[Dimensio]

I don't put much store in what the "scientific" community has to say. Many have their own agenda.

Even if this is true, an 'agenda' does not falsify scientific data.

Are kids overweight? Our scientific community says it's due to soda pop.

I was not aware that the recent increase in child obesity has been attributed to one single cause. Do you have a reference?

Our scientific community says it's due to soda pop. Is global warming happening? Data dating back 50 years (out of a 6 billion year history) confirms this to be so and the scientific community attribute the cause to pollutants.

Some scientists believe that the trend is the result of pollutants. Others believe that the current trend is part of a normal cycle. Research continues into investigating the cause, thogh that average global temperatures are rising is not disputed.

Is the fetus alive? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what the mother says.

"What the mother says" is not used as scientific justification for the life of a fetus. The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question. It is indisputable that the cells of a developing fetus, and the zygote before that, are 'alive'. The dispute over the point at which the collection of living cells is a 'living human' -- whether it is at the moment of conception or the moment of birth -- is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

The "scientific community" can't agree on some of the simple things and they want to tell me how the earth was created?

There is little dispute as to the means by which the earth came to exist, though that subject is not related to the theory of evolution.

It was the scientific community more than the Church that tried to prove Galileo's theory the earth revolved around the sun was wrong. I

Please provide references to support this claim.

I wouldn't put my faith in the scientific community.

This does not falsify the extensive research and uncovered data in support of the theory of evolution.

[Virginia-American]

The dispute over the point at which the collection of living cells is a 'living human' -- whether it is at the moment of conception or the moment of birth -- is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

It's a legal question that should, IMO, be decided by legislative bodies.

[HarleyD]

Even if this is true, an 'agenda' does not falsify scientific data.

Wouldn’t you say that is being a bit naïve? No one is necessarily accusing all scientists of falsifying data, even though some have. But how many scientists are “true” scientists, people who objectively seek out answers? I doubt that if someone was trying to prove the rainforest deforestization was leading to global warming, and they found evidence to the contrary, that they would publish the data. I’m skeptical given today’s environment that they would wish to contradiction to their agenda. There are very few people who will say, “Well, I guess I was wrong on that one.”

I was not aware that the recent increase in child obesity has been attributed to one single cause. Do you have a reference?

What constitute the “scientific community”? You say that evolution is correct based upon your scientists. I probably counter with other scientists that would say they believe in created design. Perhaps I’ve broad brushed this a bit but not unreasonably so. It really becomes who you wish to believe. It’s a matter of faith-in scientific models and premises.

The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question.

Nonsense. The same medical profession that goes in to operate on a fetus at 20 weeks is the same group that will think nothing of killing it. The “ambiguity” is simply a political cover. There certainly is no shortage of people looking for “scientific” funding of embryonic stem cell research money now is there? It’s simply a cop out to say no one knows when life begins. Don’t you think that would be a very important scientific question to answer before we go destroying it?

There is little dispute as to the means by which the earth came to exist, though that subject is not related to the theory of evolution.

Evolution and the earth creation are interrelated. There is no different in saying the earth was created by intelligence design than to say man was created by intelligence design. If there was “little dispute” we wouldn’t be wasting a lot of bandwidth, paper and media attention on this.

Please provide references to support this claim [about Galileo].

Why? 1) Galileo was going against hundreds of years of scientific beliefs. 2) Most scientists (if not all) were members of the Catholic Church. 3) No one came to the aid of Galileo. It reasonable to deduce that either the scientists of the day either supported the Church or they were abject cowards being afraid to advance science in the name of saving their own skins. Doesn’t this come back to our discussion about scientists being bias?

This does not falsify the extensive research and uncovered data in support of the theory of evolution.

If this is true, then man destroying us either through global warming or blowing ourselves up will be simply another step in the world's evolution. Either one must be a good thing.

[jwalsh07]

The ambiguity is based upon defining when a human "life" begins, which is not a scientific question.

Nonsense. The genome is human. The cells are alive. Hence a living human being at that stage of human beinghood. The science is clear on that, you just don't like the science.

[grey_whiskers]

Even if this is true, an 'agenda' does not falsify scientific data.

No, but it means the scientists *with* an agenda might have falsified data.

See also C.P. Snow's The Search; or Google John Darsee.

Cheers!