gostbuster
The reason I call them hoaxers is because1. They've tried it in the past
If you pause for one moment and take the MASSIVE chip of your shoulder you carry against scientists, are religionists free from accusations of "They've tried it in the past"? You wouldn't want to have a double standard now, would you?
Having appealed to you for fairness, yes, sometimes scientists have hoaxed. As have plumbers, politicians and priests. Do you disregard all politicians and religious people because some have "hoaxed"? No. Neither should you disregard all scientists because of a tiny minority. You should regard claims on a case by case basis.
2. They extrapolate too much before they know the full story and so distort the truth and fool people.
Again, apply this rule to religionists. LOL. That aside, I think you have a major misconception about how science works. Science is based on the available evidence. Facts. These facts are used to construct theories. If more facts are discovered, theories can change. If facts are reinterpreted, theories can change. Just as plumbers, politicians and priests make mistakes, so do scientists. Just as a dentist will now do a better job due to new materials and pain-killers, than they could have fifty years ago, so can scientists do a better job.
Because of your bias (sorry, but it comes up in every sentence), you won't accept that revisions of theory are due to improvements, but say they are because of a desire to fool people.
3. They talk in terms of facts when it should be in terms of theory
You just don't understand it. Sorry. Facts are used to develop a theory. For example;
- There are fossilised bones in the ground = FACT
- These were of creatures that no longer exist = FACT
- These bones can be dated by a variety of different methods = FACT
- These bones can be organised into families by their shapes and characteristics = FACT
- One can say that the fossils show a slow development over millions of years, whereby the animals with the best characteristics for survival had the most offspring who carry those same characteristics on to the next generation. This process leads to poor survival characteristics dying out and good ones spreading through an entire population of a species over time. = THEORY (very simplified)
4. THey take results and put erroneous explanations to them
More bias on your part. And you're not thinking; I'm sure you're a perfectly intelligent person. Look around you. The light, the PC, the TV, the phone... hospital equipment, medicines, cars, power stations... all of these are used by you because they are convenient and useful. They are made by the same people who, if they disagree with a pet theory of yours, suddenly change from being innovators of the technological world you live in to people who "take results and put erroneous explanations to them". I think you would not object to being connected to the latest life-support equipment if you had an accident, even though these are made by people who "take results and put erroneous explanations to them".
Well, the taking results and putting erroneous explanations to them seems to have invented and made an awful lot of things that work very well. Sometimes mistakes are made, with cars, buildings, planes or even evolutionary theory. But a 7-diddly-7 having a design defect in its wing doesn't mean that ALL planes are flawed. A fossil being reassigned from one family to another due to closer examination uncovering previously unseen claudistic indications doesn't mean evolution is wrong.
5. They just don't like the idea of a creator it's beneath their intellectual standing
Look, I will not be able to take you seriously if you make unsupported statements like that. For one thing, you ignore that many scientists see no contradiction in believing in god AND believing in evolution. It's pretty cheesy to dismiss them because YOUR beliefs are different. And you also engage in a big lie, unintentionally. You realise the theory of evolution was developed by a religious man??
No, let us deal with facts. All you've done thus far is hurl unfounded insults
Here's an excert from one scientist bragging about scientific knowledge
----------
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html
Now, those are both very, very complex subjects, and require a lot of study to understand. I mean, to understand basic biochemistry, you do need to spend at least a year of concentrated study on it, and this is after taking a year of organic chemistry, and a year of basic chemistry before. Understanding of general physics and math level where you're comfortable with calculus are also required. Finally, the picture won't be complete unless you take at least some physical chemistry (chemical thermodynamics, kinetics of reactions, nonlinear dynamics, stuff like that).
This is just for biochemistry, mind you. A good understanding of genetics takes at least as much. This is not a matter of intelligence (unless you are some kind of supergenius, who is able to absorb knowledge by staring at the books for prolonged periods of time), there simply are that many facts to keep in mind. I'm sure you could do it, if you put in the required time and effort.
-----
He talks about witnessing protein evolution but he neglects to emphasise that he is working with a ready made complex biological system that has been somehow programmed to react to a complex environment. I've also read another account that refutes these kind of claims
He hasn't stopped to consider that he might not be intellingent enough to know what is really going on with these proteins.
Did you READ what he said? Consider a cabinet maker;
"Now, those are both very, very skillful tasks, and require a lot of training and experience to perform. I mean, to understand basic cabinetry, you do need to spend at least a year of concentrated study on it, and this is after taking a year of carpentry, and a year of basic woodwork before. Understanding of tools and technical drawings are also required."
Seems reasonable to me. I would think most people would find someone whose woodworking experience was limited to reading a website would be laughed at it they thought they'd found a better way of making a dove-tail joint. Rightfully so. However, someone is a scientist, then twenty years of experience AFTER 15 years of study, is as NOTHING compared to Joe average spending five minutes on a web site.
LOL. Silly, eh? A master cabinet maker would be allowed to specify his skills and why Joe average is talking out his bottom, but your bias silences a scientist in exactly the same situation.
Either it is evolution or it isn't, if it is then this does not preclude a creator that programmed it all and gave it purpose and direction.
Congratulations. See, I TOLD you belief in evolution doesn't preclude belief in a creator. Any one who told you so or implied it was lying to distort YOUR opinion.
In fact thinking about it a creator's hand in it could explain the so called punctuated equillibrium theory that accounts for the missing links.
By using the phrase "missing links", you show that your knowledge of the subject is limited to reading articles written by people who don't know enough about the subject to write competently.
I really think you'd benefit from buying a book about evolution, a fairly basic one that doesn't assume advanced knowledge of biology. You are parroting standard creationist aphorisms and I am sure you are smarter than that. You don't realise that evolution doesn't rule out god. You don;t know how well supported the theory is, or how (outside of the USA), creationism is a considered a joke (as no one really insists the Bible is LITERAL). You OBVIOUSLY have an attitude against scientists (except when they make some thing you want to buy or need).
But on the good side, you seem to what to know. All the best.