[Dimensio]

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 have again provided no evidence that the theory of evolution is the result of personal bias.

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

When did I claim that the theory of evolution is "established fact"?

If that is the case then you can't say the "theory" of intelligent design is wrong and evolution is correct.

Intelligent design is not a "theory". It does not meet the criteria required for an explanation to be termed "theory".

Fifty years from now you might be proven wrong.

This is true of all scientific theories.

The best you can say is you're not certain but you THINK this might be right.

This is true of all scientific theories. Thus far, however, there exists absolutely no reason to believe that "intelligent design" is a credible explanation.

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.

I was referring to your statement "There is nothing to say that true papers could be published and discarded.", not your claim that people have agendas.

Above you tell me that no scientific theory is conclusive.

That is true, and wholly unrelated.

So why can't science determine what constitutes life?

Science does have a definition of "life", though the definition is not concrete.

How can they say they are looking for "life" on Mars if they can't define life?

There does exist a point at which science can state that a collection of molecules is "life". This has nothing to do with your previous statements.

It isn't that science can't address it. Rather it is science doesn't wish to address it.

I did not state that science does not attempt to define "life". I stated that science does not define whether a collection of living cells is "a human being" or "a collection of living cells". You are attempting to exchange definitions of a term. That is a logical fallacy.

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.

You have provided no evidence to show that there existed scientists who could have "rushed" to Galileo's side.

[grey_whiskers]

Science does have a definition of "life", though the definition is not concrete.

????

Can you give the definition then?

For the nonce, I like Dave Barry's take:

Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.

Cheers!

[HarleyD]

When did I claim that the theory of evolution is "established fact"?

Then are you saying that you believe the theory of evolution is the most likely possibility based upon the evidences that you see? Is that your view?

Thus far, however, there exists absolutely no reason to believe that "intelligent design" is a credible explanation.

How can a black hole suck in all matter and where does it go? How can the universe expand if the universe by definition, is the "universe"? These are retorical questions so please don't ask me to prove them. There are lots of things in this universe for which there are no credible explanations. When I was a youngster they told me nothing could go faster than the speed of light. Now they're saying that may not be true.

I wouldn't dismiss things that have no credible explanation. That is often the way science advances.

I did not state that science does not attempt to define "life". I stated that science does not define whether a collection of living cells is "a human being" or "a collection of living cells". You are attempting to exchange definitions of a term. That is a logical fallacy.

Before you can move to a "human being" you have to know what is life? If you have a definition what is it? Don't you think it would be good to know if pulling a fetus out of the womb and crushing it's scull constitute life?