In almost all highly unique fossil discoveries, there is a debate within and amongst the applicable scientific disciplines as to what the discovery signifies. What is unfortunate is that some (not all) of these scientists go too far, get on the bandwagon and start screaming “we’ve found it, we’ve found it….the missing link”….before it has been properly and accurately examined and tested. While I don’t know for certain, I like to believe that this type of behavior is not as prevalent today as it once was.
Since we are discussing a specific
incident here, was the bolded statement true for this specific
case, and if so, please cite the source.
In addition, do you consider the bolded statement to be an example of a scientist(s) knowingly and willingly perpetuating a lie/hoax?
Still, when you have such a large contingency of non-theists in the scientific community whose livelihoods depend on successfully finding evidence that supports a claim, there is bound to be some instances of deceit and manipulation.
You are presenting an insinuation that "instances of deceit and manipulation" are somehow linked to the lack of belief of a god for "a large contingency" of scientist.
In the specific
case of Archaeopteryx, were any of the scientists involved with it's discovery motivated by a "non-theist" agenda? If so, please cite the source.
I think the study that I linked to earlier in the thread satisfies the validity of the statement I just made. For example, the report indicated that “a staggering 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices like changing the methodology, design or results of a study under pressure from a funding source.” That's pretty remarkable.
Was this the case in regards to the scientists involved with Archaeopteryx? If so, please cite the source.
Also, if I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), there was a high-profile report within the last year or two about a group of scientists who were manipulating data in a global warming study…..emails were found revealing some rather inappropriate behavior, etc. (not sure what the outcome of that story was?)
Not relevant to the specific
topic being discused.
With regards to the Archaeopteryx, there has been a long standing debate within science as to whether this creature was strictly a bird or a type of transitional animal.
True, but irrelevant as to what the motives are of the scientists who support the transitional nature of the fossil.
Again, what I will say about this is that some scientists either lied or were practicing some irresponsible science by asserting this as something that had not been proven to be what they wanted everyone to believe it was.
Which scientists, and how soon after their discovery did they "assert" their "irresponsible" claim? Please cite the source.
Could it be that they stated their hypothesis after
they had reached a reasonable concensus?
Also, you are ascribing a specific, negative motive (deceit) to their actions. Please cite the source that backs up this allegation.
Most evolutionists today regard the Archaeopteryx as a bird and not a transitional creature.
What is the percentage for and against? Please cite your source.
To say that it is impossible for some (not all) non-theist scientists to be conducting research and studies with a slant (either consciously or unconsciously) on their beliefs is naïve’.
Who claimed that it is impossible? Perhaps I might have missed it, so could you point to the poster that stated this?
But since you are asking if I personally agree with your statement, in respect to the part saying that some scientists having a biased slant, yes. I agree.
In regards to your once again subscribing a possible motive of anti-theism for their biased slant, that appears to be a personal bias on your part. Is it possible? Sure. But to insinuate... and yes, you did. Twice... that the motivation of [i[some[/i] scientists who happen to discover evidence that disproves or discredits the Bible in any way is based on a non-theist agenda is, again, nothing more than speculation on your part unless you can provide evidence of your own to support your claim.
I do not consider myself to be naïve’ when it comes to human nature and it's inherently selfish nature, but I will state with confidence that the vast
majority of scientists... whether they are theist or atheist... revere the scientific method and the pursuit of absolute truth, even if it the evidence they might find rattle their respective belief systems.
And as for the minority that do not, they are inevitably outed and discredited by their peers.