How do you know if scientific evidence is real or total scam?

Excellent question. Especially since we were lied to about Pilt Down Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc, etc, etc.

When science is found out to be a lie, a fraud or whatever the scientist want to call it ... it is swept under the rug and the media never covers it. The lie, the fraud is broadcast throughout the world.

If the Scientist only knew that God will not be mocked and He will bring the truth to the light, they would stop their stupidity.

I think you'll find any scientist (and this attitude extends to atheists as well) just want to know what is right. If that conflicts with religion then so be it. In Switzerland right now, the world's first Large hadron colider is being built. In a tunnel which is in a 16 mile loop. It will either prove or disprove the big bang theory, and weather or not the universe had a begining, or weather solid state theory was correct all along.

This is running into billions of Euros, and is a really exciting project.

How can you sit there and reject science, you are using a computer, that is the product of science, the plastics, silicon and all the other good stuff in there, as well as all the mathmatical concepts it uses, cameras, you have safe drinking water, protection from disease.

Scientific ideas are always peer reviewed, and debated before we can accept them, this is something no religious ideas seem to be able to stand up to, peer review, or debate, when challenged Religious people tend to have to go into a lot of hypothetical ideas.

I'd like to know why you reported "Invisible Talker"? What did he say that offended you? Did he come up with an answer so brilliant that you could not refute? That is a bad reflectionon you.

Scientist are continually checking the claims of other scientists,that is the defintion of peer review. Anyone caught lying or falsifying their results do not have futures in whatever field of science they work in. They are quickly discredited. That is why creationism and intelligent design cannot get traction within the scientific community.Firstly neither ID or creationism have come up with any new theories at all they only attack TOE . In defending TOE scientist have been forced to explain things in a more precise method. Evolution has never been disproven,everyday more proof is found to support it. I am not trying to get best answer here because you don't want to hear the truth. I think you have proven you don't want to hear anything that disproves your already deeply held beliefs. Now go ahead and report this response.

When a scientist writes and article he offers his or her proof of the theory forwarded and all the observational data and "how you reproduce it". When the article is published other scientists take the how too etc and attempt to reproduce the data. In this science is self correcting--note Pons and Fleischman "cold fusion" who published in Nature without "covering all their bases" and were promptly ripped to shreds by the rest of the scientific community. Because of this adversarial system there can not be a scientific conspiracy something that can be proved incorrect--in this science is self correcting. At it's basic core science is a search for truth. So--if a scientist announces "this thing is true" in a peer reviewed journal--and other scientists do not find a flaw with it--yes I'd believe that thing was true.

As scientist we encourage everyone especially fellow scientist to repeat our experiments and try as hard as you possibly can to "disprove" our hypothesis.

This is the only real way that humans can ever approach anything close to "truth".

Scientific evidence is what it is, real observations & experiments based on sound empirical data.

Religious "evidence" if you can call it that is exactly the opposite, zero observations, zero repeatable experiments, zero empirical data and if you question it at all you are called a heretic.

Religious dogma runs from scientific inquiry like a cat from a fire hose.

Edit: Scientific fact has nothing to do with being atheist, however the fact that most (about 93% of Scientist) are indeed atheist/agnostic has to do with the fact that in general the more intelligent one is the less likely they are to be religious.

Also religious individuals like yourself that feel you must stick your fingers in your ears and shout LAlalalalalala while denying factual reality no matter how irrefutable it is does not change the fact that you are dead wrong and will remain that way the rest of your delusional life.

The job of essentially all research scientists is to find that "this thing we thought was true actually isn't, and really this other thing is true". That's the way to fame and fortune in science. This is the essence of science---it is, at bottom, self-correcting. A true scientist loves the truth. Of course, scientists are people too, and are therefore imperfect. But the self-correction mechanism is very powerful in the long run, and so scientific theories that have persisted for a while are reliable, at least with respect to those experiments and observations they directly explain. For example, we now know that the gravitational theory of Newton is not correct under all circumstances---Einstein's General Relativity is more accurate for conditions of strong gravity; but Newton's theory is still good enough to explain the motions of most objects in the solar system, and is the theory used when NASA sends probes to other planets.

Think about some childhood learning experience. When you were small, you believe in everything that you were told. Over time, you learn to think for youself and know what is truth. There, it is a form of scientific process. You accumulate knowledge by building on old knowledge. Do you really want to give up and accept everything that is written in a religious book to be true? Scientific study is having an open mind to question even things that people think are true.

Many atheists who post here were once believers of god.

+++

You claimed that you call for god and he will appear. Do you have any proof that other can experience? Does your religious book (Bible for you are Christian) have any proven prophecy?

As Paperbag already said, one of the mjechanisms that minimizes the risk for scam is peer reviews. Scientific magazines only publish scientific articles that have been reviewed by other scientists of the dsame feld as the author.

Another mechanism is , that there are numerous scientists of the same field who wouldn´t hesitate to refute their colleagues, if they would find any errors within their papers (and in case of fossiles, for example, you can be sure that fossiles, especially important ones, aren´t researched by only one team of scientists, but by multiple ones [which is, why fake fossiles normally have been found to be fakes within a shot time after their appearance; even if one team of researchers would be fooled by the fake and publish papers on it, there would always be other teams afterwards, who would discover the fake])

In experiments there is also the principle of eproducability. An experiment has to be able to be reproduced by other scientists (which is why scientists are very careful in describing the experimental settings within their papers). Experiments whose results cannot be reproduced by other teams are invalidated very quickly.

So, considering the number of scientists on the world working in the same field, it would mean to assume a global conspiracy of highest order, if one would assume that a major theory (like the ToE for example) is a fake. There might be disaccord among the scientists concerning some peculiarities of the theory, but considering the large number of evidences (fossils for example) and scientists involved noone in his right mind would assume that the whole theory could be false (especially not without there being a large number of real scientists (i.e. no people like Kent Horvind who got their doctorates from diploma mills) of the same field publishing a number of papers that counter the theory with scientific valid countertheories that stand up to scrunity)

You don't.

No, but unfortunately most do automatically accept it.

Even when "peer reviewed" something can still be false. All "peer reviewed" means is that data or claim has been looked at by several scientist who agree that the findings are within the scope of traditional beliefs about that subject. It does in no way mean that the conclusions are true-it just means they are agreed upon by some.

Just think back....how many times has some new information come about that many scientist studied and agreed with-only to have it later proved to be not only incorrect, but also deliberately falsified?

Look at the way fossilized bones are dated for instance. The majority of scientists that deal with this agree with the method. Yet, there is no way to verify it. It can not be proved--but they all accept it.

The good part here- is that some do not accept it. And they have good reason.

The vast majority of people believe the earth is about 4.5 billion years old- including many scientists. But no one "really knows" this to be true. It is a "calculated age" based on several "assumptions". ???? The bottom line here is, this is what some "believe" and not what they "know".

Scientists don't make claims without evidence to back them up. Ever tried to read a scientific paper? And, as far as I know, even after doing the research and experimentation, etc., scientists don't say things like, "This thing is true." They would probably say that based on the evidence, this thing, whatever it is, is most likely the case. Should other evidence come along that disproves it, they would then adjust their theories.

I understand this is a difficult concept for religious people, who routinely believe all kinds of things without any proof and who never consider that what they have been told might be wrong.

Did the test follow proper protocol?

Has it survived peer review?

Has it been replicated by independent researchers?

Does the data actually support the conclusion?

Does it mesh with other theories?

Does it make logical sense?

You do know that scientists came forward with "proof" of room temperature superconductors, only to be rejected when the results couldn't be replicated, right?