I gotta tell ya as a scientist I take a little offense to the idea that scientists fudge their numbers a little all the time.  Every instance I've ever heard of any fudging has always ended up in the ostricization of that professor and complete loss of funding and credibility.  It's like being an artist and people find out you plagiarize.  At that point you're below a new comer because anything you put out there won't be trusted.  And trust is huge in the scientific community because everytime you put out an article you have to run it past other scientists who are often in the same field working on competing aspects.  Any reason not to trust your data will be huge, might as well just quit at that point.  

Nothing about this thread is philosophical. That's what you seem to not understand.

The Earth orbiting the Sun is not philosophy, it's fact (or as close as it gets). 

Evolution is not philosophy, it's fact (again, as close as it gets). The Theory of Evolution may have some debate about mechanics - what/how much is the role of the environment, natural selection, mutation, but the evidence speaks for itself. It happened, of this there is no dispute within the scientific field - you know, actual experts that do this for a living, check themselves against each other, make their data available. 

You can bullshit as a priest, you can't bullshit in the scientific community. There are safeguards against that - that's the point of peer review and experimental repetition by other scientists. 

The entirety of your argument seems to be that you can't understand it or can't see the evidence. I've provided several ways already where you can view the data and this is simply the surface level data. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Review their experimental results, do the experiments yourself if you can.

Doubting simply because you haven't reviewed the data is fine, that's how it should work. Skepticism until sufficient evidence, but you don't show any willingness to look at the data. And that, to me, is unacceptable.

I was thinking more in the case if they had a hypothesis in mind and their numbers didn't quite match the trend in mind. They could shift a number by .1% or something along the lines and account it as error. I didn't really mean all the time, a bit more like often and I did not mean to offend you. Now that I think about it, peer review would probably minimize that fudging. Sorry.

No worries, I understand what you were getting at about trusting things without the evidence right in your hands.  It's true that if you can't trust people at any level then you probably won't trust scientific findings either.  The important thing to know about Science in general is that there are all kinds of labs out there competing to try and discover the truth, and they'll all have different hypotheses on what their data means about the way things work even on the most exacting and detail oriented levels, but that's with the interpretation of what is being seen and not the observation itself.  You can have all kinds of hypotheses that after more evidence is found look completely bonkers, but your data/observations has to be trustworthy.  Otherwise you might as well just go do something else.  

As an example, my first article was on a slight change to an assumption about an intermediate in a certain reaction that Mb does.  Our data is pretty much beyond rebuke but our interpretation of it is not and although our going hypothesis is that the previously undisputed intermediate is not made during the reaction we put in other possibilities that would fit the data because we know that it's not the only interpretation.  This is how science works in general, the data is absolute truth otherwise you're worthless, and then we'll all argue about the interpretation.  

When you bring creationism and evolution and compare them, it becomes philosophical since science is just a narrower field of philosophy. A simple point to prove that while science can be true one day and inaccurate the next is the Bohr Model of the atom. back when it was first thought of and published, it was thought to be correct. It makes sense to an extent. Then, the quantum mechanical model is thought of and published and that is one of the most accurate models if not the most accurate models of the atom. The theory of evolution is in the same spot. it cannot be proven solidly. There is adaption proven without a doubt but evolution hasn't been so keenly proven. It hasn't been proven that nature is "randomly" selecting species to gain certain traits that they are a separate species.

Also, somewhat unrelated to this post, but has anyone actually tried to force evolution to happen. Seems like that would be a certain thing to do but I haven't heard of anything along those lines. That would certainly be a boon for evolution 

Yeah, you don't really have any clue what you're talking about.

We're done here. Start reading:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The theory of evolution is a subset of science. It's an idea born of science, tested by science and adopted by science. If you can believe in science and God, you can believe in evolution and God.

Evolution is well tested in a very accelerated form. There are trillions of facts that support the evolutionary process by seeing the changing patterns of life and how it has adapted to new areas with different climates etc. Currently there is not a single fact that supports the existance of god.

Anyway the evolution is well tested bit I mentioned earlier is basically how humans have created so called pedigree animals, be it cats, dogs, horses etc. Dogs is probably the best example. Some time in the past wolves and early humans struck up a relationship and every since humans have started selecting attributes of wolves/dogs simply by destroying the animals they didn't want due to physical or mental attributes they didn't like. It may have taken thousands of years to achieve but we now have a wide selection of dogs, small to large, fat to thin etc which often have very little resemblance to each other. Yes natural selection has been replaced by human selection and the levels of mutation available in a shorter time span limit the variation but the sheer volume of dogs perhaps counters the short time I guess. The point is all it took was mutation and selection to duplicate evolution. There is no mystery to evolution its an easy process to understand especially with the fossil record available that shows the development of life.

In contrast sadly there is nothing to support the believe in god. Religion also started with the caveman/early humans. They had no real understanding of life and choose a simple theory that the sun or the moon was their god or maybe the buffalo etc. An incredibly primitive concept that still continues today adapted slightly.

The belief in god is not a valid viewpoint in the modern age. It makes no sense at all. Best described as a disease of the mind because it has no connection with any correct thinking process. I'm not trying to be offensive but religion is a huge problem to the world especially in countries where a warped viewpoint of others that enable people to be persecuted based on their lack of belief or so called incorrect beliefs. Nature will occasonally throw up people who may be attracted sexually to their own gender. Again to religion this can be a huge insult to god but makes perfect sense in a normal evolutionary process.

For the country maybe I guess?  I dunno.  It was just a regular public school... in Ohio.

All i know is I knew what evolution was WAY before I ever played E.V.O.   Which Came out in 1993.

I guess it's possible I could of learned it on my own, but that seems out of my ususal childhood reading habits, which at the time were more focused on europeon and Egyptian Mythology/history/weaponry.

That said it doesn't seem THAT out of place.  I mean...

"The new standards released last week say that evolution will be taught beginning in the third grade. Current standards do not use the word evolution, preferring the term "biological changes over time".

http://www.theledger.com/article/20071024/NEWS/710240475

and that's Florida!

Shees, again you prove you don't understand the concept. Evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "randomly selecting anything". Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of randomness.