Do you suppose "people" may wonder why you cannot paste up a single example to support such a low attack?
So you can falsely accuse me of doing what you’re guilty of, quoting people out of context? That’s not going to happen. Anyone interested in reading examples of you committing fraud can go to: Religion & Philosophy Challenge for Christians: disprove evolution and a 6000 year old earth Ddyad Posts: #164 #174 #179 #181 #221 #226 #230
I would say when referring to the "scientific community" as in people publishing studies, it'd be anyone who has a background in the material and has published a peer reviewed study.
Cosmo your posts are drifting into incoherence. I have not accused you of quoting anything - because you haven't, but you should!
A coherent post! Grats Cos! I knew you could do it. Now just paste up an example of this "dishonest" "fraud". Note that I have challenged you to do that repeatedly. Or is it fair to say that Cosmo prefers to use slander, libel and personal attacks as a debating tactic? Do you work in politics Cos? Would explain a lot.
Anyone backing up their claim that it comes from the scientific community without mentioning who and where specifically within the scientific community of where the information comes from should not be taken seriously as fact.
Scientific community comes from consensus of the scientific body. It's a product of forerunners and other credible people peer reviewing the study. Post like this clearly shows ignorance on that part. Here is how scientific community gives it consensus. You have EVIDENCE You use that EVIDENCE to formulate a theory. You test the theory and make sure you get the SAME results over and over again. This gives your Theory CREDIBILITY. then other scientist come and analyze your data and ALL the variables. Then they will go over the experiment THEMSELVES and aquire THEIR OWN data. Then they would compare their data to the data they received from the original hypothesist. After enough scientists have varrified your experiments, the scientific community will give its consensus. It's only then, after many peer reviewing and much scrutinizing that the scientific study will then be published. This is how the scientific community gets its consensus. Through credible scientists who investigate the original study and confirmed it for themselves. In science you only believe it if you see it, and numbers, numbers never lie. In fact, just through numbers and common sense alone scientists have long have agreed the Higs Boson MUST exist for thing to work the way they do in quantum machenics. For many years Higs Boson was a near fact because of those numbers. But it was never proven. Until recently when they finally discovered it with a particle smasher. The theory of the existance of Higgs boson has been around since the 60'S Only recently have they confirmed that theory. This just to show how accurate you CAN theorise something with NUMBERS ALONE
You have yet to paste up a single quote from my posts. Let me help you . Dishonest fraud out of text quotes list: #1 ..... So far - blank
Not sure what this is about but I figure I'd find what [MENTION=69233]Cosmo[/MENTION] was talking about Anyway, you can work this out amongst yourselves
Good job! Thanks for trying to help. Should make it easy for even the copy/paste challenged. Nevertheless, I rather doubt that Cosmo will appreciate it very much.
Gould's response to being quoted out of context by creationists: "Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices." "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260. Gould, in this article and many more over the next twenty years, consistently and extensively explained his position and the evidence for evolution, including transitional forms found in the fossil record. The constant abuse of the body of Gould's life's work in the face of this is not merely dishonest, it is despicable.
Spoken like someone who is regurgitating a "philosophy of science" textbook. Do you have any idea how many discoveries are made daily that are not "peer reviewed" by anyone? They're called "patents".
Sigh... Those are not discovies. They are not discovering a new phenomenon. They are inventions made using the principals of the scientific discovery But I could be wrong. List one patent that was not made by a scientist that counts as a scientific discovery? When has a non scientist ever discover a brand new phenomenon?
Hawking is the biggest fraud of the 20th century. His sole "discovery" Hawking Radiation was ripped off from Zeldovich. He went to study in Russia under Zeldovich comes back and claims to have "discovered" that black holes emit radiation. Too bad Zeldovich discovered that years earlier. It only hadn't been published in the west yet. When Zeldovich's papers started hitting the west Hawking was forced to give Zeldovich some credit while keeping most for himself thanks to cold war politics.
I would say anyone that is a scientist, however the "scientific community" is really just a selected group of sheep that are in total consensus with one another that believe they're a gift to humanity and they dictate what is fact and fiction... Ironically they're really not even scientists - they're agenda promoters... They no longer practice science, they promote ideas. They're absolutely insulted with the concept they could possibly be wrong. They reject all evidence that contradict their theories... They care more about notoriety or fame within the community than they do science...
My friends and I. We just kinda pick and choose when we get hammered. I'm thinking next year global climate change will become global climate stabilization which will be even more devastating that global warming and global cooling combined!
