Sometimes it happens. It's less common in STEM fields (because when a person's research can help you find your next multi-million-dollar oil well, the going rate tends to be pretty decent), but it happens. So what? Does this somehow invalidate
everyone else? And furthermore, did these sons never do
any research in the field? I find it downright impossible to believe that they were accepted for tenure without any new research. I mean, do you even know what goes into applying for tenure? It's fiercely competitive, and it is
expected that you produce useful research - otherwise, there's no point in giving you tenure. So this doesn't really help your point - even if they never left the system, their work must necessarily have brought them to a point where the model either works... or doesn't.
http://physics.columbia.edu/files/physics/content/Qual_Mech- Section 1.pdf
They are given nothing more than "regurgitated information recycled every year", so it should be trivial for you to find what you need to solve the problem (without looking at the attached answers, of course). They were given, on average, about 20 minutes per question - could you solve any question there in that time with an open book? Could you solve any question there in the full two hours given for the test with an open book?
Students at university are not simply given regurgitated information. I spent enough time at university myself to figure this one out. They're taught methods, shown how to learn effectively, and given access to a vast wealth of information. And that's without even getting into the opportunities for real scientific research in most STEM fields. You have
no understanding of what university is or what it has to offer, yet you still somehow see fit to repeat the claim that it doesn't allow dissent (completely ignoring my response to your last post), that it's just about regurgitating facts, and all the other crap you bring up.
Except, of course, that science has ways to detect and correct this cycle. If evolution didn't work, we wouldn't be able to go out into the field and find things like Tiktaalik. If the earth were 6,000 years old, geologists would not be able to accurately predict where to find oil based on information pertaining to an earth that is billions of years old. These theories are not stuck in stasis; they are constantly being put forward for falsification. The reason the counter-arguments put forward by your side haven't accomplished anything is because your side is
intellectually bankrupt, and the arguments hold less water than an incontinent octogenarian drunkard on Lozol. With a pierced jugular. I mean, just to be clear here - ICR is
still hawking the same inane "lost squadron" argument that was debunked decades ago and trivially wrong.
Oh, and by the way? You still have provided absolutely no evidence or reasoning to back up
any of your claims. Please do so. Or retract your claims. Then again,
I won't hold my breath.