Hi Randman,
I'm not sure whether it is best to reply as Admin or Percy, but I'll try Admin and hope for the best.
I think you know they would not. These are the points, imo, being consistently ignored.
This tells me that you're again trying to turn the topic to evolutionist misbehavior instead of discussing the topic. Lately, it would seem, no one can discuss anything with you without your rushing to judgment about evolutionist misbehavior. Given that nothing I've ever said has affected your behavior in the past, I will no longer try to persuade you to change. But if you don't change you will not be able to be here on a consistent basis.
The simple fact of the matter is this find is being dismissed because it doesn't fit evo molecular assumptions.
If you're already firm in this conclusion and are only interested from this point on in repeating this charge, then please stop participating in this thread. This thread is for discussion of the topic and not for accusing people of nonobjective thinking. Walking people through a logical analysis of why you think their thinking is non-objective is fine, but just stating it as a conclusion is not.
Keep in mind the argument here has been that the find is probably suspect, which is way too strong a description. If you want to caution that until we find more ancient bacteria, we may need to be cautious, that's one thing, but dismissing the find outright when the pattern so often is to embrace initial finds that support ToE indicates to me a bias.
You are confusing typical scientific reticence with dismissal. Awaiting replication is not dismissal. And the people you're discussing with are not the topic of this thread, so accusations of bias are off base.
Also, before I got on the thread, the talk suggested no follow-up studies had confirmed the original finding, and that was bogus. There have been follow-up studies, and imo I was the one on this thread bringing the facts to light.
Not to involve myself in discussion of this topic as Admin, but I believe you are mistaken. Hasn't only Vreeland's group produced studies on this? A research group cannot do its own replication, you know.
I don't see the issues being addressed. Stating that peer-review articles are the equivalent of taking Vreeland's word for it is a bogus argument...So when someone posts these studies represent nothing more than someone's say-so, I have to wonder if a creationist took that approach, what the reaction would be? The peer-reviewed papers are not merely someone's say-so.
I explained this before. If you disagree with my analysis then you are free to present your own as rebuttal, but to just continue restating your initial misunderstanding over and over and over again seems willfully unconstructive.
As I said earlier, Quetzal was only explaining that in science accepting unreplicated results would be like taking someone's word on just their say-so. He definitely did not state "...that peer-review articles are the equivalent of taking Vreeland's word..."
I've spent enough time on this, you never listen anyway and I don't know why I bother, so here's the bottom line. Start spending your time discussing the topic and stop berating people or I will suspend you again.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2
