption based high probability.

 

[Sunstone]

The ones where they...

Could you cite by title and author the three scientific books on evolution that you've read which most influenced your view that the theory lacks reason and evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

[poe]
The evidence is that evolution is a lie and creationism is true. Therefore any scientists who disagrees is either lying of just not doing their job.[/poe]

Can you provide this evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

The ones where they simply refer to other hypothesis and theories to make further theories and rely from a thumbs up from the "most prominent" archaeologists, which is practically all of them, doesn't seem like "facts" to me but again an assumption based high probability.

Can you cite any of these books?

 

[fantome profane]

Can you provide this evidence?

Are you serious? Am I?

 

[leibowde84]

Are you serious? Am I?

So you are not serious?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I don't think it's a matter of lying, but a matter of right or wrong. It could be entirely true, partly true or entirely wrong. Scientists are humans too and no human is perfect. Please don't tell me science is perfect. It is perfect, but the humans who use it are not. But to call them liars, I don't think they are.

 

[fantome profane]

So you are not serious?

no, I am not serious.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are not serious?

Just look at the smirk on his face when he posted that.
There....look!
He's doing it again!

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it's a matter of lying, but a matter of right or wrong. It could be entirely true, partly true or entirely wrong. Scientists are humans too and no human is perfect. Please don't tell me science is perfect. It is perfect, but the humans who use it are not. But to call them liars, I don't think they are.

I'll add that imperfect beings employing an imperfect method is fundamental to science.
All theories are a work in progress, ready to be discarded when a better one comes along.
And many scientists dream that they will be the one to upset the apple cart by proving
others wrong, & proffering a new & better model of how something in the universe works.