[Dimensio]

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.

Numbers and raw data do not lie. People can lie. If you assert that this has happened, and that information has been misrepresented, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this.

I’m the one who says that I’m skeptical in the evolution findings.

I am aware of this. You have suggested that "bias" is the reason for your skepticism, but you have offered no evidence of bais.

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.

You recall incorrectly. No scientific theory is "conclusively proven". Scientific explanations are accepted based upon confidence through verified predictions, but are never considered proven. The theory of evolution has made numerous successful predictions throughout its 150 year history. That there are those who refuse to examine the evidence for evolution does not negate the evidence or render it invalid.

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.

You will need to show that events that you are suggesting have actually occured, rather than suggesting -- without evidence -- that they 'may' have occured, in order for your claims to carry credibility.

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

Your suggestion is meaningless without supporting evidence.

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

Using the unsupported assertion that I would "dismiss" evidence does not lend credence to your claim. On the contrary, it suggests that you are making excuses to avoid providing evidence that you do not have.

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

Every fossil find or genome sequencing is a test for the theory of evolution. Thus far the fossil record has appeared as has been expected by common descent. A find such as a Precambrian rabbit fossil woud falsify established lines of descent, but thus far no such discovery has been made. Researchers recently used the theory to successfully predict where a tranisitonal fish-to-amphibian would be found. Genetic sequencing has also strengthened lines of descent, showing patterns of viral insertions at the same locations in the genome of multiple species previously determined to be related.

Until it can be shown otherwise, it begins at conception.

What qualities or characteistics define a collection of cells as "human"?

Isn’t that the most scientifically safe position?

It is a semantic position. The scientific facts of what is present biologically are not in dispute. Whether or not a fertilized egg should be considered a "human being" is not a question that science can address.

Shouldn’t science error on the side of caution? As a scientist how would you measure it?

I have asked you for a standard of measurement. You have provided none.

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

You have alleged that there existed scientists who knew what Galileo knew or had access to the information but either refused to accept his conclusions or refused to speak in his favor at his trial. It is your responsibility to show that your claim is accurate.

[HarleyD]

Numbers and raw data do not lie. People can lie. You have suggested that "bias" is the reason for your skepticism, but you have offered no evidence of bais.

People don't even have to lie. All they have to do is adjust their research to give them the results they're looking for. Do you think the scientists that get their funding from Greenpeace is going to tell Greenpeace anything they don't wish to hear? You make scientists sound so noble. They're not.

You recall incorrectly. No scientific theory is "conclusively proven".

In one case you tell me that the theory of evolution is an established fact and now you tell me no scientific theory is conclusive. If that is the case then you can't say the "theory" of intelligent design is wrong and evolution is correct. Fifty years from now you might be proven wrong. The best you can say is you're not certain but you THINK this might be right.

You will need to show that events that you are suggesting [people have agendas] have actually occured,

With all due respect, don't you think that is a rather stupid statement. All people have agendas be it collecting a paycheck, proving a point, or wishing recognition. You would have to show me one person who doesn't have some type of agenda.

Every fossil find or genome sequencing is a test for the theory of evolution. Thus far the fossil record has appeared as has been expected by common descent. A find such as a Precambrian rabbit fossil woud falsify established lines of descent, but thus far no such discovery has been made.

Just because it hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. At best all you can say is that you don't know.

Whether or not a fertilized egg should be considered a "human being" is not a question that science can address.

Above you tell me that no scientific theory is conclusive. So why can't science determine what constitutes life? How can they say they are looking for "life" on Mars if they can't define life? It isn't that science can't address it. Rather it is science doesn't wish to address it.

You have alleged that there existed scientists who knew what Galileo knew or had access to the information but either refused to accept his conclusions

History speaks to that. Do you see anywhere in history anyone rushing to Galileo's rescue? Do you see anywhere, where someone else wrote papers to support Galileo. I answered that the silence of history is support enough. It is up to you to provide evidence that there were scientists that rushed to Galileo's side.