My lack of respect for the "Scientific Community" started with Piltdown man, and it has not improved as it seems the same tired and weak tactics and mindset continue among them.
If they spent a quarter the time looking at Piltdown man as they did on the Paluxy river tracks, I would have respected them, but they didn't and the only reason why, is because of religious prejudiced.
You mean religious prejudice, right? And again, you are taking misuse of something as your means for dismissing something, which seems to go against any logic. Science admits its mistakes and moves on. Why must you harp on the past as if it is all science has to justify itself? It still seeks answers now in the present. Why not critique it there, unless of course, you don't have the capacity to. In which case, just admit your ignorance and critique it on another area, if that is the case.
Excuse me, didn't you posses the audacity to tell me how to follow my own religion?
I was mistaken in that regard, though perhaps you misunderstood my qualification that I was uncertain as to whether this was the case. But then you seem to think that being an insider always means you know the religion inside and out, which isn't the case. There are certain things you would prefer not to know, right?
Now, unless motivated by a need to peruse some naturalist ideal in a vain quest to disprove God, why are these "Scientist" continuing to try to find something that after well over a hundred years of searching has tuned up Nill.
Again, you're assuming that every scientist is out to disprove God, which isn't necessarily the case. You're trying to paint science as a religion, when, unlike any basic religion, there are neither sacred texts that are unquestionable in their basic statements, nor are there beliefs that must be taken as true without first demonstrating in a significant manner that they work. This seems to be a personal vendetta of yours against scientists because you have had a bad experience with antitheistic scientists, which are not the same as atheistic scientists, as much as you'd like it to be so.
Any rational person would have seen the light and realized, it just was not going to happen by it's own, it's not going to be some naturally occurring event.
Nature can surprise us and has for many centuries. Germ theory, cell theory, subatomic physics, etc. Who are you to say that your God couldn't have set the machine in motion, so to speak, and let it progress out in that sense? That's what many Christian scientists would advocate, I imagine.
Which is funny, because I hear constantly, that life is this complex thing that is highly details, and yet out of the same lip and same breath I hear that it could just happen of it's own accord.
Of its own accord only means that with the significant amount of time we have for the events to happen, they happen by natural processes that are quite primeval in a sense.
I worked in engineering for over 10 years, and the reality of life does not work like that, you can't have it both ways. Either it is so simple that is can happen on it's own and this can be recreated easily enough, or it is too complex to fabricate by any means we have available to us, which means it can't just happen of it's own.
There is such a thing as a middle ground. Things can develop complex systems that were composed of parts that sufficed very much on their own in different contexts. Humans originally needed certain organs, it would appear, but now they are obsolete and can be removed with no problem, such as the tonsils or appendix. Just because we cannot fabricate it by means we have now doesn't mean there weren't vastly different circumstances billions of years ago that we still are unable to adequately replicate.
But it is the dance around and deception and two faces songs that I hear constantly that picks at any respect I might posses for the people that entertain these fictional delusions, and while I would have more respect for them if they just openly admitted that this was not scientific, that it was just some emotionally driven faith based belief that was founded on wishful desires and anything actual then the total lies they feed people about it being scientific.
Again you're confusing antitheism in science with general atheism and naturalism in science which is only hostile to faith if the faithful take themselves so seriously that they can't accept that they might be wrong.
In fact, it is the Christians that challenge these lies, and here is what burns me. Even after real scientist debunk them, the lies continue.
You call them lies, but perhaps the lies are self inflicted. Perhaps you don't want to admit that in some sense evolutionary theory is right, even if Big Bang theory might just be a way to get around God, which seems odd, because it was originally posited by a Catholic priest, was it not?
Which again, is why, until concrete observable evidence is put in my lap, I have heard too many lies and half truths to not be a hard core skeptic.
Which is exactly what many atheists say to you concerning your God, so honestly, this just proves the double standard you're using.
and the only way to change that is by doing what they are supposed to be doing to begin with, use real science.
Perhaps you don't understand real science because you look past the theory and only focus on the application in a human context, which isn't always what science does.