Wow. I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen such a blabbering screed, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
More and more we see evidence of scientists proving to have personal agendas and falisfying data to promote those agendas.
Evidence for such a claim?
Of course, I’m not claiming that there aren’t scientific frauds. There are people who are frauds in every human endeavor, and science, in that regard, is no different. However, you seem to be claiming that the fraud is endemic and purposely built into and tolerated within the scientific community. If that’s the case, then please provide some recent evidence for this.*
They do not want to be bound by G-d or his laws so they will do and say anything and ‘find (supposed) evidence’ to support their agendas.
Mind read much?
This, of course, is silly, for two reasons. First of all, there are plenty of scienticts who *are* religious, church (or shul/mosque/whatever)-going people. I know of several myself. This is just an ad hominem attack.
In any event, it really doesn’t matter. Evolution stands or falls on the evidence, not the real or imagined motivations of a group of scientists.
They are educated in schools and universities where belief in G-D is hated and feared and ridiculed and where morality, it is taught, is ‘relative’ and that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong.
You speak of colleges and groups of people as monolithic institutions where there is “one way” and no other. Of course, that’s not true. Are there people who are hostile to religion on college campuses (and even in positions of authority)? Sure. But there are also people who are not.
And, again, evolution stands or falls on the evidence, not the real or imagined policies of academic institutions.
One well known example of this is in the anti business anti prosperity agenda that tells us we can’t have private cars and can’t have many other things because they supposedly cause global warming.
The fact that they have been caught falisfying data and deliberately leaving out evidence that contradicts their agenda is dismissed as ‘insignificant’.
Being anti-business has nothing to do with evolution. Again, please provide a cite that data is being falsified on a systemic basis within the scientific community (as opposed to isolated instances).
Also even besides their agendas getting in the way of real scientific discovery, science is just not nearly as exact and infallible as evolutionists would have us believe.
Straw man. Science is not infallible. Indeed, the Scientific Method is predicated on the idea that it’s not infallible.
We can’t even predict todays weather accurately (or they would be able to tell us things like “today the city will get exactly .164 inches of rain which will start at exactly 4:39 PM and end 2 and one half hours later”
instead of “30% chance of light showers somtime in the afternoon” which actually wind up starting at 2 AM the next morning) but they expect us to believe that they know what the exact climate was, 250 million years ago.
Silly argument. Events that occur in the future are subject to variables which can alter events. That’s why no one guarantees the weather, but rather makes estimates based on models built upon data gleaned from previous observations. Weather in the past, however, leaves behind physical evidence that can tell us what the general climate was.
If science were so exact and infallible
Again, straw man. No one (except those making straw man arguments) says that it is.
we should need no witnesses in most murder cases.
The forensics should be plenty to gain a conviction when the suspect
actually committed the crime, no mattter what the witnessses all say an d no matter how good his alibi, is.
Oh, please. This is just silly.
One field of science (evolution) has very little or nothing to do with forensics.
Part of your problem is that you’re viewing the entire scientific community as monolithic, with one agenda, one master plan. The fact is that it just doesn’t work that way. Different branches of science have their own way of doing things. Different scientists within a discipline (and across them) have disputes all the time. There is no single person or group that “controls” science.
The Wolf
* And, please, don’t bring up Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s diagrams or any of the old stuff that has long been recognized as frauds. The fact that the scientific community has shown them to be frauds proves that there is an effort to weed that stuff out.