Thanks.
I think this is your best post yet... at least that I have seen. I like it. Why? Because it cuts to the chase, and I don't have to go around trying to figure out what you are really saying, or getting at.
Well that's good!
Question: What do you think of scientists who disagree with what the majority of scientists claim regarding a theory?
It depends on the specifics of the situation, mostly related to what they bring to the table in support of their claims.
For example, I posted some material for this purpose
here. Notice the title -
The Good in Bad Science. Please don't forget that. 
i want to come back to it.
If scientist (A camp) claim that a hypothetical is falsifiable, and scientist (other camp) claim no it is not, do you rank the other scientists as D, F, or Z camp? In other words, scientists sitting around and coming up with stories to refute scientific findings?
What do you think of scientist who make statements like
this?
Do you think of them as trouble makers, not interested in science.
I understand, in the science community things can get pretty ugly
Some phrase.... They may not be "cat fights" or physical blows, but you probably know what I mean.
What do you think of scientists who make statements like these?
Source
Although overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports the existence of the universal common ancestor of all extant life on Earth, it is still an open question whether the universal common ancestor existed or not. Theobald (Nature 465, 219–222 (2010)) recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test applied to aligned sequences of conservative proteins sampled from all domains of life and concluded that the universal common ancestor hypothesis holds. However, we point out that there is a fundamental flaw in Theobald's method which used aligned sequences. We show that the alignment gives a strong bias for the common ancestor hypothesis, and we provide an example that Theobald's method supports a common ancestor hypothesis for two apparently unrelated families of protein-encoding sequences (cytb and nd2 of mitochondria). This arouses suspicion about the effectiveness of the “formal” test.
There is also one that mentioned the challenges with macroevolution, but I don't remember where I found that
Are they not saying honestly what they believe the scientific studies reveal?
Does this sound anything like "There is overwhelming objective verifiable evidence...", so commonly stated with authority, on these forums?
First, I know for a fact that many folks here have tried to get you to understand that science is a self-correcting process and how part of that is scientists evaluating, critiquing, and sometimes falsifying each others' work. So why you still find it noteworthy when scientists do exactly that, I honestly don't know. All I can do is reiterate.....this is how science works. Scientists collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions. Then they write all that up in papers and publish it for their colleagues to examine. Other scientists look it over and if they find any flaws, biases, or weaknesses, they let everyone know via letters to the journal, a separate paper, presentations, and/or personal communications.
That's precisely what occurred with Theobald's initial work and the paper from the Japanese scientists you quoted from. Theobald applied statistical tests to genetic sequence data and found it to be consistent with UCA from a single species. Others, such as the Japanese researchers, believed they found some flaws in the way Theobald conducted his tests and expressed them in their paper. Theobald replied in another paper, and so on and so on.
Again....that's how science works. I'm not sure why you seem to struggle with grasping this concept, but I guess it is what it is.
Now bear in mind that I made mention of all... at least most of the circumstantial evidence in
this post. So basically, all the circumstantial evidence is subjective. Which means that what the honest scientists are willing to admit, is that it is assumed to be true
Again, all I can do is reiterate what I tried to convey to you in our discussion of junk DNA....science does not operate in black/white terms where things are either proven or merely assumed. This is another concept you seem to struggle with, and given the number of times I've tried to explain it to you without success, I can only conclude that you are just the type of person who tends to think in black/white terms, and there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
- something persons on these forums object to, and claim that one has a religious agenda.... a million times.
Well, I tend to think it's not a coincidence that pretty much every single person who objects to evolutionary biology is also quite religious and typically belongs to a faith that requires or encourages its members to deny evolution. Maybe you think it's just coincidental?
I already pointed out, numerous times that circumstantial evidence need to be interpreted, and can be interpreted a number of ways - which I told you how we as Creationists interpret it.
Whether that's based on what the Bible says, does not matter. We have reasons for believing the Bible is true... and that's reasonable.
And again, that's no different than what flat-earthers say. "We all have the same evidence, we just interpret it differently than you."
In science though, what matters is what your interpretations lead to. Do they lead to new discoveries, new avenues of research, or increase our understanding? As we saw in our junk DNA discussion, UCA has most definitely done that. Creationism OTOH? I honestly can't think of a single thing creationism has contributed to the sciences in at least the last 100 years.
To me, that says quite a bit.
Are you lousy at your jobs because of believing what other scientists doubt, are skeptical about, outright, and in some cases vehemently oppose. You decide, by asking this question - Are scientists who disagree with the mainstream, or popular believe or opinion of other scientists, lousy at their job?
That wasn't my point. I asked whether you thought we were lousy at our jobs because according to what you said, we can't tell the difference between reality and completely made up stories that have absolutely no evidence at all.
What you've done in this post is find scientists bickering over details and methodology, and translated that into them disagreeing with the entire construct. The two are not the same.
Do you recall the scientists that referred to the scientists on the ENCODE project as
people who know nothing about evolutionary biology? These scientists were attacked with the words...
"This is not the work of scientists. This is the work of a group of badly trained technicians."
That's from a scientist, to other scientists.
Yep. One of the worst things a scientist can do is run to the press and deliberately oversell their work in order to get media attention (something the ENCODE folks eventually admitted to). That it also indirectly called into question other geneticists' work didn't help either.
I don't even do that. Maybe I said worst, by mentioning Satan as the ruler of the world, and behind the worldly philosophies.
Creationists are not suppose to speak what they believe to be the truth, apparently. Only scientists can
Who told you you can't speak what you believe?
Is that you though? In other words, do you have those and similar opinion of other scientists?
Sounds like a "dog eat dog" situation.
Yep, it gets quite brutal at times.
That seems to reveal a lot about how scientists view their opinions, and why Creationists like me, have a right to question dogma, disagree with it, and even outright deny that any evidence exist to support the views, or opinions.
Again, I have no idea where you got the idea that creationists (or anyone else for that matter) don't have the right to question, criticize, or express their opinions. I mean....isn't that what you've been doing in this forum since you've been here? Have you been shut down? Has the scientific community come in and deleted your posts? Have they visited your house and told you to "shut up or else"?
All the data is available for the layman to research. Because the person is a layman, doesn't mean they can't understand and learn something new. Some scientists unfortunately have this view that a layman is not supposed to know what a scientist knows, or more.
I'm sorry I can't find the article that brought out the reality of how scientists feel uncomfortable about such a situation. It is observed to be true.
I'm going to take your answer as basically saying that no, you have not spent significant amounts of time reading scientific journals, attending evolutionary biology conferences, or taking college level courses in evolutionary biology. And to be clear, that's fine! No one can be an expert in everything, right? But I would think a lack of that sort of study and knowledge would at least generate
some level of humility in you when discussing this subject.
