[Dimensio]

Wouldn’t you say that is being a bit naïve?

No. Data stands or fails as valid based upon its correspondence to reality, not because of any agenda posessed by those who report the data.
,br> 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?

If you have evidence of bias leading to false conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, then please present it. Mere speculation, however, is not evidence against a scientific theory.

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.

This would not preclude another without such an agenda of publishing 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.”

If this were true, there would be no further advances in science.

What constitute the “scientific community”?

The subset of the general population who is educated sufficiently in a scientific field to be employed in a position that requires such knowledge.

You say that evolution is correct based upon your scientists. I probably counter with other scientists that would say they believe in created design

Please cite the relevant scientific research that lends credibility to claims of "created design".

Perhaps I’ve broad brushed this a bit but not unreasonably so. It really becomes who you wish to believe.

The nature of scientific inquiry is that the methods are openly known. It is possible to investigate the research that has led to scientific conclusions to determine whether or not a claim is justified. While it is true that there exist individuals who wish to change the definition of science to one that would truly be based upon "who you wish to believe", such individuals have gained little headway outside of the state of Kansas.

It’s a matter of faith-in scientific models and premises.

Scientific models can be tested and reviewed, and in fact much face such testing and review to be accepted as valid. This is not "faith".

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.

You are speaking of medical ethics, not science. Science is not a method for defining ethics.

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.

How do you define a "human life"?

Don’t you think that would be a very important scientific question to answer before we go destroying it?

What factors would need to be observed to conclude that a collection of cells is a "human life"?

Evolution and the earth creation are interrelated.

Incorrect. The mechanisms of the process of evolution do not depend in any way on the means by which the planet on which the process occurs came to exist. If you disagree, then please explain how the mechanisms of evolution would change between a planet that formed through unguided processes and a planet that was built by interstellar contractors.

There is no different in saying the earth was created by intelligence design than to say man was created by intelligence design.

You are again incorrect. Demonstrating that the Earth were "intelligently designed" would not automatically demonstrate that humans or any other organism was initially "intelligently designed".

If there was “little dispute” we wouldn’t be wasting a lot of bandwidth, paper and media attention on this.

I should have clarified my comment. I meant to say that there is little dispute within the field of cosmology, from where the current models for planetary formation originate. (I will also note that I use the plural "models" not because there exist competing explanations, but because there are different means by which a planet can form).

Why?

You have made a specific claim. It is reasonable to expect that you will provide evidence to support it.

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?

Is it not also possible that there were not a large number of individuals who had conducted the same research that Galileo had conducted?

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.

Planets do not evolve.

Either one must be a good thing.

There is no rational basis for your conclusion.

[HarleyD]

No. Data stands or fails as valid based upon its correspondence to reality

That’s very nice and sounds reasonable, but as a statistician I know I can manipulate numbers to mean just about anything I want them to mean. It’s all how you play the game.

If you have evidence of bias leading to false conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, then please present it.

I’m the one who says that I’m skeptical in the evolution findings. If I recall it’s scientists who have to provide conclusive proof prior to something being accepted. Evolutionists have not done this, certainly not to everyone’s satisfaction.

This would not preclude another without such an agenda of publishing data.

Sure, there can be different people with different views. But all communities have agendas. There is nothing to say that true papers could be published and discarded.

If this were true, there would be no further advances in science.

One could argue that the reason we are not farther advance is simply for this reason.

Please cite the relevant scientific research that lends credibility to claims of "created design".

You wouldn’t believe it and simply dismiss it as not credible. It goes back to two statements ago.

While it is true that there exist individuals who wish to change the definition of science to one that would truly be based upon "who you wish to believe", such individuals have gained little headway outside of the state of Kansas.

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

Scientific models can be tested and reviewed

When you test the theory of evolution you let me know. I would like to be there for the results.

How do you define a "human life"? What factors would need to be observed to conclude that a collection of cells is a "human life"?

Until it can be shown otherwise, it begins at conception. Isn’t that the most scientifically safe position? Shouldn’t science error on the side of caution? As a scientist how would you measure it?

Is it not also possible that there were not a large number of individuals who had conducted the same research that Galileo had conducted?

If you have evidence of such research then please present it.